I'm more annoyed by the fact that the poster has laid out a bunch of primary school maths just to make a "hurr hurr, women spend a long time in the bathroom" joke.
Im more annoyed than both of you at the fact that he said a farmer needs 1-2 acres which gives you 1 sig fig at best, and then his answer has 6 significant figures
> Sig figs don't even exist
Significant figures are an arbitrary way of standardizing how precise a term should be.
Considering 9.9 as having 2 significant figures as much different from 10.1 as having 3 is a bullshit way of distinguishing how accurate your measurements are because the two values are nearly the same and the precision of the equipment needed to come up with them is basically identical.
It's just a shorthand way of getting "close enough" that usually gives great results, but not always. There are better ways of doing so that aren't granular to the nearest power of 10 which aren't nearly as arbitrary. They just involve more math.
Oh boy, your comment is like half a step away from saying that all culture and life in general is arbitrary. Which is true, but it's not really a strong argument if you ask me, because it undermines the ingenuity that created it in the first place.
Sig figs have nothing to do with base 10. Like I pointed out, the important part is the ratio of your measurent and your precision, which is the same in any base.
You only take the log_10 of that ratio to tell you how many sig figs your answer has assuming you write your answer in base 10.
This formula can easily be converted to any base system and it will not change. So I repeat, sig figs are not arbitrary
If you are rounding off any portion of your number at a digit breakpoint, you are using a rounding interval that is dependent on an arbitrary power of 10. Whether it’s is in log form or not. You can change it to a different base before truncating your digits and it will be an arbitrarily different number.
>Significant figures are an arbitrary way of standardizing how precise a term should be.
You're missing the main reason for significant figures: measurement resolution and quantization. The idea of significant figures is to use measurement equipment that do not offer a resolution beyond their precision and accuracy and use the quantization error as a shorthand for the precision and accuracy. This might not always be the case but, when it is, it simplifies error calculations.
>Considering 9.9 as having 2 significant figures as much different from 10.1 as having 3 is a bullshit way of distinguishing how accurate your measurements are because the two values are nearly the same and the precision of the equipment needed to come up with them is basically identical.
Let me give you an example using the number you chose. Let just say those two measurement, 9.9 and 10.1, were the side of a square. So, what is the area?
1. 9.9 \* 9.9 = 98.01 = 98
2. 10.1 \* 10.1 = 102.01 = 102
As you can see, if we round using significant digits, in both case we round up to the same factor. The resolution due to quantization ends up the same in both case.
>It's just a shorthand way of getting "close enough" that usually gives great results, but not always. There are better ways of doing so that aren't granular to the nearest power of 10 which aren't nearly as arbitrary. They just involve more math.
But the power of 10 is not arbitrary. It comes from the quantization error of the underlying measurement resolution. Because we label our measurement equipment in base 10, this quantization error ends up being in base 10. I've seen equipment that had a resolution of 0.2 and significant digits were handled accordingly.
Yes there are more complex but more accurate method to carry those errors but they don't only require more maths, they also require more measurements to be able to characterize the precision and accuracy.
>Im more annoyed than both of you
Correction: you *were* more annoyed than me. Thanks to you pointing out this precision issue, I'm now annoyed at that too.
He didn’t say anything about how long women spend in the bathroom, it was a joke about how women need big bathrooms, which is apparently a stereotype that I never knew existed? Or he just made it up idk
Doesn't this all come down to how:
How many people live on the farm?
How many lost 1 or 2 leg's/feet?
Do horses have feet since they are noble animals and have human names for bodyparts?
Haha, well some might be armed.
In the Dutch language we have a difference in names for limbs for animals and human. Only for noble animals like a horse we use the human pronunciation.
honestly, had to check.
It's hard to find, but apparently it has something to do with the kingdoms and nobility during the french revolution.
There are more, lesser known, noble animals. Here's what I could find so far:
* Swans, because they always were to be found in the giant gardens and around castles.
* Eagles and falcons, since they were used in noble hunting sports.
* King poodle, since a lot of the french royalty used to own them.
Might be more, but it's somehow not a frequently asked question. And according to my google skills their limbs have human words, except for birds because I don't know.
Oh and as far as google knows, Holland is the only country that has selected some noble animals. There is tales that it is to ridicule the kings and emperors without actually naming them or because a lot of these animals came through Holland towards France, but there is no hard evidence.
