I cant give theanswer on Facebook as it was a condition.

**Gronbog** · 06-25-2020, 01:00 PM

The rabbit saw 9 elephants while going to the river, so the rabbit was going but the elephants were not.

Every elephant saw 3 monkeys going to the river, which is ambiguous. There could be 3 monkeys or an unknown number because the use of the word "every" does not restrict things to the 9 elephants seen by the rabbit. I therefore say that 3 monkeys were going to the river.

Each monkey had a tortoise in each hand, so 6 tortoises.

So mathematically we get 10.

These things usually have an out-of-the-box thinking component and the issue of tense is a possibilty. This tells me that we numbers guys are probably on the wrong track.

**DSchles** · 06-25-2020, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Gronbog

The rabbit saw 9 elephants while going to the river, so the rabbit was going but the elephants were not.

Every elephant saw 3 monkeys going to the river, which is ambiguous. There could be 3 monkeys or an unknown number because the use of the word "every" does not restrict things to the 9 elephants seen by the rabbit. I therefore say that 3 monkeys were going to the river.

Each monkey had a tortoise in each hand, so 6 tortoises.

So mathematically we get 10.

These things usually have an out-of-the-box thinking component and the issue of tense is a possibilty. This tells me that we numbers guys are probably on the wrong track.

I just joined this. Was out all day. But, FWIW, I agree with Gronbog and would have answered that way hours ago.

Don

**albee** · 06-25-2020, 06:55 PM

28......monkey's don't have hands. 1-rabbit and 9 elephants seeing 3 monkeys each going to the river.

**Banker** · 06-25-2020, 07:16 PM

1 rabbit + 9 elephants. The rabbit and the elephants saw the other animals but the rabbit and the elephants were the ones going to the river.

**DSchles** · 06-25-2020, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by albee

28......monkey's don't have hands. 1-rabbit and 9 elephants seeing 3 monkeys each going to the river.

Not even close!

It's fun when puzzles have nothing to do with math but rather some clear understanding of language and not stretching things to the absurd. And, FWIW, monkeys DO have hands!

Don

**PinkChip** · 06-25-2020, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by albee

28......monkey's don't have hands. 1-rabbit and 9 elephants seeing 3 monkeys each going to the river.

Who says that each elephant saw three monkeys different from the monkeys seen by the other elephants? They could all have seen the same three monkeys.

**Cooking with cards** · 06-25-2020, 07:32 PM

It's 10!

**Midwest Player** · 06-25-2020, 09:19 PM

My answer is 10.

**Optimus Prime** · 06-26-2020, 01:24 AM

There is too much ambiguity in the wording of the riddle, as demonstrated by the many intelligent but different answers here.

**PinkChip** · 06-26-2020, 03:14 AM

This strongly reminds me of the St. Ives riddle from Die Hard 3, where only the one single man went to St. Ives.

**DSchles** · 06-26-2020, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Optimus Prime

There is too much ambiguity in the wording of the riddle, as demonstrated by the many intelligent but different answers here.

I will say one thing: Everyone (or most of us) seems to be concluding that: "1 rabbit saw 9 elephants while going to the river" somehow automatically means that "1 rabbit crossed paths with 9 elephants while going to the river." However, upon further reflection, I see nothing in the language that would force, logically, that conclusion. Why couldn't the rabbit be going to the river with the elephants, whom the rabbit saw as he quickly ran by them, not to see them again, as they were moving more slowly and were now behind the rabbit, but still on their way to the river? Is that not perfectly logical and possible? Just as possible as the rabbit crossed paths with the elephants? I'm afraid so. And yes, it is also possible that the elephants weren't moving at all and were just standing there!

But I'm sticking with 10, as we have no definitive language that says that the elephants were conclusively going to the river, while the language is unambiguous for the rabbit, monkeys, and the tortoises.

Don

**Freightman** · 06-26-2020, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by DSchles

I will say one thing: Everyone (or most of us) seems to be concluding that: "1 rabbit saw 9 elephants while going to the river" somehow automatically means that "1 rabbit crossed paths with 9 elephants while going to the river." However, upon further reflection, I see nothing in the language that would force, logically, that conclusion. Why couldn't the rabbit be going to the river with the elephants, whom the rabbit saw as he quickly ran by them, not to see them again, as they were moving more slowly and were now behind the rabbit, but still on their way to the river? Is that not perfectly logical and possible? Just as possible as the rabbit crossed paths with the elephants? I'm afraid so. And yes, it is also possible that the elephants weren't moving at all and were just standing there!

But I'm sticking with 10, as we have no definitive language that says that the elephants were conclusively going to the river, while the language is unambiguous for the rabbit, monkeys, and the tortoises.

Don

They’re 2 ways to get to 10.
1 rabbit and 9 elephants or
1 rabbit 3 monkeys with each monkey having a 1 tortoise in Each hand.

Regardless, 10 is the right answer

**DSchles** · 06-26-2020, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Freightman

They’re [There are] 2 ways to get to 10.
1 rabbit and 9 elephants or
1 rabbit 3 monkeys with each monkey having a 1 tortoise in Each hand.

Regardless, 10 is the right answer

Well, see, that's a much bigger problem, because now, all you have to do is say that each monkey had TWO tortoises in each hand, and now what?? It won't do (at least for me) to say that you can reason this in two completely different ways and still get to 10, because the claim is now that, no matter how you construe the language, you will (accidentally?) get to 10 regardless. I don't like that at all. Put TWO tortoises in each hand and NOW tell me what the correct answer is!

As a math teacher, it has always mattered to me HOW you get the (right) answer and not simply that you DID get the right answer. Example: how much is 1 + 2 + 3? First answer: 6. Why? Because 1 + 2 = 3, and 3 + 3 = 6. Second answer: 6. Why? Because 1 + 2 = 4, and 4 + 3 = 6!

In the latter, all you have to do is make two mistakes, and your answer is just fine, right? No, not to me.

And, yet again, tell me very specifically, what in the language rules out definitively that they are ALL going in the same direction?

It is the same for the very famous "As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives ..." problem. Why must it be automatically assumed that "met" means "crossed paths with"? If you met someone while going to the casino (and hit it off), couldn't the two of you have wound up in the casino together, forming a new friendship? Food for thought? Indeed.

Don