Alex asks Bill to guess two 3-digit positive integers . Alex then told Bill about the properties of these two numbers, which are as follows:
After that, Bill did some working and found out that there are multiple solutions and told Alex that it is impossible to answer this question. Alex agreed and told Bill that Alex is going to write the last digit of the sum on a piece of paper and after that indeed Alex took a piece of paper and wrote that digit of the sum, digit which is not known to us readers but which Alex promised will help Bill anyway.
Given this extra information, Bill figured out these two numbers. What are the values of these two numbers?
Submit your answer as the sum of these two numbers.
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.
I didn't read your complete solution but I think the right name is "cryptarithm" not cryptogram anyway. Anyway I think a cryptogram is something different.
Log in to reply
It's just a name/placeholder. I don't really care about that name.
Log in to reply
Yea, but it is better to use them conventionally cause otherwise we couldn't understand each other anyway.
Using the word of "cryptogram" for "cryptarithm" might go to misinforming people since anyway conventions as what a name means and doesn't are generally accepted anyway.
Log in to reply
@A A – I understand what you're saying, I've linked it to a relevant wiki already (that I've written up), so I won't be changing it.
You got some talent writing up questions likes these. Here's some unsolicited advice: Try not to make it so tedious. If I were to solve it properly (without assuming your setup is plausible), it would become very tedious.
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – Anyway , you can still change it to "cryptarithm" and keep the link to prevent so to say therefore misinforming anyway I think.
Even better you can change the title of the wiki and everything that is wrongly named "cryptogram" to "cryptarithm" but it's not all that important indeed so you can keep it I think.
Haha , thanks but my talent would be at most (based on the problems published) of selecting great problems cause I didn't wrote any of them.
I am not very sure what you mean by "problem setup" , my best so to say guess would anyway be that you mean the initial data provided by the problem. If that's what you mean I suppose anyway that you should assume it is consistent and don't see why not assuming it and why assuming it isn't really is the proper and right thing to do when dealing with such problems right now so please be more explicit here. I think this is the general way to approach a problem meaning that you should assume it is consistent internally unless it doesn't ask to verify it. But firstly you should say better why you believe it should be solved not assuming it anyway.
Log in to reply
@A A –
Haha , thanks but my talent would be at most (based on the problems published) of selecting great problems cause I didn't wrote any of them.
If you didn't wrote it then I guess you just copied it off from some puzzle book.
I am not very sure what you mean by "problem setup" ,
What I meant to say is that I assumed what you have written up in your question is indeed realistic and consistency. That is, I already assumed that there is exactly one solution. And that's why my solution is not rigorous. It is bad to assume that a system is consistent without proving it (Unless you're talking about some advanced mathematics, but that's a discussion for another day).
Log in to reply
It is "indeed realistic" sounds a little vague and non-rigorous already. I suppose you mean to say by realistic that it is consistent such that it is a possible case in "reality" where by consistent it means that it's logical structure doesn't violate some axiomatic system and therefore the structure holds without internal contradictions. Is the consistency that makes it to be as you named it realistic and as such that's what you actually have in mind when you speak of realistic. Nonetheless , in your solution you shouldn't write in parenthesis that you assumed my setup plausible since that is a crucial (and to add to the thrill , last) step in solving the problem.
You make quite the same mistake when you state that "it is bad to assume that a system is consistent without proving it" as you don't explicitly state what makes it bad I think.
What I think actually makes it bad is not that you don't prove the system to be consistent but the implicit fact which makes it bad to not be able to prove it consistent. Because you already assume there is just one solution it is sufficient to find a solution but what makes it bad by this is not the assumption that there is one solution as it is the lack of proof that there are no other solutions which is the result of the implicit lack of mastering things by principle anyway.
Log in to reply
@A A –
Well yea , I indeed copied it from a site.
Can you share the site with me?
It is "indeed realistic" sounds a little vague and non-rigorous already. I suppose you mean to say by realistic that it is consistent such that it is a possible case in "reality" where by consistent it means that it's logical structure doesn't violate some axiomatic system and therefore the structure holds without internal contradictions. Is the consistency that makes it to be as you named it realistic and as such that's what you actually have in mind when you speak of realistic. Nonetheless , in your solution you shouldn't write in parenthesis that you assumed my setup plausible since that is a crucial (and to add to the thrill , last) step in solving the problem.
