The 1 + 4 = 5 Puzzle Explained: Why 96 and 40 Both Work

$The Viral 1 + 4 = 5 Puzzle: Why Both 96 and 40 Can Be Defended$
photo credit: wavebreakmedia/Shutterstock

The puzzle that went viral in 2016 shows three lines, 1 + 4 = 5, 2 + 5 = 12 and 3 + 6 = 21, and asks what 8 + 11 equals. The answer given by the puzzle's publisher, Brain Dare, is 96. The answer many people reach on their own is 40. Both follow a rule that fits all three example lines, which is why the comment sections filled with confident people who were each, in a sense, right.

The puzzle as it was posted

Brain Dare, a website and Facebook page that publishes brain teasers, shared the image below in the spring of 2016. It drew a flood of comments, most of them answers, and many of them arguing with each other. The plus signs are a trap: in the second and third lines the "sum" is obviously not ordinary addition, so the reader has to work out what hidden operation produces the results.

Try it yourself before reading on. The challenge is not arithmetic but pattern-finding: you need a single rule that turns each pair of numbers on the left into the number on the right.

How Brain Dare gets 96

The official solution multiplies the two numbers and then adds the first number to that product. Written out, each line becomes a + (a × b):

1 + (1 × 4) = 1 + 4 = 5
2 + (2 × 5) = 2 + 10 = 12
3 + (3 × 6) = 3 + 18 = 21
8 + (8 × 11) = 8 + 88 = 96

There is a tidier way to say the same thing: the result is a × (b + 1). So 1 × 5 = 5, 2 × 6 = 12, 3 × 7 = 21 and 8 × 12 = 96. Spotting that the two forms are identical is a nice bonus, and it shows why this rule feels natural to people who think algebraically.

The strongest argument for 96 is that this rule treats every line on its own. You can apply it to any pair of numbers, in any order, without knowing what came before. That independence is usually what puzzle setters intend.

How so many people get 40

The other popular approach reads the lines as a chain. Each line adds its two numbers and then adds the answer from the line above:

1 + 4 = 5
2 + 5, plus the previous 5, = 12
3 + 6, plus the previous 12, = 21
8 + 11, plus the previous 21, = 40

This rule matches every given line exactly, so it cannot be called wrong on the evidence shown. People who find it are usually spotting that the results grow in a way that suggests a running total, a pattern that comes up often in sequence puzzles.

The best argument against 40 is the jump in the last line. The first three lines move neatly from 1 + 4 to 2 + 5 to 3 + 6, so a running total would naturally continue with 4 + 7. Jumping to 8 + 11 skips four lines, and it is unclear why a chain would carry over from line three. That is why many puzzle fans argue that the jump is a hint: the rule must work on each line independently, which points to 96.

Why both answers can be defended

Here is the mathematical heart of the matter. Three examples can never pin down a unique rule. For any finite list of input-output pairs, there are infinitely many formulas that fit them all and then disagree about the next case. A puzzle like this one is therefore not a calculation with one correct answer but a test of which rule seems simplest or most natural to the reader.

Mathematicians have a name for the trap. The British number theorist Richard K. Guy called it the "strong law of small numbers" in a 1988 paper in The American Mathematical Monthly, summing it up with the observation that "there aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." His point was that early terms of a pattern often coincide with several different rules, so short sequences mislead us.

A classic example is cutting a circle with straight lines between points on its edge. With 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 points, the maximum number of regions is 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16, which looks like doubling. With six points you get 31, not 32. The doubling pattern was never the real rule; it only matched for a while.

What the puzzle teaches about problem solving

The real lesson is less about the number and more about how we argue. Here are a few habits worth taking away:

State your rule. Saying "the answer is 96" is less helpful than saying "each line is a × (b + 1)". A clearly stated rule can be checked; a bare number cannot.
Test it on every line. A rule that works for two of three examples is not a solution.
Look for the simplest rule that fits. This preference, a version of Occam's razor, is what puzzle setters usually rely on, but it is a convention rather than a law of logic.
Accept that more than one answer can be valid. When a problem is underdetermined, the honest response is to give your answer and the reasoning behind it, and to recognise other well-reasoned answers.

These habits apply far beyond brain teasers. Scientists face the same problem whenever a handful of data points could fit several theories, and the cure is the same: more data, clearer assumptions and a willingness to test ideas rather than defend them.

So, 96 or 40?

If you want the answer that matches the puzzle's publisher and treats every line independently, it is 96. If you read the lines as a running chain, 40 is a consistent answer, though it struggles to explain the jump to 8 + 11. Either way, the way you got there matters more than the number, and that is exactly why the puzzle kept people arguing for weeks.

Sources: Brain Dare on Facebook (original puzzle post); Wikipedia: Strong law of small numbers; Wikipedia: Dividing a circle into areas.

Related: