8 Responses to “The Missing Number”

1. 
   jason | Profile (beta) December 20th, 2007 - 9:14 am
   
   

   this is weird, because i came up with two variations, both resulting in the same outcome, of 14. I guess it is all relative though, since you would be subracting the numbers and multiplying by two. Add diagonally and subtract the two numbers, then multiply….

   
   
2. 
   notovitz | Profile (beta) December 20th, 2007 - 10:39 am
   
   

   The missing number is 14! It took me 2.5 minutes to find the pattern.

   
   
3. 
   suineg | Profile (beta) December 20th, 2007 - 11:35 am
   
   

   I think one answer can be this: 14

   sum the diagonals then substract the value then X 2

   Explanation:

   1) 15+7= 22; 6+12= 18 –>22-18= 4 X 2= 8
   2) 6+9= 15; 2+4= 6–> 15-6 = 9 X 2= 18
   so:
   3) 11+8= 19; 5+7= 12—> 19-12= 7 X 2= 14

   
   
4. 
   pieman | Profile (beta) December 20th, 2007 - 3:59 pm
   
   

   14

   
   
5. 
   Ryan | Profile (beta) December 21st, 2007 - 12:37 pm
   
   

   The missing number is 14.

   8 = 2*((15+7) - (6+12))
   18 = 2*((6+9) - (2+4))
   14 = 2*((11+8) - (5+7))

   
   
6. 
   Jantar | Profile (beta) December 22nd, 2007 - 6:15 am
   
   

   what about some criss-cross subtraction, addition and then doubling?
   [(15-12) + (7-6)]x2 = 8
   [(6-4) + (9-2)]x2=18
   [(11-7) + (8-5)]x2 =14
   So the answer might be 14. But somebody else might have found different patterns…

   
   
7. 
   RK | Profile (beta) December 24th, 2007 - 1:04 pm
   
   

   Sorry, we’re having trouble with the comment system; hopefully will have it fixed soon.

   
   
8. 
   RK | Profile (beta) December 27th, 2007 - 12:09 pm
   
   

   14 is correct

   
   

Leave a Reply

All comments are moderated and may not appear live immediately.

To comment log in or register for a free Smart-Kit account.