Two brothers had a flock of sheep. They sold the flock and got as many rupees for every sheep as the number of sheep in the flock. The money was shared in the following way:
First, the elder brother took ten rupees from the cash, then the younger brother took ten rupees, after which the elder brother took ten rupees again and so on.
Finally, it turned out that at the last stage when it was the younger brother's turn to take money, there remained less than ten rupees. Therefore the younger brother took the rest of the money and the elder brother gave him his knife (belonging to the older brother) for the sharing to be fair.
What was the cost of the knife in rupees??
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.
In counting out 1 0 's of rupees, the elder brother's will be the 'odd' 1 0 's, i.e., the first, third, etc., and the younger brother's will be the 'even' ones, i.e., second, fourth, etc.. So since it is on one of the younger brother's 'turns' that the rupees run out, the 'tens' digit of the total number of rupees must be odd.
Now with N sheep at N rupees apiece the brothers will receive N 2 rupees to distribute between themselves. Let the last two digits of N be a b . When we calculate N 2 , the 'ones' digit will be b 2 m o d 1 0 , and the 'tens' digit will be ( 2 a b + m ) m o d 1 0 where m is the 'tens' digit of b 2 . So to have a 'tens' digit of N 2 be odd we need to have the 'tens' digit of b 2 be odd. This is only the case when either b = 4 or b = 6 , and in both cases b 2 m o d 1 0 is equal to 6 . Thus the younger brother took 6 rupees on his last turn, leaving him with 4 rupees less than his elder brother.
So to even things out, the older brother must transfer 2 rupees of his "wealth" to his younger brother to ensure that each of their profits from the sale of the flock are equal. Now assuming that the knife in question belongs solely to the older brother, and given that the transfer of the knife results in the equalizing of profits realized by the two brothers, we can conclude that the knife was worth 2 rupees.
@Shivam S. Gour The initial ownership of the knife is not clear. As worded, it could either belong to both brothers equally or solely to the older brother. It is only when the latter is assumed that the posted answer of 2 is in fact correct, so it may be an idea to change the wording near the end to ".... and the elder brother gave him his knife for the sharing to be fair."
@calvin lin Sorry to bother you, but I notice that Shivam is not currently active and that this question was actually posted eight months ago. It's a good question that I believe can be un-flagged if the one word change suggested above is made.