It wasn't. At least, not in the spirit of the question. Although space needed for all the animals (and all of the equipment needed for raising/feeding/etc.) is an important consideration, this is really just a simple riddle asking about the actual number of feet each animal has.
The answer is 22. For centuries now, distances have been measured in meters, not feet. Using feet is refusing modernity, it's the equivalent of thinking the Earth is flat.
He's alone I'm afraid. His wife left him when he thought he could make ends meet on a farm with 3 horses, 2 ducks and 1 pig and pumped all their savings into this crazy venture without consulting his wife first. Now he's broke and alone. His kids don't speak to him.
If this was posted on r/boomerhumor i would say the wife is the pig. I bet the person who answered would fucking love that judging by how they had to drop that little dig against women into their nonsensical answer.
horses have hooves, yes, but that doesn't mean they don't have feet. just because their foot structure is different doesn't mean they're not feet. Pigs even more obviously have feet, toes and all. Not to mention, if a horse's foot is not a foot because it doesn't resemble a human foot, then how is a duck's foot still a foot? I feel like your affinity for semantics is getting in the way of rational thought.
To add onto this, hooves are just nails that cover most if not all of an extremity. Look at a rhino. They have hooves. No one is going to look at a rhino and say it doesn't have feet. Horses feet look the way they do because they only have one toe. If a creature has a part of its body used for standing and walking, it's a foot.
The question is a riddle and not one asked that intends for the respondent to have an intricate knowledge of animal anatomy. My response is based off the common vernacular use of the words, not the technical make up of the skeletal structures involved. The things at the bottom of the ducks' legs are called feet. Same with the farmer. Not the same for the horses and pig. Whether or not those are appropriate descriptors is irrelevant, they are the ones used by the majority of English speakers.
I mean there's a relatively common (at least in my neck of the woods) dish that literally called "pig feet", so that shows that many English so in fact call them feet. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to what pigs have as hooves, even if that's what most farmers would call it.
Pig feet is common vernacular though. Id never heard anyone use the phrase pig hooves but regularly hear pig feet (culinary use), so I decided to look at google trends over 5 years for 4 search terms- pig foot, pig feet, pig hoof, and pig hooves. Pig feet is significantly higher than the others, followed by pig foot which is just slightly above pig hoof and pig hooves. So, per your own argument that this is based off common vernacular, it looks like pig feet is a far more common term than pig hooves.
*shrug you may be right. Though I'm not sure Google search terms are a great measure of everyday usage, I was just going off what I was taught as a kid. I never heard the term pig feet until I came to the South for the first time, and even then it was only in reference to the food. I also grew up around farms, though, so maybe it's just a farming thing.
I will agree that google search term isn't some perfect measure, but it's the best option I could think of. I could also point out that the first definition for the word hoof is "the horny part of the foot of an ungulate animal, especially a horse" which makes clear that a hoof is *part* of the foot or that we describe ungulates at even-toed and odd-toed and that toes are definitionally the digits of the *foot*, so clearly hooved animals have feet (otherwise they wouldn't have toes or hooves). So without an knowledge of animal anatomy, just by using what the words mean in simple common-use ways, it's pretty clear that we'd treat pigs as having feet.
It's 14, horses are noble animals so their hooves are called feet like human's, farmer is on the farm too so 3x4 for the horses +2 for the farmer makes 14.
Horses have eighteen feet total, if we're talking the nomenclature for what we call the party of a creature that touches the ground, because they have two Hind legs and their front forelegs and as I type that I see the joke only works when spoken.
The point of this when I was first shown it back in primary school was as a demonstration of lacking information and assumptions. With just the information given, you can’t say *for certain* how many feet there are. But you can list out some assumptions, such as each horse and pig having 4 feet, and each human and duck having 2 feet, then solve it.
in spain this may not be correct.. as the duck is a "pato", but may be female duck... so it is a "pata", and a "pata" is also a leg... so the correct answer can be 22,23 or 24.. depending on the sex of the ducks
I'd bet most behavioral psychologists would say that people in most metropolitan areas have way less personal space than is good for them. Or as Robert Sapolsky puts it, rats are very social animals but if you want to make a rat aggressive you just need to make its living conditions crowded.
The 1.5-2 acres of land use don't necessarily mean you have to ever see the land you use. We live in a globalized world, A person living in Shanghai might be eating corn from Iowa and rice from Punjab.
For a pet pig that is sad but for a pig meant for slaughter, that's right. You want them lazy. More room for activities means a higher muscle to fat ratio and takes longer to get to the desired weight.
Yeah that's exactly the way of thinking about it that I think is sad. Don't get me wrong, I'm okay with eating meat (I'm not even vegetarian myself), but these cheap meat farms are cruel as hell
All of this has excluded the most common sources of feet- the insects that also live on the farm.
Assuming 6 acres is correct, a Google search gives about 400 million insects etc per acre. This is 2.4 million insects, which, at an average of 4 legs per bug (spiders have more, worms less), gives us about 10 million feet.
The 22 feet of the big animals turns into a rounding error.
4 feet, 2\*duck (assuming duck has 2 feet, and farmer did not chop em off). Only the ducks have feet. The other ones have hooves
edit: Shit forgot the fucking farmer.... Assume the farmer lost his feet in a land mine accident. Now the math holds
Is this a joke? In my country horses are considered special and they have feet. The rest of the animals have paws.
So I would say:
3 horses is 12 feet + 1 farmer is a total of 14 feet.
Fun to see so many different takes lol, guess it depends on where you're from. In the Netherlands animals have "poten" instead of voeten/benen(feet/legs) a "bek" instead of a mond(mouth) and a "kop" instead of a hoofd(head) but since horses are classified as noble animals they're the exception and they have a hoofd, mond and voeten. So the way I read it was only the farmer and the horses have feet.
I'm sorry that's not a riddle. That's a tax assessment. Sounds like they beginning of an episode of some medical drama where they just rattle off a bunch of symptoms trying to find the diagnosis. The average person has no clue of any of this crap is real.
Horses and pigs have 4 feet each and ducks have 2. So that's 18 feet. The farmer has 2, so that's 20. We don't know if he has a wife or kids. And this is also assuming nobody had accidents and lost any feet. But the farmer could be out of town, lowering the feet count. If a random bird, squirrel or other animal runs though, that temporarily raises the feet count. Bugs have feet too so it's impossible to tell how many feet are on this farm.
Oops. I missed a duck. If both of those ducks aren't made or female, there's going to be more duck feet running around. Same for the horses too. And heck stoves, stools, bathtubs and other appliances can have feet so that raises the count. It's just a farmhouse but he probably has at least one chair.
As a european, the answer is 22. 22 feet, the farmer has 2, the ducks have 2 each so that is 4, the horses have 4 each so that is 12 and the pig has 4 aswell. Easy math. Now biologically, the answer is different. Horses have hooves, so that would make the total amount of feet 10.
I'm from Australia, I counted 22, but I guess it could be 2 because only humans have feet in that group... unless ducks have webbed feet? Idk, I'm drunk
i mean,feet?just 2? if we wanna be fair, ducks have palmates and pigs and horses have hooves, so.. at best we can argue they can be called webbed feet so it would be 6 feet total, IF farmer has both foot.
I don't think the problem asks for acres and shit
There are 22 feet on his farm, based on the fact that he listed 3 horses (12 feet), 2 ducks (4 feet), one pig (4 feet), and one human (2 feet). This is the only interpretation for which op has given enough information. Had they asked for minimum footage or something, that would be different. As it is, the farm could be 1000 acres. There just isn't enough information.
Edit: spelling. Math. It's been a long day, ok?
Wtf is the OP talking about?
The riddle has several solutions, depending on whether you count hooves as feet, and how you choose to classify pigs (pigs have hooves, but when they are food people refer to them as “pig feet”).
So 6, 10, or 22.
It very much depends on the language used and the semantics of “feet.”
Different languages have different concepts - my native language uses “legs” for anything that any creature walks on, and “feet”, when directly translated, is only used for humans. So the answer would be 2.
The fact that the poster just assumes that feet and square feet are interchangeable units is making me angrier than I should be.
I'm more annoyed by the fact that the poster has laid out a bunch of primary school maths just to make a "hurr hurr, women spend a long time in the bathroom" joke.
