tamu33 wrote:Matt Holtz got it right... and he explained it the way it was supposed to be done.
(twins) (not twins - all factors of possibilities)
1 x 1 = 1 -- no factors
2 x 2 = 4 -- 4 x 1 -( correct answer )
3 x 3 = 9 -- 9x1 - (over 7, so no good)
4 x 4 = 16 -- 2 x 8; 1 x 16 (all over 7, so no good)
5 x 5 = 25 -- 25 x 1 (over 7, so no good)
6 x 6 = 36 -- 3 x 12, 9 x 4, 36 x 1, 2 x 18 (all over 7, so no good)
See, we can figure it out because the man was torn between twins and not twins. When the extra info came, we found out that they were not twins. So all we have to do is see what set of numbers are under 7 in their product and in their factors and also when they are twins.... We only have one set that follows those rules. and it is 4.... so the aswer is 4 and 1.
Maybe I am just having a brain cramp, but the original story didn't say their product had to be less than 7, right? So why not a 3-year-old and a 4-year-old with 12 birds in the tree.
And this may be nitpicking, but why can't they be the same age? You can have two three-year olds that aren't twins. If my brother was born 9 months before me, we'd both be 26 right now.