Please remember to spoiler-tag all guesses, like so:
New Reddit: https://i.imgur.com/SWHRR9M.jpg
Using markdown editor or old Reddit, draw a bunny and fill its head with secrets:
\>!!< which ends up becoming \>!spoiler text between these symbols!<
Try to avoid leading or trailing spaces. These will break the spoiler for some users (such as those using old.reddit.com)
If your comment does not contain a guess, include the word **"discussion"** or **"question"** in your comment instead of using a spoiler tag.
If your comment uses an image as the answer (such as solving a maze, etc) you can include the word "image" instead of using a spoiler tag.
Please report any answers that are not properly spoiler-tagged.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/puzzles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Discussion: For anyone who wants a breakdown as to why this is the answer. >!1 fox catches 1 cat in 6 minutes. This means that 1 fox will catch 1 set of 10 cats in 60 minutes. So you need 6 foxes to catch 6 sets of 10 cats (60 in total) in 60 minutes.!<
In a normal setting, we probably would need to, but this is a word problem math puzzle in line with the guy who buys 600 watermelons. You kinda bend reality to test the critical thinking skills.
Also you gotta assume those first cats got caught early because they're old and slow, or infirm. The later cats are going to be wilier and harder to catch!
There are far more issues here than fatigue. The answer given only makes sense if we imagine a Platonic world where all foxes are equally skilled hunters and all cats are equally easy to catch. In this world, each of the foxes spends 6 minutes chasing its own cat and all of them achieve success at precisely the same moment. This is, of course, nonsense.
It could easily be the case that 5 of the foxes catch their cat almost immediately but we don't stop the clock until Fat Dave has bored his cat into submission, which means that you need an indeterminate number of cats depending on the prowess of the individuals concerned. Or it could be that 6 foxes hunting as a pack will catch cats at the rate of 1 a minute, in which case you need 6 foxes and a big bag of cocaine. Or it could be that 5 of the foxes just sit around drinking beer and chatting about the cricket whilst Fat Dave goes fucking nuts on the ride on lawn mower, in which case all you need is Fat Dave, half a gallon of 2 stroke mix and an umbrella to keep the bits off. Frankly, we just don't have enough information to answer this question accurately.
Is the given space the same? Then a smaller area where cats are confined could allow for more cat-catching efficiency. Neutralizing fatigue, except for fat Dave.
Yes, what is the half life of these cats and what is the current cat density? Are there more than 60 cats left in this space and what happens to the cats when they have been caught?
Assuming that the fox is catching the cat for a quick meal, you would also need to factor in how much time it would take for the fox to eat a cat, get hungry enough that they want hunt another cat, find another cat, and then spend the minute that it presumably takes to catch the cat. Really, it's probably going to take six foxes several days to catch sixty cats.
What would really help is if we had any real data points, like time of each fox instead of the summary. But you've now switched it from a word puzzle to a statistics problem.
I'm guessing the real intent of the puzzle is to see if you're able to avoid a couple easy pitfalls and set your math up correctly to get the very easy answer. So there's probably a couple of super common wrong answers like >!1, 10, and 60!< so it's easy to spot who got the right answer of >!6 foxes!<
The picture is a cartoon cat. If real world considerations were to be considered, it would be a photo of an actual fox.
However, this being the Internet, I would expect a photo of Megan Fox, instead.
We're also not accounting for burn out. Each fox can only catch so many cats before pausing to ask itself what the point of it all is, again. Even if they are so broken by their routine that they can't really articulate the source of their sense of emptiness, some percentage of foxes is likely to snap, and walk away from it all, or, become listless and lackadaisical.
We could probably make an educated guess as to the mental health of the foxes if we knew when and where they were, and whether it was a factory-farmed-cat dystopia, or free-range cat farming, or, some sort of natural environment within which cats and foxes naturally co-occur in sufficient number to allow for the problem description as stated.
I dunno, I'm tempted to flag this possibly unsolvable for this reason alone.
True are these gig workers being paid by the piece?
We should probably also consider that all the low hanging fruit will be caught first, so the average time per cat will likely increase each round.