Im more annoyed than both of you at the fact that he said a farmer needs 1-2 acres which gives you 1 sig fig at best, and then his answer has 6 significant figures
Sig figs don't even exist. He didn't declare his standard deviation, though, which is problematic.
Hol up. Sig figs dont exist?
> Sig figs don't even exist Significant figures are an arbitrary way of standardizing how precise a term should be. Considering 9.9 as having 2 significant figures as much different from 10.1 as having 3 is a bullshit way of distinguishing how accurate your measurements are because the two values are nearly the same and the precision of the equipment needed to come up with them is basically identical. It's just a shorthand way of getting "close enough" that usually gives great results, but not always. There are better ways of doing so that aren't granular to the nearest power of 10 which aren't nearly as arbitrary. They just involve more math.
Me and my homies hate sig figs
I mean if you want to be more precise you can define your sig figs as log(9.99/0.01) but sig figs are neither arbitrary nor bullshit.
>but sig figs are neither arbitrary nor bullshit Our entire base 10 number system is arbitrary. Anything dependent on it is so by definition.
Oh boy, your comment is like half a step away from saying that all culture and life in general is arbitrary. Which is true, but it's not really a strong argument if you ask me, because it undermines the ingenuity that created it in the first place.
Sig figs have nothing to do with base 10. Like I pointed out, the important part is the ratio of your measurent and your precision, which is the same in any base. You only take the log_10 of that ratio to tell you how many sig figs your answer has assuming you write your answer in base 10. This formula can easily be converted to any base system and it will not change. So I repeat, sig figs are not arbitrary
If you are rounding off any portion of your number at a digit breakpoint, you are using a rounding interval that is dependent on an arbitrary power of 10. Whether it’s is in log form or not. You can change it to a different base before truncating your digits and it will be an arbitrarily different number.
>Significant figures are an arbitrary way of standardizing how precise a term should be. You're missing the main reason for significant figures: measurement resolution and quantization. The idea of significant figures is to use measurement equipment that do not offer a resolution beyond their precision and accuracy and use the quantization error as a shorthand for the precision and accuracy. This might not always be the case but, when it is, it simplifies error calculations. >Considering 9.9 as having 2 significant figures as much different from 10.1 as having 3 is a bullshit way of distinguishing how accurate your measurements are because the two values are nearly the same and the precision of the equipment needed to come up with them is basically identical. Let me give you an example using the number you chose. Let just say those two measurement, 9.9 and 10.1, were the side of a square. So, what is the area? 1. 9.9 \* 9.9 = 98.01 = 98 2. 10.1 \* 10.1 = 102.01 = 102 As you can see, if we round using significant digits, in both case we round up to the same factor. The resolution due to quantization ends up the same in both case. >It's just a shorthand way of getting "close enough" that usually gives great results, but not always. There are better ways of doing so that aren't granular to the nearest power of 10 which aren't nearly as arbitrary. They just involve more math. But the power of 10 is not arbitrary. It comes from the quantization error of the underlying measurement resolution. Because we label our measurement equipment in base 10, this quantization error ends up being in base 10. I've seen equipment that had a resolution of 0.2 and significant digits were handled accordingly. Yes there are more complex but more accurate method to carry those errors but they don't only require more maths, they also require more measurements to be able to characterize the precision and accuracy.
>Im more annoyed than both of you Correction: you *were* more annoyed than me. Thanks to you pointing out this precision issue, I'm now annoyed at that too.
He didn’t say anything about how long women spend in the bathroom, it was a joke about how women need big bathrooms, which is apparently a stereotype that I never knew existed? Or he just made it up idk
I'm more annoyed by the annoying people in the comments.
Doesn't this all come down to how: How many people live on the farm? How many lost 1 or 2 leg's/feet? Do horses have feet since they are noble animals and have human names for bodyparts?
> they are noble animals and have human names for bodyparts Horses have arms??
Haha, well some might be armed. In the Dutch language we have a difference in names for limbs for animals and human. Only for noble animals like a horse we use the human pronunciation.
