51

“Yuh can’t solve this easy puzzle?”
                   “Bah, it’s already solved!”
“Nah, it’s so easy it only looks solved.”

$ \require{begingroup}\begingroup \def \a #1#2#3{ \abc {three}{#1}{nine} {#2}{thirteen}{#3} } \def \b #1#2#3{ &&\abc {five}{#1}{seven} {#2}{fourteen}{#3} } \def \c #1#2#3{ && \abc{eight}{#1}{eleven}{#2}{seventeen}{#3} } \def \abc #1#2#3#4#5#6{ \phantom {\sf#1} \llap{\sf#2} {\small\, +\, } \rlap{\sf#4} \phantom{\sf#3} { \small\,= \;} \rlap {\sf\, #6\, } \rlap{\underline{\hphantom { \sf\, #6 \, }}} \hphantom{ \underline{ \sf\,#5 \,}} } \bbox[darkgreen,5pt]{\color{lightyellow}{\begin{matrix} \raise.5ex\strut \a{ one}{ten }{eleven } \b{ six}{seven}{thirteen} \c{ six}{eleven}{seventeen} \\ \a{ two}{ten }{twelve } \b{five}{nine }{fourteen} \c{eight}{nine }{seventeen} \\ \a{ six}{six }{twelve } \b{ six}{eight}{fourteen} \c{eight}{ten }{eighteen } \\ \a{three}{ten }{thirteen} \b{five}{ten }{fifteen } \c{ nine}{nine }{eighteen } \\ \a{ four}{nine}{thirteen} \b{ six}{nine }{fifteen } \c{ ten}{ten }{twenty } \raise-.5ex\strut \end{matrix}}} \endgroup $

“Ah, and it isn’t even completely posed.”
                    “?”
“Uh, it’s missing an entry.”
                    “Oh?   Ohh.   Yeahhh.   Too easy.”

          What entry is missing?

humn
  • 21,899
  • 4
  • 60
  • 161
  • 2
    I know the pattern but I can't find another that fits for my life :P – Beastly Gerbil Apr 23 '20 at 21:57
  • 1
    @BeastlyGerbil You and me both! :) – Stiv Apr 23 '20 at 22:00
  • 1
    All I know is I'll probably be kicking myself when someone gets it :P. I don't think I'm meant for this lol – Beastly Gerbil Apr 23 '20 at 22:07
  • 1
    In light of @Stiv's answer, the font choice (where the summands are set in upright type, and the sum is set in badly-spaced slanted type (as a result of being in math mode)) is deceptive, I think. Would you be amenable to putting all the words in upright type? – LSpice Apr 26 '20 at 22:57
  • 1
    Thank you for pointing out how the oddly-spaced italics look sloppy by accident, @LSpice . It was a whimsically deliberate attempt to evoke a rudimentary handwritten fill-in-the-blanks classroom exercise. So the writing is now all upright, as you suggest, but also on a green background to resemble a chalkboard. Deception, though, is fairly essential to this particular puzzle as its impression is meant progress from apparent simplicity to possible defectiveness and back to surprising simplicity. – humn Apr 27 '20 at 02:56
  • 2
    I think that looks way better! – LSpice Apr 27 '20 at 04:19
  • This is a nice puzzle, but from a presentation point of view... and easier way to communicate that "order is inconsequential", rather than saying it explicitly at the bottom, would be to just list the entries in order. – Jack M Apr 27 '20 at 10:38
  • Hah, @JackM , your suggestion to reorder the entries not only eliminates a note i was never fond of but it also makes the supposedly-already-solved puzzle look even easier. Thank you twice over. (It also provided an opportunity to remove the other note. By now, both notes have served their purpose to ward off unintended false leads.) – humn Apr 27 '20 at 15:13

3 Answers3

47

In this puzzle, all of the sums:

Involve numbers between 1 and 20* (inclusive), where the total number of letters in the numbers being added together equals the number of letters in their resulting sum.

For example, 'one + ten = eleven' is involved in this list because 'one' has 3 letters, 'ten' has 3 letters, and 'eleven' has 3+3=6 letters.