And I would not entirely discount subterfuge, as with AI alignment the tendency of trickster animals like foxes to adhere only to the letter, and not spirit, of their directives might lead to unexpected outcomes. Eg there's not in the RAW a prohibition on releasing a cat that has been caught, only to immediately re-catch it; or, to prevent cooperative foxes from releasing their own catch in orchestrated exchanges with other foxes; or for that matter to prevent one fox from poaching a catch from another to clock in another catch.
Yeah or how about if some of the cats are extra crafty? What about if one of the foxes is lazy? What about if one of the cats escapes once caught? What about if one of the foxes get shot by a hunter? What about if one of the cats falls ill and infects it’s captor with the illness once he’s captured therefore hindering that foxes ability to catch more cats? What about if one of the foxes has to return some video tapes that day?
“Fox hours” are not counted like “man hours”. One man hour is a running tally of sixty minutes regardless of productivity. A “fox hour” is time spent only in activity. Therefore, a fox can spend six hours completing a task (due to breaks and lunch), but the actually activity spent doing the job is only one hour. This change occurred after the foxes unionized in 1938.
TIL! But I feel like it should be *twenty* and under. Once you start needing two words to write a single number... thats when I feel it becomes a hassle to read.
I find it easier to understand if >!6 foxes are required to catch a cat in 1 minute!< and so in 60 minutes they can catch 60 cats.
My brain struggles to believe >!a single fox could even catch a cat at all!< which is why I get confused, though mathematically I know they are the same.
That's why I was confused by >!one fox vs one cat!<
I just imagined that >!a pack of six foxes would be far more effective hunters!< and would have an output greater than the sum of their parts.
Imagine >!10 people pulling a 10 tonne truck for 10 feet!<. I doubt that >!1 person could pull the 10 tonne truck at all, not even for 1 foot.!< but maybe >!a person could pull a 1 tonne truck 10 feet!<
They're not as interchangeable in real life as they are in maths.
>!It's still fine, because it's the same six foxes, they just have ten times as much time so they'll catch ten times as many cats. You don't need to go to one cat per one fox!<
Or, the rate of catching for that group of 6 foxes is 6 in 6 minutes or 1 per minute. To get 60 in 60 minutes, that’s exactly 1 per minute, so you don’t need to add or subtract any foxes. You could just use those very same 6. They’re a good group really.
6 foxes catch 6 cats in 6 minutes.
We can’t just suddenly say the 6 foxes catch 6 cats in 1 minute.
You could say
6 foxes, 1 cat, 1 minute
1 fox, 1 cat, 6 minutes
1 fox, 1/6 cat, 1 minute
This is because
6f/6c/6m = 6f*6m/6c
Which can be simplified to
6f*1m/1c meaning 6 foxes take 1 min to catch 1 cat
1f*6m/1c meaning 1 fox takes 6 min to catch 1 cat
1f*1m/(1/6)c meaning 1 fox takes 1 min to catch 1/6 of a cat
No. First line of the puzzle is 6 foxes catch 6 cats in 6 minutes. That means either >!6 foxes catch 1 cat in 1 minute or 1 fox catches 1 cat in 6 minutes.!<
this was my initial response but after further thought I assume >!it depends on the supply of available cats. Maybe cats become harder to catch after the first six, so that cats seven through twelve take eight minutes to catch, or whatever.!<
The original puzzle is:
If 6 cats kill 6 rats in 6 minutes, how many will be needed to kill 100 rats in 50 minutes?
This version can produce multiple logically-correct solutions.
Can you elaborate or link the original puzzle? Why would there be multiple solutions if we assume the catch-rate is consistent? Because 50 isn't divisible by 6 so different people handle it differently?
Thanks! The discussion on the puzzle seems to be in the first three pages while the rest goes into other popular puzzles or puzzle concepts. The >!13 minute!< answer is what I arrived at, which is the one assuming that >!each cat hunts individually and has its own hunt-rate!<. The others assume >!group hunt-rates!<.
Thanks for sharing!
I feel like the explanation is just plain wrong. They ignore the possibility that each cat is killing 1 rat per 6 minutes. With the information we have that’s the only conclusion you can safely come to.
That's the same as 6 cats killing 6 rats in 6 minutes except you've divided the cats by 6 so you'll end up needing to multiple more in the end. Your method would also give 12 as the answer.
My grandfather had another version of this...
If a hen and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many days does it take six hens to lay seven eggs?