I understood nothing from this paragraph. You have intentionally written fancy words in the wrong context.
You make quite the same mistake when you state that "it is bad to assume that a system is consistent without proving it" as you don't explicitly state what makes it bad I think.
You have already identified the flaw /misstep in my solution (in your other solution). The reason why I've written up this way is to show you that the only "fun" way to solve it is by making the assumption that your question is completely sound and without error. To be specific, I'm referring to your line in the question:
Alex agreed and told Bill that Alex is going to write the last digit of the sum on a piece of paper and after that indeed Alex took a piece of paper and wrote that digit of the sum, digit which is not known to us readers but which Alex promised will help Bill anyway.
What I think actually makes it bad is not that you don't prove the system to be consistent but the implicit fact which makes it bad to not be able to prove it consistent. Because you already assume there is just one solution it is sufficient to find a solution but what makes it bad by this is not the assumption that there is one solution as it is the lack of proof that there are no other solutions which is the result of the implicit lack of mastering things by principle anyway.
This paragraph is not necessary at all. I (or we) already understood it from your previous paragraph: "You make quite the same..."
Log in to reply
I said that it is not about being "realistic" and that when you wrote "realistic" you were actually thinking at something else which actually makes it realistic or not.
That something which you had in mind when you wrote me "realistic" was that is consistent and because it is consistent it is realistic or not.
The same stuff is with the other part.
The flaw I think is that it is bad because you feel and see there is no proof for why there is just one solution.
And you don't see it because it lacks udnerstanding from the first things (principles) anyway.
Log in to reply
@A A –
It is a romanian site from which you wouldn't understand too much I think since it's written in romanian I mean anyway.
Just send it to me.
I said that it is not about being "realistic" and that when you wrote "realistic" you were actually thinking at something else which actually makes it realistic or not.
I know what you're trying to convey and I assure you that we're talking about the same thing. You can replace "realistic" with "plausible" , "reasonable" , "sound" and my argument still hold true.
The flaw I think is that it is bad because you feel and see there is no proof for why there is just one solution.
I've been telling you this from the very beginning of this conversation!!! I told you my solution is bad because I didn't prove that there is only one solution exists. I just "lazily" show that a solution exists and I stop. I already written up a disclaimer in my solution stating that my solution makes an additional assumption.
And you don't see it because it lacks udnerstanding from the first things (pribnciples) anyway.
I saw it before I posted this solution! Why are you arguing with me? I already said my solution is not completely correct!
Log in to reply
The point was that "realistic" is not the right term and not equivalent with sound or consistent. because it is sound or consistent it is implied that is realistic anyway. I don't say your solution is wrong and you don't know it. I just wanted to point out that what you expressed is not stated explicit but said implicit.
And , I'm not arguing with you anyway.
Your solution is cute as it starts from the other part , considering the last digit of the sum and therefore doesn't consider by principle how the numbers loo like such that A-B=288.
That understanding would be a lot more interesting.
But it would imply considering things a priori and maybe in natural terms anyway.
Log in to reply
@A A –
Do you understand romanian ?
Nope. But I can use Google Translate.
The point was that "realistic" is not the right term and not equivalent with sound or consistent. because it is sound or consistent it is implied that is realistic anyway. I don't say your solution is wrong and you don't know it. I just wanted to point out that what you expressed is not stated explicit but said implicit.
I think we're arguing over really pedantic definitions right now. Let's just agree to disagree. Is that fine with you?
Your solution is cute as it starts from the other part , considering the last digit of the sum and therefore doesn't consider by principle how the numbers loo like such that A-B=288.
I don't know how you failed to see that. Please, by all means, write your solution and show me how it should be written up.
Log in to reply
Ok , I agree to disagree. With stubborn people like you and between stubborn people anyway that is a good thing to do sometimes anyway.
Well , let me think and maybe I will write a solution.
Anyway , if I write a solution I will write from the characteristics of numbers such that the absolute difference is of course 288 but I will have to think deeper I think.
Log in to reply
@A A –
Ok , it has a lot of interesting puzzles. I can send you some if you want from the site.
Please send them to me.