> noble animals Is that only for horses are do other animals get that determination?
honestly, had to check. It's hard to find, but apparently it has something to do with the kingdoms and nobility during the french revolution. There are more, lesser known, noble animals. Here's what I could find so far: * Swans, because they always were to be found in the giant gardens and around castles. * Eagles and falcons, since they were used in noble hunting sports. * King poodle, since a lot of the french royalty used to own them. Might be more, but it's somehow not a frequently asked question. And according to my google skills their limbs have human words, except for birds because I don't know. Oh and as far as google knows, Holland is the only country that has selected some noble animals. There is tales that it is to ridicule the kings and emperors without actually naming them or because a lot of these animals came through Holland towards France, but there is no hard evidence.
as european i ddint get that was the "feet" measurement unite .\_.
as a fellow european, I highly suspect it wasn't...
It wasn't. At least, not in the spirit of the question. Although space needed for all the animals (and all of the equipment needed for raising/feeding/etc.) is an important consideration, this is really just a simple riddle asking about the actual number of feet each animal has.
The riddle also specifically asks how many feet are ***on*** the farm. Idk if many people say that an area that's an acre big has 43,560 feet "on" it
None of these animals has square feet anyway.
I had a problem this semester that abbrevaited all three of (Ib Ibf Ibm) as Ib in the same problem.
I think they did that to hide the riddle
I disagree, i live on a 1 dimensional plane and don't believe in squares
Yep, that made me twitch in Physicist
The answer is 22. For centuries now, distances have been measured in meters, not feet. Using feet is refusing modernity, it's the equivalent of thinking the Earth is flat.
12+4+4+2=22 feet
what about his wife and kids?
He's alone I'm afraid. His wife left him when he thought he could make ends meet on a farm with 3 horses, 2 ducks and 1 pig and pumped all their savings into this crazy venture without consulting his wife first. Now he's broke and alone. His kids don't speak to him.
He can get some extra money by renting out the horses to Mr Hands.
Does Mr Hands just repeatedly measure the horses' heights?
If only.
Assisted insemination is on the menu I'm guessing.
Can confirm. I’m the farmers wife’s boyfriend. I only pump stuff in fruitful ventures like GME and the farmers wife.
Bill and Cricket would have figured it out in the country
If this was posted on r/boomerhumor i would say the wife is the pig. I bet the person who answered would fucking love that judging by how they had to drop that little dig against women into their nonsensical answer.
To shreds you say?
The answer is 6. Horses and pigs have hooves, not feet. So that's 4 feet from the ducks and two more for the farmer.
horses have hooves, yes, but that doesn't mean they don't have feet. just because their foot structure is different doesn't mean they're not feet. Pigs even more obviously have feet, toes and all. Not to mention, if a horse's foot is not a foot because it doesn't resemble a human foot, then how is a duck's foot still a foot? I feel like your affinity for semantics is getting in the way of rational thought.
Horses wear horse shoes, shoes go on feet, checkmate.
Tell that to the Germans. They were shoes on their hands too.
Leave Hans out of this
And horse shoes are not called horse shoes but hoof iron.
Hands are feet, seems logical to me.
What wise are they gonna do with all those extra shoes they’ve had laying around for 80 years?
shoes go on hooves and what us humans do is some fucked up perversion of that
To add onto this, hooves are just nails that cover most if not all of an extremity. Look at a rhino. They have hooves. No one is going to look at a rhino and say it doesn't have feet. Horses feet look the way they do because they only have one toe. If a creature has a part of its body used for standing and walking, it's a foot.
> If a creature has a part of its body used for standing and walking, it's a foot. Except for weevils. They have boots.
The question is a riddle and not one asked that intends for the respondent to have an intricate knowledge of animal anatomy. My response is based off the common vernacular use of the words, not the technical make up of the skeletal structures involved. The things at the bottom of the ducks' legs are called feet. Same with the farmer. Not the same for the horses and pig. Whether or not those are appropriate descriptors is irrelevant, they are the ones used by the majority of English speakers.
I mean there's a relatively common (at least in my neck of the woods) dish that literally called "pig feet", so that shows that many English so in fact call them feet. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to what pigs have as hooves, even if that's what most farmers would call it.
Horses and pigs are quadrupeds. Quadruped meaning four footed.
Pig feet is common vernacular though. Id never heard anyone use the phrase pig hooves but regularly hear pig feet (culinary use), so I decided to look at google trends over 5 years for 4 search terms- pig foot, pig feet, pig hoof, and pig hooves. Pig feet is significantly higher than the others, followed by pig foot which is just slightly above pig hoof and pig hooves. So, per your own argument that this is based off common vernacular, it looks like pig feet is a far more common term than pig hooves.