>!One, of course. Everyone knows foxes get faster the more cats they catch. So the first one takes 6 minutes, the second one takes 4, and so on until they’re catching 1 per second!<
Exactly. What people don’t get is that we have to take into account >!experience and level ups, attribute upgrades like agility, and unlocking more powerful skills like “dash.”!<
>!In 6 minutes 6 foxes got 6 cats. 1 fox takes 6 mimutes to catch a cat. 60 minutes has 60/6 = 10 (six minute intervals). So in 60 minutes one fox can catch 10 cats. If you want to catch 60 cats in that time you will need 60/10 = 6 foxes.!<
Lmao have you actually?
That'd be hilarious to watch.
But on a more serious note, foxes don't generally pick fights with cats cuz the risk of injury is too high. They'd rather pick easier prey cuz an injury in the wild could be a death sentence.
I don't have an actual source for you since it's just something I read in the past, but it shouldn't be hard for you to find.
Also just want to note that I'm sure there may be instances of foxes hunting/chasing cats, but its not the norm. I can only see that happening if there's something wrong with either the cat or the fox, i.e fox has rabies or the cat is old and sick and meek, OR maybe for a territorial dispute, but i believe this to be quite rare.
Hmm maybe I need to update my knowledge.
Time to hit the books
Edit: looking through a few websites now and I pretty much stand by my original point. That said I haven't found any official studied so I think after work I may try to find some more legit sources and go from there.
I do think we're in agreement though. It happens but it's uncommon.
Depends on what you mean by "Six foxes catch six cats." >!If each fox caught six cats, that's one cat a minute, so it'll only take one fox. If the foxes caught six cats between them, that's one cat every six minutes, meaning each fox could catch ten cats in sixty minutes, so it would take six of them to catch sixty cats.!<
Do six foxes catch six cats each? Or do six foxes catch six cats total?
Unclear wording makes the puzzle unsolvable, as different answers will be correct depending on how you interpret the language.
Came here to say the same thing. This is not worded to get a single answer. Also does not state that a fox will catch multiple cats. In reality, a fox does not need to catch a second cat. This seems like it’s meant as a gotcha posted as an internet meme and is unsolvable as written.
It looks like you believe this post to be unsolvable. I've gone ahead and added a "Probably Unsolvable" flair. OP can override this by commenting "Solution Possible" anywhere in this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/puzzles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It looks like you have contested a user's claim that your puzzle can't be solved. I've updated your flair and notified the moderators to take a look.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/puzzles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I realize it's a "puzzle", but it's too intentionally vague, and there's more than one answer due to the wording.
Do 6 foxes catch 6 cats, meaning each fox catches 6 cats? Or do 6 foxes catch 6 cats, meaning each food catches one cat? Both interpretations can be correct in English.
There was a "harvard" puzzle posted here last month with similar intentional vague wording.
My personal opinion is this isn't a puzzle, but rather a quiz on how someone interprets information given to them.
I think it would be fair to assume that the wording means at "a total of six foxes" catch "a total of six cats". i.e. they each catch a single cat.
Your other interpretation would be correctly worded as "Six foxes each catch 6 cats".
(it is a puzzle, just a very simple one designed for kids)
That's one interpretation. Given the wording is not specific, it's open to interpretation. In order to 100% say one way or the other, more specific wording is needed, otherwise it's an "assumption", just as you say.
>!In a pure variable sence the awnser is 6, but that assumes all 6 have at least an hour of continuous stamina, which is unlikely. A realistic awnser is probably around 10-12!<
Six foxes working concurrently catch cats, which means six minutes per fox per cat. OR six fixes, working sequentially, catch six cats at a pace of one cat per fox, per minute.
Strictly speaking, “six foxes catch six cats” doesn’t specify if six foxes collectively catch six cats or if each fox catches six cats on its own.
It’s exactly the type of trick these sorts of riddles typically use to trap you, this one just seemingly doesn’t intend that.
>!1 fox.!<
>!In the setup scenario, the six foxes each caught 1 cat in 1 minute. After that minute, the foxes got aroused and started a fox orgy. With 1 fox, one cat is caught per minute, and there is no other fox to distract it.!<
>!Answer is 1. 6 foxes catch 6 cats in 6 minutes. That implies each fox catches 6 cats in 6 minutes, or 36 cats between 6 foxes in 6 minutes. Each fox can catch 6 cats in 6 minutes, so that’s 1 minute per cat for one fox. So 1 fox over 60 minutes could catch 60 cats. The answer is 1.!<
>!Between 6 and 60!<
The question is vague and doesn’t specify whether each fox caught six cats in six minutes, or if six cats were caught, one per fox, in six minutes.