Ok , I agree to disagree. With stubborn people like you and between stubborn people anyway that is a good thing to do sometimes anyway.
You're the stubborn one as well. I don't know why you're so fixated over some tiny issue. It's like you spotted a typo in my solution and you insisted that I should change it, otherwise, my solution is completely ruined.
Anyway , if I write a solution I will write from the characteristics of numbers such that the absolute difference is of course 288 but I will have to think deeper I think.
This paragraph makes no sense. You're not using the right adjectives/verbs to describe what you're trying to convey.
Log in to reply
You udnerstand what I mean by "characteristics" certainly. And I'll have to think deeper about the way the numbers should look like to respect the conditions synthetically anyway.
Log in to reply
@A A – Unfortunately, I don't understand what you meant. You're using a lot of fancy terms that other people will misconstrue.
If you still insist on using these fancy terms, then I can't help you already.
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – I have to go now.
I'll send you those nice puzzles from the site later anyway.
My wording is not fancy.
Maybe the concept is but the words have nothing superfluous anyway.
@Pi Han Goh – Here are some of those interesting puzzles , I hope you'll enjoy them anyway.
http://www.psihoteste.ro/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/jocfefe3.swf
http://www.psihoteste.ro/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/alba_neagra3x3-numere.swf
http://www.psihoteste.ro/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/mozaic.swf
http://www.psihoteste.ro/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/permutixjoc.swf
http://www.psihoteste.ro/wp/?page_id=5033%3Cbr%20%3E%3C/a%3E
http://www.psihoteste.ro/wp/?page_id=726%3Cbr%20%3E%3C/a%3E
http://www.psihoteste.ro/wp/?page_id=856
http://www.psihoteste.ro/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/alba_neagra5x5v2.swf
http://www.psihoteste.ro/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Identificare structuri 3x3 pe 19x15.swf
If you don't understand what to do in some tell me and I'll explain you anyway.
Also , at most of them you can set the initial conditions and as such set the difficulty.
Log in to reply
@A A – Send me one completely in English. Google Translate is failing me this time (for unknown reasons)
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – Yes , google translate is not very good (it's not such a wonder that it fails). Enter on them and choose one you want to be translated anyway.
Log in to reply
@A A – New topic: Are you on Slack? It's a forum for most of the active users on this site (even the staffs).
If you're not. Let me know. And I'll send you the link.
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – I'm not but I know of it though I have no idea how to register and didn't bother too much to make so to say a slack account anyway.
I don't think I'm going to enter on Slack right now either , but I would appreciate if you'll explain anyway how to create a brilliant.org slack account anyway.
Please tell me what puzzle you want me to translate.
Aaaand thanks for the invitation on Slack , I will make an account one day I think.
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – Ok , but you'll have to wait some time maybe anyway.
When you'll want me to translate a puzzle , if you get tired waiting me on Slack tell here anyway.
Log in to reply
@A A – I don't understand your comment
Create an account on Slack, then messsage me on this comment.
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – I said you have to wait some time until I will create a Slack account. I will not create a Slack account immediately or right now.
I said that when you will want me to translate a puzzle from that list tell me here not on Slack. Nonetheless I have to go now and (maybe) I will join later this day the Slack chat anyway.
Log in to reply
@A A – Translate anyone of these puzzles when you're free. Thanks.
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – Choose one until I will come back. Some of them can be understood without any translation anyway.
Log in to reply
@A A – http://www.psihoteste.ro/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/jocfefe3.swf
@Pi Han Goh – emm, ok I joined this slack stuff. Now , when you will be on it announce me anyway.
Btw , you wrote wrongly the cryptarithm or "cryptogram" (in the terms of Brilliant) but your little way of refining the way of searching them is cute nonetheless.
The numbers are subtracted not added as you wrote , yet anyway maybe there is a more easy solution thinking without tricks in the initial terms of the problem.
Log in to reply
The numbers are subtracted not added as you wrote , yet anyway maybe there is a more easy solution thinking without tricks in the initial terms of the problem.
Thanks. I've fixed my mistake. I doubt there is a simple and complete solution.
Log in to reply
You fixed one of them , your second cryptarithm or "cryptogram" also contains a "+" instead of anyway a "-" sign.
