11-25-2023, 11:49 PM
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news...s-31502508
![[Image: Zkupzdy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Zkupzdy.png)
A confusing maths sequence question has left some people scratching their heads, as they can't seem to agree on what the missing number should be.
Maths can be a difficult subject for many of us, and when you're faced with nothing but a seemingly random list of numbers and given the task of finding the next number in the sequence, it can sometimes feel impossible to solve the puzzle.
That's exactly what some have said about this new brain teaser, as it's left people fighting over the correct answer - because it seems as though two answers are equally as correct.
According to the account, "only a genius can solve this". And it certainly seems to have divided people, as there are two completely different answers that come up most often when you read the comments on the post. Some argue that the answer must be 49, while others are convinced it's 51.
Here are my thoughts:
What about you?
![[Image: Zkupzdy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Zkupzdy.png)
A confusing maths sequence question has left some people scratching their heads, as they can't seem to agree on what the missing number should be.
Maths can be a difficult subject for many of us, and when you're faced with nothing but a seemingly random list of numbers and given the task of finding the next number in the sequence, it can sometimes feel impossible to solve the puzzle.
That's exactly what some have said about this new brain teaser, as it's left people fighting over the correct answer - because it seems as though two answers are equally as correct.
According to the account, "only a genius can solve this". And it certainly seems to have divided people, as there are two completely different answers that come up most often when you read the comments on the post. Some argue that the answer must be 49, while others are convinced it's 51.
Here are my thoughts:
Spoiler
49 seemed like the intuitively obvious solution - but, when I started searching for a concrete rule to justify that answer (connecting 27, 38 and 49 to the numbers above them in each column), I couldn't find one that worked for 49.
I did, however, find a rule that works for 27 and 38:
(3rd row * 2nd row) - 1st row = 4th row
This rule gives the following results for each column:
(7 * 4) - 1 = 27
(8 * 5) - 2 = 38
(9 * 6) - 3 = 51
So now, I maintain that the answer is 51
.
I did, however, find a rule that works for 27 and 38:
(3rd row * 2nd row) - 1st row = 4th row
This rule gives the following results for each column:
(7 * 4) - 1 = 27
(8 * 5) - 2 = 38
(9 * 6) - 3 = 51
So now, I maintain that the answer is 51

What about you?