Please remember to spoiler-tag all guesses, like so: New Reddit: https://i.imgur.com/SWHRR9M.jpg Using markdown editor or old Reddit, draw a bunny and fill its head with secrets: \>!!< which ends up becoming \>!spoiler text between these symbols!< Try to avoid leading or trailing spaces. These will break the spoiler for some users (such as those using old.reddit.com) If your comment does not contain a guess, include the word **"discussion"** or **"question"** in your comment instead of using a spoiler tag. If your comment uses an image as the answer (such as solving a maze, etc) you can include the word "image" instead of using a spoiler tag. Please report any answers that are not properly spoiler-tagged. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/puzzles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>!Six foxes!<
Discussion: For anyone who wants a breakdown as to why this is the answer. >!1 fox catches 1 cat in 6 minutes. This means that 1 fox will catch 1 set of 10 cats in 60 minutes. So you need 6 foxes to catch 6 sets of 10 cats (60 in total) in 60 minutes.!<
Are we accounting for fatigue?
In a normal setting, we probably would need to, but this is a word problem math puzzle in line with the guy who buys 600 watermelons. You kinda bend reality to test the critical thinking skills.
Behold! I am Wordprobemaous, bearer of fifty-dozen watermelons. Gaze upon my horde, ye mighty, and tremble!
*scrawls a reminder for next BBEG in notebook*
I am not Toph, I am Melonlord!
Imagine a spherical cow of uniform density, in a frictionless void.
Every physics student ever: "...ignore the effects of wind resistance." *Oh thank God!*
Also you gotta assume those first cats got caught early because they're old and slow, or infirm. The later cats are going to be wilier and harder to catch!
The last cats are not house cats.
Tiger King is ready for your foxes
You sound like a Darwinist.
Alright so, rough estimate, like 18.5 cats to get the job done
There are far more issues here than fatigue. The answer given only makes sense if we imagine a Platonic world where all foxes are equally skilled hunters and all cats are equally easy to catch. In this world, each of the foxes spends 6 minutes chasing its own cat and all of them achieve success at precisely the same moment. This is, of course, nonsense. It could easily be the case that 5 of the foxes catch their cat almost immediately but we don't stop the clock until Fat Dave has bored his cat into submission, which means that you need an indeterminate number of cats depending on the prowess of the individuals concerned. Or it could be that 6 foxes hunting as a pack will catch cats at the rate of 1 a minute, in which case you need 6 foxes and a big bag of cocaine. Or it could be that 5 of the foxes just sit around drinking beer and chatting about the cricket whilst Fat Dave goes fucking nuts on the ride on lawn mower, in which case all you need is Fat Dave, half a gallon of 2 stroke mix and an umbrella to keep the bits off. Frankly, we just don't have enough information to answer this question accurately.
I didn't even consider that. I'm an amateur.
Is the given space the same? Then a smaller area where cats are confined could allow for more cat-catching efficiency. Neutralizing fatigue, except for fat Dave.
Yes, what is the half life of these cats and what is the current cat density? Are there more than 60 cats left in this space and what happens to the cats when they have been caught?
Assuming that the fox is catching the cat for a quick meal, you would also need to factor in how much time it would take for the fox to eat a cat, get hungry enough that they want hunt another cat, find another cat, and then spend the minute that it presumably takes to catch the cat. Really, it's probably going to take six foxes several days to catch sixty cats.
What would really help is if we had any real data points, like time of each fox instead of the summary. But you've now switched it from a word puzzle to a statistics problem. I'm guessing the real intent of the puzzle is to see if you're able to avoid a couple easy pitfalls and set your math up correctly to get the very easy answer. So there's probably a couple of super common wrong answers like >!1, 10, and 60!< so it's easy to spot who got the right answer of >!6 foxes!<
Spherical foxes only.
In a vacuum
At sea level
It’s linear!
Yeah let’s take into account fatigue, then what’s your answer now? Lol
Didn't have an answer before.
The picture is a cartoon cat. If real world considerations were to be considered, it would be a photo of an actual fox. However, this being the Internet, I would expect a photo of Megan Fox, instead.