Also you should check your writing at deducing the possible last digits of the sum of Alex and Bill numbers based on the exhausting cases considered previously. I mean the part with "suppose that the last digit of Alex's and Bill's numbers" because you mean "the last digit of the sum".
To make completely explicit why the last digit of the sum can't be 4 , 6 or 8 when explaining it you should write something like "as they do not appear in only one case as the last digit should".
And also , maybe it is better to explain why the last digit of the sum must be unique too or it appear only once because it may make readers feel that you go a little fast in writing solution. Anyway so to say I do understand you use copy/paste and speed up but make explicit please what has anyway to be stated that way without letting implicit the things that make you deduce something as long as they are not axiomatic or background things which can be easily distinguished I think.
Log in to reply
@A A – You have identified the flaw in my solution (I've intentionally written it that way). And that's why I said that it's not rigorous to begin with. Otherwise, the (actual) solution is too boring, lengthy and tedious to solve.
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – I don't find it to be flawed that the last digit is unique since it is stated by the problem that anyway based on the information received from Alex Bill deduced the numbers.
I just wanted to say you should make explicit what you mean by the fact that the last digit anyway is unique and why it is that way.
Log in to reply
@A A –
I don't find it to be flawed that the last digit is unique since it is stated by the problem that anyway based on the information received from Alex Bill deduced the numbers.
It is flawed! I assumed that your setup is completely possible without proving it.
I just wanted to say you should make explicit what you mean by the fact that the last digit anyway is unique and why it is that way.
I did: Read my solution that reads:
From the context of the information given in the question, we know that the last digit of the sum must be unique (that is, it only appears once), so the last digit cannot be 4, 6 or 8.
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – At most it is flawed because you assumed the setup has one solution.
Then you found the solution and because of that (knowing there is only one) said it is right.
That's the part I was speaking of too ("from the context of information") so to say.
You should specify clearly that the numbers can't be 4 , 6 or 8 because they appear in more than just one case while the last digit appears in only one.
Log in to reply
@A A – I don't know why I'm still having this conversation. I told you everything that you asked. You just kept asking the same question over and over again by simply rephrasing your question.
If you don't understand my comments, please let me know and I'll try to clarify with you. Please don't ask me another similar question because I feel that you're ignoring my replies.
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – I don't ask questions right now! I'm saying you should change the formulation.
It is not explicitly stated in it why it is impossible for 2 , 4 , 8 to be the last digit of the sum of the numbers and also you should write "sum of the numbers of Alex and Bill" upper anyway.
Log in to reply
@A A – I'm confused right now as I don't see any benefit of writing that extra line. If you felt compelled to write your solution (to show me how it should be written), then by all means, please do so.
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – You should write for saying that 2 , 4 , 8 can't be the numbers soemthibng like this.
Observe that "from the context of information give in the problem" the last digit must be unique (since otherwise the last digit written by Alex would give Bill at least 2 possible sums and therefore Bill couldn't decide which one is right) and because it is unique and the numbers considered 2 , 4 , 8 repeat in more than one case and not in just one they can't be the last digit.
Log in to reply
@A A – I see very little benefit from adding that sentence/paragraph. I won't be asking the readers to read the question over and over again.
Let's just end this discussion here. I think that this conversation is getting pointless.
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – It is not clear because you let something which you use and which you think implicit when naming it , or rather it is not articulate enough and make the readers put from themselves it anyway.
Add at least that the numbers can't be 2 , 4 , 8 as they are appearing in more than one case by a writing at the end like "because they appear in more than just one case" anyway.
Log in to reply
@A A – That's what I said here:
From the context of the information given in the question, we know that the last digit of the sum must be unique (that is, it only appears once), so the last digit cannot be 4, 6 or 8.
Can we please stop talking about this now? I don't understand what you want me to phrase my sentence in a certain way. I told you that I'm not changing it because I think that it's clear. So can we just drop this issue okay? Can't you see the larger picture here? Why are you fixated on something so puny?
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – It is not explicitly stated. You go from A to F without saying that you go through B also whcih even if you realize or not you do anyway.
Log in to reply
@A A – I'm not going to participate in this conversation anymore. It's too tiresome to talk with you. It seems that you're still obsessing over this one minor thing. I already told you time and time again that I disagree with your decision and I know what you're trying to say.