*Note that the '1 to 20' criterion avoids the need to enter arguments about whether to consider numbers whose names are spelled out using 'more than one word' (requiring either spaces or hyphenation). Remember, we are seeking a unique entry that can be added to this set (as the OP's use of 'an entry' implies that we seek only one answer). If we assume no number greater than 20 can be involved, we can totally avoid the need to debate the many potential 'multi-word' equations like 'ten + eleven = twenty one' or 'ten + twelve = twenty two' (wherein both sides have 9 letters).

However, try as I might (and having applied some pretty strict criteria) I just could not find another pair of numbers which could belong to this set - no matter which new combination of two numbers I tested, it seemed that the set was already totally complete! I debated loosening my criteria, widening my search... And then it finally hit me!

The missing member of the set isn't a sum involving a pair of numbers - it involves a triple!

This way, the entry which is uniquely missing from this list is:

$$one + six + ten = seventeen$$
...as each side of this equation has 9 letters in total. After all, who said anything about the left-hand side having to have just 2 terms??!

Very clever - had me thinking for a loooong time there!

Stiv
  • 140,467
  • 11
  • 495
  • 752
8

I assume it's for positive numbers that less and equal to 20. (Since twenty one has space). Here is Python code for solving this question:

At first, I thought it uses two numbers only:

text = ["one", "two", "three", "four", "five", "six", "seven", "eight", "nine", "ten", "eleven", "twelve", "thirteen", "fourteen", "fifteen", "sixteen", "seventeen", "eighteen", "nineteen", "twenty"]
number = list(range(1,21))

result = set()
for i in range(len(text)):
    for j in range(len(text)):
        num1 = number[i]
        num2 = number[j]
        summ = num1 + num2
        if summ in number and len(text[i]) + len(text[j]) == len(text[summ-1]):
            if text[i] < text[j]:
                res = f"{text[i]} + {text[j]} = {text[summ-1]}"
            else:
                res = f"{text[j]} + {text[i]} = {text[summ-1]}"
            result.add(res)
for i in result:
    print(i)

But the questions already includes all two numbers, so I try three numbers:

text = ["one", "two", "three", "four", "five", "six", "seven", "eight", "nine", "ten", "eleven", "twelve", "thirteen", "fourteen", "fifteen", "sixteen", "seventeen", "eighteen", "nineteen", "twenty"]
number = list(range(1,21))

result = set()
for i in range(len(text)):
    for j in range(len(text)):
        for k in range(len(text)):
            num1 = number[i]
            num2 = number[j]
            num3 = number[k]
            summ = num1 + num2 + num3
            if summ in number and len(text[i]) + len(text[j]) + len(text[k]) == len(text[summ-1]):
                t = [text[i], text[j], text[k]]
                t.sort()
                res = " + ".join(t) + " = " + text[summ-1]
                result.add(res)
for i in result:
    print(i)

And got the answer:

one + six + ten = seventeen

And:

There won't be solutions for more than 3, since minimum length is 3, 4 numbers minimum length is 12, which is longer than any numbers.

Frank
  • 331
  • 1
  • 5
6

Based on the rule as explained in the other answer

the sums work not only as numbers but also as wordlengths

— other possible equations are

fifty+fifty=one hundred

and

sixty+forty=one hundred

(not to mention numerous trivial examples along the lines of

three thousand two+twenty=three thousand twenty-two,

which I guess don't count).

msh210
  • 12,844
  • 2
  • 49
  • 120
  • 2
    Uniqueness is part of the criterion for this puzzle. How would you include either one of those answers while preserving uniqueness? – Galen Apr 24 '20 at 00:14
  • @Galen, then I guess the puzzle was ill-contrived: If the rule is indeed a stated in the other answer, then there isn't uniqueness. – msh210 Apr 24 '20 at 00:20
  • 2
    Yeah, maybe so. Stiv constrains their answer to summands between and including 1 and 10, but I can see how it is pretty trivial for create unions of other intervals that give one answer. This puzzle could use some refinement. – Galen Apr 24 '20 at 00:27
  • 2
    I think the rule is only numbers which are singular words are used. This would rule out all other possibilities – Beastly Gerbil Apr 24 '20 at 00:32
  • ^vote with a note: @msh210, very nice extrapolation(!) though it would help to restate the rule from the other answer, both for completeness and in case that answer changes. – humn Apr 24 '20 at 01:01
  • @BeastlyGerbil As would arbitrary unions of other intervals, as I mentioned. – Galen Apr 24 '20 at 01:35