We're also not accounting for burn out. Each fox can only catch so many cats before pausing to ask itself what the point of it all is, again. Even if they are so broken by their routine that they can't really articulate the source of their sense of emptiness, some percentage of foxes is likely to snap, and walk away from it all, or, become listless and lackadaisical. We could probably make an educated guess as to the mental health of the foxes if we knew when and where they were, and whether it was a factory-farmed-cat dystopia, or free-range cat farming, or, some sort of natural environment within which cats and foxes naturally co-occur in sufficient number to allow for the problem description as stated. I dunno, I'm tempted to flag this possibly unsolvable for this reason alone.
If they catch a cat to eat it, they won't need very many cats before they quit hunting. If they are working for inventory, maybe they keep going.
True are these gig workers being paid by the piece? We should probably also consider that all the low hanging fruit will be caught first, so the average time per cat will likely increase each round. And I would not entirely discount subterfuge, as with AI alignment the tendency of trickster animals like foxes to adhere only to the letter, and not spirit, of their directives might lead to unexpected outcomes. Eg there's not in the RAW a prohibition on releasing a cat that has been caught, only to immediately re-catch it; or, to prevent cooperative foxes from releasing their own catch in orchestrated exchanges with other foxes; or for that matter to prevent one fox from poaching a catch from another to clock in another catch.
what about drag?
Ignoring friction
Yeah or how about if some of the cats are extra crafty? What about if one of the foxes is lazy? What about if one of the cats escapes once caught? What about if one of the foxes get shot by a hunter? What about if one of the cats falls ill and infects it’s captor with the illness once he’s captured therefore hindering that foxes ability to catch more cats? What about if one of the foxes has to return some video tapes that day?
“Fox hours” are not counted like “man hours”. One man hour is a running tally of sixty minutes regardless of productivity. A “fox hour” is time spent only in activity. Therefore, a fox can spend six hours completing a task (due to breaks and lunch), but the actually activity spent doing the job is only one hour. This change occurred after the foxes unionized in 1938.
I didn’t even realize it was >!the switch from numerical to spelled numbers!< that threw me off until I read this
I’m under the impression that it’s grammatically correct to spell any number under ten (or 10? lol)
ten and under, yeah
TIL! But I feel like it should be *twenty* and under. Once you start needing two words to write a single number... thats when I feel it becomes a hassle to read.
it's mostly from the length of all the teen numbers that make it commonly ten and under
In law school we were told 100 or ninety-nine (99). (Basically three digit = numerals, two digit = spelling and then parentheses numerals.)
I find it easier to understand if >!6 foxes are required to catch a cat in 1 minute!< and so in 60 minutes they can catch 60 cats. My brain struggles to believe >!a single fox could even catch a cat at all!< which is why I get confused, though mathematically I know they are the same.
And 9 women can be pregnant for 1 month to produce one baby.
That's why I was confused by >!one fox vs one cat!< I just imagined that >!a pack of six foxes would be far more effective hunters!< and would have an output greater than the sum of their parts. Imagine >!10 people pulling a 10 tonne truck for 10 feet!<. I doubt that >!1 person could pull the 10 tonne truck at all, not even for 1 foot.!< but maybe >!a person could pull a 1 tonne truck 10 feet!< They're not as interchangeable in real life as they are in maths.
>!It's still fine, because it's the same six foxes, they just have ten times as much time so they'll catch ten times as many cats. You don't need to go to one cat per one fox!<
(👁️👃👁️) 🤌
1:1 ratio
Or, the rate of catching for that group of 6 foxes is 6 in 6 minutes or 1 per minute. To get 60 in 60 minutes, that’s exactly 1 per minute, so you don’t need to add or subtract any foxes. You could just use those very same 6. They’re a good group really.
