Speaking of fish... and of the number... it's not 4 or 7 it's 42!





(The original TV series, not the crappy recent film! )

a very interesting dilemma you posted here Sage. you see, this cannot be answered with simple multiplication etc. what we have here is an authentic rival pair. the not so well known mathematician/philosopher Kozai Saiso has allready shown that these number pairs are in power sense equals (4 to the power of 7 = 16384: the sum of the single digits here is 1+6+3+8+4=22 = 2+2=4. for 7 to the power of 4 this is 2401 = 2+4+0+1 = 7). thus we have to turn to prime numbers to solve this issue.
the 4th and 7th prime numbers are 7 and 17. one might think this answers it, but there is still one problem. to find THE answer, one must take the difference of the one missing number in hierarchy of all sums of the products of these primes and their rank. thus, we multiply 4*7, 7*7, 7*17, 17*4 which gives 28, 49, 119 and 68 respectively. the sum of these digits alone are (28-> 2+8 =10; 119-> 1+1+9=11; 49-> 4+9 = 13 and 68-> 6+8 = 14). thus the missing rank number 12 contains the answer. if we look at the 12th prime, 37, we see that the difference of its digits 7-3 = 4. ad onto this the sum of it's rank, 12 (1+2 = 3),3, and we have our answer: 3+4=42

(if you read this, you just wasted your time. if you checked my calculations, you wasted even more time. but none of you have wasted or will waste as much time on this post as i have )

This is ridiculous! Can't you see that Square has an agenda here, and no one should listen to anything she says about this? She obviously discriminates against prime numbers in favor of her beloved squares.

the answer to EVERYTHING is 46 and 2

Ok, It must take a LOT of talapia to eat off all the algae in a pool.
We had a great "Fish Feast", released dozens of fish and
then drained the pool.
My children have now taken up residence there and we expect to
have them back by november,december at the latest.
--------------------------------------------------------
I am sorry to have to say this, but you are all wrong.
The amswer is "3", because ice cream has NO bones.

Forgive my confusion, but....

since when do fish resemble pure Peruvian llama wool?

seven is four and four is seven times eleven was seven, in the begining it also changed to three the rice crispies were not sure maybe it is seven after all...

I understood there was to be no math.....

So if you are all so FUCKIN SMART then you can tell me why is an orange?

HUH? HUH?


(*i will sit here and bask in your stunned silence*)

An orange is an orange because it is orange

ha! So glad to see this thread resurrected.

My dad, whenever I'd say "dad, can I ask you a question?" would always say "the answer is 4". Regardless of the question. Much to my chagrin, I've picked up the same habit. So, as you can clearly see, the answer is indeed 4!

So if I had 7 fish and 4 oranges....mmmmm....7 fish, 4 oranges....mmmmm....just cant work it out, will have to have another Pangalaticgargleblaster, and think some more.

wtf are you talking about?

...on second thought, perhaps the answer is "0" ?

Well, if the answer were 0, then there would be no answer at all....and without an answer, there is no question. But, there must be a question, because the answer is 7. The question now becomes "what is the question?" Vunt had a great answer to the question, but lost me at "Sage." Everything else would have made sense had he remembered to carry the 1.

I'm glad Rein posed the question about the orange....you see, I've been sitting here waiting for someone to ask that exact question. Now, in reply to your question, Mr. Rein, I say that it is indeed unanswerable. But, let me throw this one across this great continent: why not?

Square, with no disrespect to your father, he was obviously telling you the answer was 4 so as to not confuse you with reality. We all tell our children the answer is 4 until they figure out for themeselves that it is really 7.

Bababooey: please try to keep up...