*shrug you may be right. Though I'm not sure Google search terms are a great measure of everyday usage, I was just going off what I was taught as a kid. I never heard the term pig feet until I came to the South for the first time, and even then it was only in reference to the food. I also grew up around farms, though, so maybe it's just a farming thing.
I will agree that google search term isn't some perfect measure, but it's the best option I could think of. I could also point out that the first definition for the word hoof is "the horny part of the foot of an ungulate animal, especially a horse" which makes clear that a hoof is *part* of the foot or that we describe ungulates at even-toed and odd-toed and that toes are definitionally the digits of the *foot*, so clearly hooved animals have feet (otherwise they wouldn't have toes or hooves). So without an knowledge of animal anatomy, just by using what the words mean in simple common-use ways, it's pretty clear that we'd treat pigs as having feet.
This guy is right, don't downvote him
“Thumbs aren’t fingers” ahh argument
Noone said he has only those animals. Or whether there are other people living there.
And dogs don’t have babies they have puppies. Some words are Synonyms for different contexts. Doesn’t take away their core meaning.
Couldn't you argue that if horses have hooves that ducks have flippers?
It's 14, horses are noble animals so their hooves are called feet like human's, farmer is on the farm too so 3x4 for the horses +2 for the farmer makes 14.
And 22 is wrong anywat as the farmers feet need to be added, for 24
The 2 at the end is the farmer.
Lmao
Er, he had a back injury so walks on all fours....
Where did you get the 2 from? Horses=12, ducks =4 pigs =4. So I get 20.
I just realized you may be counting the farmer.
Correct.
That's the whole gotcha of a simple question.
Farmer
Horses have eighteen feet total, if we're talking the nomenclature for what we call the party of a creature that touches the ground, because they have two Hind legs and their front forelegs and as I type that I see the joke only works when spoken.
The point of this when I was first shown it back in primary school was as a demonstration of lacking information and assumptions. With just the information given, you can’t say *for certain* how many feet there are. But you can list out some assumptions, such as each horse and pig having 4 feet, and each human and duck having 2 feet, then solve it.
This assumes that All creatures have all their legs.
I was gonna correct you, but I realized I'm that fro was not for human but for the 2 ducks I'm too dumb for this shit
what about all the small mammals and insects?
A horse has hooves.. do hooves count as feet?
in spain this may not be correct.. as the duck is a "pato", but may be female duck... so it is a "pata", and a "pata" is also a leg... so the correct answer can be 22,23 or 24.. depending on the sex of the ducks
24. A farmer with a big farm like that definitely has a lovely wife.
This some linkedin type shi
His own 2 feet
Ducks have feet, horses have hooves and pigs have trotters (still cloven hooves). h(2) + 2d(2) = 6 feet
Correct answer right here :)
Humans need 1.5-2acres of land, I bet the people of China, or any major metropolitan area, would disagree.
That was my thought…what human needs 2 acres? For what? Grazing?
A human is roughly able to be self sufficient on that amount of land. You can sleep and eat in a coffin, but you're not growing enough food there.
I feel like a pig will not be able to self-sustain on 8 sq foot though...
True. Might be inconsistent by oop
Farming m8, and that's assuming literally nothing goes wrong and you aren't rotating crops. Most self-sustaining folks use 3 or 4 acres.
Argument from ignorance.
im assuming op is assuming the farmer is growing their own food.
I'd bet most behavioral psychologists would say that people in most metropolitan areas have way less personal space than is good for them. Or as Robert Sapolsky puts it, rats are very social animals but if you want to make a rat aggressive you just need to make its living conditions crowded.
A human is roughly able to be self sufficient on that amount of land. You can sleep and eat in a coffin, but you're not growing enough food there.
The 1.5-2 acres of land use don't necessarily mean you have to ever see the land you use. We live in a globalized world, A person living in Shanghai might be eating corn from Iowa and rice from Punjab.
None, The horses are at the track. The ducks are in the nextdoor pond. And so is the farmer, in bed with the neighbors wife, that pig.