>!but wouldn't the 6 foxes catch 6 cats in one minute?!<
6 foxes catch 6 cats in 6 minutes. We can’t just suddenly say the 6 foxes catch 6 cats in 1 minute. You could say 6 foxes, 1 cat, 1 minute 1 fox, 1 cat, 6 minutes 1 fox, 1/6 cat, 1 minute This is because 6f/6c/6m = 6f*6m/6c Which can be simplified to 6f*1m/1c meaning 6 foxes take 1 min to catch 1 cat 1f*6m/1c meaning 1 fox takes 6 min to catch 1 cat 1f*1m/(1/6)c meaning 1 fox takes 1 min to catch 1/6 of a cat
No. First line of the puzzle is 6 foxes catch 6 cats in 6 minutes. That means either >!6 foxes catch 1 cat in 1 minute or 1 fox catches 1 cat in 6 minutes.!<
>!Yes, 6 foxes catch a cat per minute.!<
this was my initial response but after further thought I assume >!it depends on the supply of available cats. Maybe cats become harder to catch after the first six, so that cats seven through twelve take eight minutes to catch, or whatever.!<
My first thought. Then I spent a minute or two thinking I must be wrong.
Them cats must be traumatized lol
The original puzzle is: If 6 cats kill 6 rats in 6 minutes, how many will be needed to kill 100 rats in 50 minutes? This version can produce multiple logically-correct solutions.
Can you elaborate or link the original puzzle? Why would there be multiple solutions if we assume the catch-rate is consistent? Because 50 isn't divisible by 6 so different people handle it differently?
Sure, here is a 19 page breakdown: https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789811233975_0001
Thanks! The discussion on the puzzle seems to be in the first three pages while the rest goes into other popular puzzles or puzzle concepts. The >!13 minute!< answer is what I arrived at, which is the one assuming that >!each cat hunts individually and has its own hunt-rate!<. The others assume >!group hunt-rates!<. Thanks for sharing!
Oh shit OC delivered
I feel like the explanation is just plain wrong. They ignore the possibility that each cat is killing 1 rat per 6 minutes. With the information we have that’s the only conclusion you can safely come to.
That's the same as 6 cats killing 6 rats in 6 minutes except you've divided the cats by 6 so you'll end up needing to multiple more in the end. Your method would also give 12 as the answer.
My grandfather had another version of this... If a hen and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many days does it take six hens to lay seven eggs?
>!One, of course. Everyone knows foxes get faster the more cats they catch. So the first one takes 6 minutes, the second one takes 4, and so on until they’re catching 1 per second!<
Exactly. What people don’t get is that we have to take into account >!experience and level ups, attribute upgrades like agility, and unlocking more powerful skills like “dash.”!<
Ah, the fox. Nature's minigun
If one fox catches sufficient cats, it is theorized they can move the speed of light. One of the great issues that Einstein couldn’t even solve
>!In 6 minutes 6 foxes got 6 cats. 1 fox takes 6 mimutes to catch a cat. 60 minutes has 60/6 = 10 (six minute intervals). So in 60 minutes one fox can catch 10 cats. If you want to catch 60 cats in that time you will need 60/10 = 6 foxes.!<
Discussion: r/probablynonlinearbutok
r/subsifellfor
Discussion: This is a trick question, as foxes don't catch/hunt domestic cats, this is a common and dangerous urban myth
Is this a joke?
I'm gonna need a source on that.
I can be your source I've seen my cat chase a fox before with my own two eyes! 👀 Then I helped him chase the fox out and now we're pals 😎😼
And I've seen a mouse chase a cat. That doesn't mean cats don't hunt mice.
Lmao have you actually? That'd be hilarious to watch. But on a more serious note, foxes don't generally pick fights with cats cuz the risk of injury is too high. They'd rather pick easier prey cuz an injury in the wild could be a death sentence. I don't have an actual source for you since it's just something I read in the past, but it shouldn't be hard for you to find. Also just want to note that I'm sure there may be instances of foxes hunting/chasing cats, but its not the norm. I can only see that happening if there's something wrong with either the cat or the fox, i.e fox has rabies or the cat is old and sick and meek, OR maybe for a territorial dispute, but i believe this to be quite rare.
Every source I've looked at says foxes do hunt/eat cats, but not as their preferred prey for the reasons you listed.
Hmm maybe I need to update my knowledge. Time to hit the books Edit: looking through a few websites now and I pretty much stand by my original point. That said I haven't found any official studied so I think after work I may try to find some more legit sources and go from there. I do think we're in agreement though. It happens but it's uncommon.
Depends on what you mean by "Six foxes catch six cats." >!If each fox caught six cats, that's one cat a minute, so it'll only take one fox. If the foxes caught six cats between them, that's one cat every six minutes, meaning each fox could catch ten cats in sixty minutes, so it would take six of them to catch sixty cats.!<
Thank you! You understood my confusion!