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – Then , you should agree with what I'm saying. If you go from A to F but on the path you also go through B and also want to state clearly that path you have to be explicit.
First consider the possible digits in the larger number, we must have three distinct digits which sum to 12. The only options are
Each of these corresponds to 6 possible values of the larger number (eg (9, 2, 1) could be 921, 912, 291, 219, 192, 129. Going through all 42 possibilities for the larger number (remembering that it must be greater than 388=288+100), we get that there are just 3 values A for which A-288 also has a digit sum of 12 and where all 6 digits in A and A-288 are distinct:
Of these, the possible sums are 942, 834, 564. So for Bill to have worked out the answer given the final digit, Alex must have written down 2, and the two numbers were 615 and 327, with a sum of 942 .
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Here's a solution that doesn't require plenty of trial and error. The only downside of this question is to assume that the setup of this question is plausible.
So we have have to find distinct non-zero digits A , B , C , D , E and F satisfying the cryptogram below.
− A D 2 B E 8 C F 8 ( 1 )
Now we know that 1 ≤ A , B , C , D , E , F ≤ 9 , and we are given that ( A + B + C ) + ( D + E + F ) = 1 2 + 1 2 = 2 4 , so we have used up exactly 6 digits from the list { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , … , 9 } , or equivalently, we we won't be using 9 − 6 = 3 digits from the same list of numbers. This tells us that we want to find 3 distinct digits from that list that adds up to ( 1 + 2 + 3 + ⋯ + 9 ) − ( 1 2 + 1 2 ) = 2 1 , and the only possible cases are:
Case 1 : We won't be using the digits 4 , 8 , 9 (because 4 + 8 + 9 = 2 1 ).
Or equivalently, we will only be using the digits 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 for A , B , C , D , E and F .
Case 2 : We won't be using the digits 5 , 7 , 9 (because 5 + 7 + 9 = 2 1 ).
Or equivalently, we will only be using the digits 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 for A , B , C , D , E and F .
Case 3 : We won't be using the digits 6 , 7 , 8 (because 6 + 7 + 8 = 2 1 ).
Or equivalently, we will only be using the digits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 for A , B , C , D , E and F .
By looking at the cryptogram, we know that C − F ≡ 8 ( m o d 1 0 ) ( 2 )
Suppose Case 1 is true, then the possible values of ( C , F ) are ( 1 , 3 ) , ( 3 , 5 ) , ( 5 , 7 ) . So the possible value of the last digit of Alex and Bill's numbers can be 4, 8 or 2 only.
Suppose Case 2 is true, then the possible values of ( C , F ) are ( 1 , 3 ) , ( 2 , 4 ) , ( 4 , 6 ) , ( 6 , 8 ) . So the possible value of the last digit of Alex and Bill's numbers can be 4, 6 or 0 only.
Suppose Case 3 is true, then the possible values of ( C , F ) are ( 1 , 3 ) , ( 2 , 4 ) , ( 3 , 5 ) . So the possible value of the last digit of Alex and Bill's numbers can be 4, 6 or 8 only.
Notice that
it is still possible to have the last digit of 4 if Case 1, Case 2 or Case 3 is true.
it is still possible to have the last digit of 6 if Case 2 or Case 3 is true.
it is still possible to have the last digit of 8 if Case 1 or Case 3 is true.
From the context of the information given in the question, we know that the last digit of the sum must be unique (that is, it only appears once), so the last digit cannot be 4, 6 or 8. Hence, we are able to reduce the number of cases to the following two scenarios: ( C , F ) = ( 5 , 7 ) or ( C , F ) = ( 4 , 6 ) only.
If ( C , F ) = ( 5 , 7 ) , then we must find distinct values 1 , 2 , 3 , 6 that represents A , B , D , E in the cryptogram below.
+ A D 2 B E 8 5 7 8
Because A B C > 2 8 8 , then A > 3 ⟹ A = 6 only. With a little bit of patience, by trial and error we can show that A B C = 6 1 5 and D E F = 3 2 7 .
Since I've found a solution (and I assumed that your setup is plausible), then I assert that the only possible values of Alex's and Bill's numbers are 615 and 327, so our answer is 6 1 5 + 3 2 7 = 9 4 2 .