Yes Handyandy got the Answer to Riddle No.1 because when you subtract 25-5 you now have 5 therefore you are then subtracting 20-5 and i asked how many times can you subtract 25 from 5, not 20 from 5 so yes. Once is the correct answer to that riddle

Originally posted by wolfgang59 1. I can do it all day long

2. 2

3. 80 dollars (almost caught me!!)

ðŸ˜€

Wolfgang your answer for riddle no.1 is Wrong the answer was once
Now your answer to riddle number 2 is correct, just look at the question and it says you have 2 oranges and then asks the questions how many oranges DO you have. Its always fun to see bright chess players stumble at such simple riddles sometimes but your 3rd answer was wrong both of these 2 friends do start out with atleast $5 in there hand before they start the exchange so the only Riddle that hasnt been solved in Riddle no.3, Which i Highly doubt you will get, stumped me for the longest time.

Originally posted by c00ushion Riddle number 3: Sabrina gave Samantha as many dollars as Samantha started out with.

Samantha then gave Sabrina back as much as Sabrina had left.

Sabrina then gave Samantha as back as many dollars as Samantha had left, which left Sabrina broke and gave

Samantha a total of $80.00.

How much did Sabrina and Samantha have at the beginning of their exchange?

Sabrina began with $50, Samantha had $30. After the first exchange Sabrina had $20, Samantha had $60. After the second exchange, each had $40. After the final exchange Sabrina was broke and Samantha had $80.

Originally posted by c00ushion Yes Handyandy got the Answer to Riddle No.1 because when you subtract 25-5 you now have 5 therefore you are then subtracting 20-5 and i asked how many times can you subtract 25 from 5, not 20 from 5 so yes. Once is the correct answer to that riddle

There is nothing in Riddle 1 about keeping a running total. I agree with wolfgang's answer.

Originally posted by SwissGambit There is nothing in Riddle 1 about keeping a running total. I agree with wolfgang's answer.

I suppose either answer could be correct, depending on how you read the riddle. If you think of it as an abstract operation (let's say you get up in the morning, sit at the kitchen table with a scrap of paper and write "A-B=C" each day) you could go on doing that forever, restricted only by the limits of your lifetime. But let's imagine that you have 25 ice cubes in your refrigerator, and you remove five of them to add to your glass of iced tea.. you can only do that once (i.e., 25-5) since after removing five there are but 20 ice cubes left. This is a subtraction in the truest sense.

So how do you like your riddles.. real or abstract?

Originally posted by SwissGambit There is nothing in Riddle 1 about keeping a running total. I agree with wolfgang's answer.

Riddles are not ment to be Real if this was a real question we would be doing basic math, this is a riddle dont get to serious or defensive about the actual answer, all riddles have different possible answers that are actually correct, think of it as a 4 part answer one of them are completely wrong and the other three make sense both answers make sense but when it comes to the riddle the answer is once but either way is correct in a sense.

Originally posted by HandyAndy So how do you like your riddles.. real or abstract?

I\'ll try either kind...but Riddle #1 is clearly abstract. You\'re asked to subtract 5 somethings from the total of 25 somethings, without being told what the somethings are.

Originally posted by c00ushion Riddles are not ment to be Real if this was a real question we would be doing basic math, this is a riddle dont get to serious or defensive about the actual answer, all riddles have different possible answers that are actually correct, think of it as a 4 part answer one of them are completely wrong and the other three make sense both answers make sense but when it comes to the riddle the answer is once but either way is correct in a sense.

Isn\'t it better to have one clear answer to a riddle? What\'s the point of calling an answer \'wrong\' when it\'s perfectly plausible, given the vagueness of the stipulation?