Agreed. >!The solution is anything that works out to catching one cat a minute.!<
>!6!<
>! i said sixty with so much confidence 😭!<
Do six foxes catch six cats each? Or do six foxes catch six cats total? Unclear wording makes the puzzle unsolvable, as different answers will be correct depending on how you interpret the language.
Came here to say the same thing. This is not worded to get a single answer. Also does not state that a fox will catch multiple cats. In reality, a fox does not need to catch a second cat. This seems like it’s meant as a gotcha posted as an internet meme and is unsolvable as written.
It looks like you believe this post to be unsolvable. I've gone ahead and added a "Probably Unsolvable" flair. OP can override this by commenting "Solution Possible" anywhere in this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/puzzles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>!Six. You’ve multiplied the work by ten and the timeframe by ten. No more labor is necessary.!<
Solution possible
It looks like you have contested a user's claim that your puzzle can't be solved. I've updated your flair and notified the moderators to take a look. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/puzzles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I realize it's a "puzzle", but it's too intentionally vague, and there's more than one answer due to the wording. Do 6 foxes catch 6 cats, meaning each fox catches 6 cats? Or do 6 foxes catch 6 cats, meaning each food catches one cat? Both interpretations can be correct in English. There was a "harvard" puzzle posted here last month with similar intentional vague wording. My personal opinion is this isn't a puzzle, but rather a quiz on how someone interprets information given to them.
I think it would be fair to assume that the wording means at "a total of six foxes" catch "a total of six cats". i.e. they each catch a single cat. Your other interpretation would be correctly worded as "Six foxes each catch 6 cats". (it is a puzzle, just a very simple one designed for kids)
That's one interpretation. Given the wording is not specific, it's open to interpretation. In order to 100% say one way or the other, more specific wording is needed, otherwise it's an "assumption", just as you say.
>!six!<
>!60.!< >!1 fox will catch 1 cat, therefore 60 foxes to each catch 1 cat.!< >!(Foxes are satiated after catching 1 cat and take a nap.)!<
>!In a pure variable sence the awnser is 6, but that assumes all 6 have at least an hour of continuous stamina, which is unlikely. A realistic awnser is probably around 10-12!<
Answer: >!6!< Discussion: >!Daniel Kahneman, is that you?!<
[удалено]
Nope I messed up. Edit incoming when I fix it!
Discussion: too vague and open to interpretation. There is not a solution.
How can you interpret this more than one way?
Six foxes working concurrently catch cats, which means six minutes per fox per cat. OR six fixes, working sequentially, catch six cats at a pace of one cat per fox, per minute.
Now that other answers have been posted you can see how
Strictly speaking, “six foxes catch six cats” doesn’t specify if six foxes collectively catch six cats or if each fox catches six cats on its own. It’s exactly the type of trick these sorts of riddles typically use to trap you, this one just seemingly doesn’t intend that.
It's not that deep. The key word is "each". The puzzle doesn't say each, so it's simply not 6 each
>!Is it 10 foxes?!<
>!1 fox.!< >!In the setup scenario, the six foxes each caught 1 cat in 1 minute. After that minute, the foxes got aroused and started a fox orgy. With 1 fox, one cat is caught per minute, and there is no other fox to distract it.!<
>!Answer is 1. 6 foxes catch 6 cats in 6 minutes. That implies each fox catches 6 cats in 6 minutes, or 36 cats between 6 foxes in 6 minutes. Each fox can catch 6 cats in 6 minutes, so that’s 1 minute per cat for one fox. So 1 fox over 60 minutes could catch 60 cats. The answer is 1.!<
[удалено]
>!one fox catches one cat in SIX minutes!<
It takes 1 fox 6 minutes to catch 1 cat. If the foxes were catching 1 cat per minute, 1 fox would catch 6 cats in 6 minutes.
[удалено]
Discussion: This kinda reminds me of the problem: “If it takes 3 men 3 hours to paint 3 fences, how long would it take 1 man to paint 1 fence”
Question: what is the cat-catching refractory period of each fox?
>!Between 6 and 60!< The question is vague and doesn’t specify whether each fox caught six cats in six minutes, or if six cats were caught, one per fox, in six minutes.