Dragon's 100 heads

A dragon has 100 heads. A knight can cut off 15, 17, 20, or 5 heads, respectively, with one blow of his sword. In each of these cases 24, 2, 14, or 17 new heads grow on its shoulders, respectively. If all heads are blown off, the dragon dies. Can the dragon ever die?

Never Always Insufficient information May or may not die, as per the knight's actions

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

5 solutions

Michał Badura
Mar 4, 2014

Notice, that in every case the "delta of heads" (heads cut - heads grown) is divisible by 3. That means, that the number of heads will always have the same rest dividing by 3 - beacause we subtract only multiples of 3. Since 100 has rest 1 when dividing by 3, number of heads will always give rest 1 when dividing by 3, and thus it will never be 0 (which is divisible by 3.)

Not perfect; if the knight can cut off a number of heads congruent to 1 mod 3, then the knight can still kill the dragon. Think of something like this: the knight can cut 100 heads, where 97 grows after each cut. By your reasoning, the knight still can't finish the dragon off, but it's obvious that a single slash wins.

Ivan Koswara - 7 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

That's a very good point!

Pascal Huppert - 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Oh, that's right. Lucky for me that it wasn't the case in this problem.

Michał Badura - 7 years, 3 months ago

actually the values cut off and added respectively have the same remainder when divided by 3

RAKHI BASU - 1 year, 10 months ago

It's not sufficient to check that 100 is not divisible by 3.

Let's take up a scenario: We have a blow which cuts 17 heads and re-grows 2 heads. If, instead we had 16 heads cut and 1 head regrown.

It would seem, that now it is still not possible to kill the dragon (16 - 1 = 15)

Observe 16 + (16 - 1) = 31

If, we can bring the head count to 31, then now it is reducable to 0.

  • 31 heads, cut the 16 ... 31-16 = 15, 1 grows back : 15 +1 = 16
  • next cut of 16, brings to 0 ... 16-16 = 0

Now, is it reducable to 31 heads.

Let us only use the blows which reduce the heads:

15k + 6l = 69

5k + 2l = 23

l = 4 k = 3

So, we have to check one thing in this question:

each Individual cuts are of the form 3k or 3k+2

and we start with the initial number of heads as 100, viz. 3k + 1

Now, we can definitely say, it is not reducable to 0

Question is not very simple as it seems at face value ... Double thumbs up for this beautiful question :)

We just have to check whether 15,17,20,or 5 will be the the number of remaining heads after the second last blow, which means the reachable states will not be 85 83 80 or 95

Wenhan Sha - 4 years, 1 month ago

This is the perfect answer.

Muralidhar Rao - 9 months, 1 week ago
Abdullah Ahmed
Oct 5, 2015

H e r e Here w e we h a v e have t o to u n d e r s t a n d understand t h a t that

15 15 = = 24 24 ( m o d 3 ) (mod 3)

17 17 = = 2 2 ( m o d 3 ) (mod 3)

20 20 = = 14 14 ( m o d 3 ) (mod 3)

5 5 = = 17 17 ( m o d 3 ) (mod 3) . i s is i n v a r i a n t invariant

S o So t h e the D r a g o n Dragon w i l l will n e v e r never d i e die

just what I had thought...bravo.:)

RAKHI BASU - 1 year, 10 months ago
Abhi Ag
Feb 18, 2018

There is no possible last move since any of the 4 possible moves leaves a positive number of heads on the dragon.

Thus no strategy can reduce the number of heads to zero.

Note that the loss (or gain) of heads at each stroke is divisible by 3. But the total number of heads isn't.

Exactly!The non divisibility by 3 is the invariance relation . At least I did the problem like that.

Biswaroop Roy - 7 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

here we have to understand that 15=24 (mod 3) 17=2 (mod 3) 20=14 (mod 3) 5 =17 ( mod 3 ) is invariance So the dragon will never die

Abdullah Ahmed - 5 years, 8 months ago

Hi Paramjit, this is not a sufficient check ... Check my solution

Soumya Chakraborty - 7 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

Of course, thanks. :)

A Brilliant Member - 7 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

not a problem mate ... wc :)

Soumya Chakraborty - 7 years, 3 months ago

1 pending report

Vote up reports you agree with

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...