**minimum**and not maximum. lol

## Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account. As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends. Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games. If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top. If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen. Thanks and enjoy the Den :-) |

# Cost of War

### #51

Posted 10 July 2008 - 05:23 PM

### #52

Posted 12 July 2008 - 09:57 PM

the answer would be 70 because at least 70 people lost an eye and if you had to have lost all four at lest 70 had to be injured with them all

This was my thought process, although I thought it would be 85 (who lost a leg). Again, if the group is 100 exact, then it seems impossible to not have any overlap; further, if some % lost suffered all four wounds, then, by definition, they suffered one of those wounds. So, the *minimum* # would have to be the equivalent of the largest group suffering a single defined injury.

I find this puzzle to be analogous to the one asking the max number of socks to be pulled from a drawer in the dark (so as to not see the socks) to get a match. The answer would be the # of colors + 1, since, at worst, you would pull one of each color out, and the next would automatically match one of the previous socks.

What am I missing here? It seems to me that the question itself is not particularly clear.

./cr

### #53

Posted 12 July 2008 - 11:07 PM

No, the minimum number would have to beif some % lost suffered all four wounds, then, by definition, they suffered one of those wounds. So, the *minimum* # would have to be the equivalent of the largest group suffering a single defined injury.

*less*than the

*smallest*group suffering a single defined injury.

### #54

Posted 13 July 2008 - 05:17 AM

:-P Thbbbt!!! (To quote Bill the Cat) ...No, the minimum number would have to be

lessthan thesmallestgroup suffering a single defined injury.

I got it now (I think). Starting with the 85, only SOME of the 85 suffered more than one injury, so yea, less than 85. And some of those injured may have suffered 2 or 3 injuries, but not all four.

Ya know, they are brain teasers because you are supposed to *think* about them!!

### #55

Posted 11 August 2008 - 06:44 AM

### #56

Posted 30 August 2008 - 05:25 AM

### #57

Posted 02 September 2008 - 05:52 PM

### #58

Posted 14 October 2008 - 12:50 AM

k i have no freakin idea how u guys got 10 and 15 i got 70 can someone explain it simply plz?!?!?

The question is "A group of 100 soldiers suffered the following injuries in a battle: 70 soldiers lost an eye, 75 lost an ear, 85 lost a leg, and 80 lost an arm. What is the minimum number of soldiers who must have lost all 4?"

But the question asks for MINIMUM losing all 4...the answer is 10...which also spreads the devastation of losing 3 partS to all the soldiers.

Look at the graph

EYE = S

EAR= R

LEG= K

ARM= Z

'X' is soldier without that injury

*(LETTERS CHOSEN FOR SIMILAR SIZE IN THIS FONT)*

"XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS"

"RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR"

"KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK KKKKKKKXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK"

"ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXZZZZZZZZZZ"

If 70 soldiers had all 4 injuries then that leaves the remaining 30 soldiers only 5 missing ears, 15 missing legs and 10 losing arms ..each one only losing one part. 70 is the answer for MAXIMUM that have lost all 4.

"SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX"

"RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX"

"KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK"

"ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZXXXXXZZZZZZZZZZXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX"

I hope that explains it

### #59

Posted 28 October 2008 - 09:37 PM

70% lost an eye, 75% lost an ear

x = 70 - (100 - 75)

x = 45

45% lost an eye AND an ear, 85% lost a leg

x = 45 - (100 - 85)

x = 30

30% lost an eye, an ear AND a leg, 80% lost an arm

x = 30 - (100 - 80)

x = 10

10% lost an eye, an ear, an arm AND a leg.

I'm not sure if this formula (Described above) is common knowledge, but I've never seen it and it was an original thought for me, which makes me doubly proud.

intersection(a,b) = a - (100 - b)

### #60

Posted 02 March 2009 - 06:30 AM

I just thought about where the numbers overlapped, getting the number of victims who had more than one injury, starting with who lost eyes and ears, and then moving to who lost eyes, ears, and legs, and eventually to who lost eyes, ears, legs, and arms. Bear with me, I'm not too good at explaining my reasoning. =].

For instance, I subtracted 75 from 100, (25) and then subtracted 25 from 70, to get the area in between. This gave me 45.

I then subtracted 85 from 100, getting 15, and then I took 15 from the 45 I had before, getting 30.

Then i subtracted 80 from 100, getting 20, and then finally subtracted 20 from 30, for the area in between, receiving 10 (the answer)

Sorry if this was confusing, it's hard explaining my brain's rational.

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users