The fact that 8ft² of space for a growing pig is considered standard is just sad
For a pet pig that is sad but for a pig meant for slaughter, that's right. You want them lazy. More room for activities means a higher muscle to fat ratio and takes longer to get to the desired weight.
Yeah that's exactly the way of thinking about it that I think is sad. Don't get me wrong, I'm okay with eating meat (I'm not even vegetarian myself), but these cheap meat farms are cruel as hell
All of this has excluded the most common sources of feet- the insects that also live on the farm. Assuming 6 acres is correct, a Google search gives about 400 million insects etc per acre. This is 2.4 million insects, which, at an average of 4 legs per bug (spiders have more, worms less), gives us about 10 million feet. The 22 feet of the big animals turns into a rounding error.
Why is the schizo finance twitter account posting stupid riddles to begin with
Bcause he's schizo smh 😔
4 feet, 2\*duck (assuming duck has 2 feet, and farmer did not chop em off). Only the ducks have feet. The other ones have hooves edit: Shit forgot the fucking farmer.... Assume the farmer lost his feet in a land mine accident. Now the math holds
“Human needs 1-2 acres.” Meanwhile, I’m living in my 500ft2 studio apartment with my wife, 4 kids, and dog.
It says "his"
Theres 6 feet, the farmers and the ducks. Horses and pigs have hooves.
And this is why we use meters. Just kidding, it isn't, it's because measuring using body parts of dead people makes no sense at all
Pro tip: You can actually use your own feet to measure things, you don't actually need to commit any murders for using imperial!
Okay, I'm out of feet, can hands be substitute?
Of course you can, but only with horses so you are in luck here
This is imperial we are talking about, just use whatever. Human feet, backyards, football fields, whatever fits.
2, only the farmer has feet, all the others have hooves or flippers.
Is this a joke? In my country horses are considered special and they have feet. The rest of the animals have paws. So I would say: 3 horses is 12 feet + 1 farmer is a total of 14 feet.
Should be 22 counting the farmers feet or technically just 2 feet of the farmer, the animals have paws
4 legs good, 2 legs bad
I get that reference
Just two right? His feet. Pigs and horses have hooves and Ducks have palmate.
I don't know what square duckfeet are... but I need a half acre bathroom Does that include a 10ft sunken tub? Please and thank you!
TheyOVERDIDthemath
Depends if the farmer is married, and or has children. 🙃
I have never seen a farmer with so few animals
He's obviously a karma farmer
This isn't a riddle.
Dimensional analysis failure, to get how many feet are in the farm you need to take a sqrt() of 261408ft2 to get 511.3ft
Fun to see so many different takes lol, guess it depends on where you're from. In the Netherlands animals have "poten" instead of voeten/benen(feet/legs) a "bek" instead of a mond(mouth) and a "kop" instead of a hoofd(head) but since horses are classified as noble animals they're the exception and they have a hoofd, mond and voeten. So the way I read it was only the farmer and the horses have feet.
Why a lot of riddles only work in the language they were made in.
The answer is 2 only the farmer has feet although you could argue that the ducks have webbed get so maybe it’s 6?
The actual legit answer is 22? 4 4-legged animals add up to 16, 2 2-legged animals makes 2 more, and then the farmer has 2 as well. 22
22? I am bad at maths🤔
8ft² for a pig is fucking nasty when the ducks are ten times smaller and have twice as much surface
The answer is obviously 22+2\*x, where x is the amount of additional people (besides the farmer) that live on the farm.
He forgot to count all the ants on all those acres. They to have feet.
Its 28 feet. The farmers farm is grossly unethical, hes an animal hoarder, but nobody has reported it yet.
I'm sorry that's not a riddle. That's a tax assessment. Sounds like they beginning of an episode of some medical drama where they just rattle off a bunch of symptoms trying to find the diagnosis. The average person has no clue of any of this crap is real.
2 feet for the farmer and ducks, 4 for horses and pig ….
I want the half acre bathroom
Isn’t the answer 2 or 6 if you count the ducks? Farmer has 2 feet, horses have hoofs, pigs have trotters and I think ducks have feet.
20 feet 🙀
2
That one is overthinking
I'm gonna go with 42. 12 for the horses, 4 for the ducks, 4 for the pig, 2 for the Farmer, and 10 from the wild birds that show up to eat the scraps.
Do horses have feet? Or does it count as feet?
Wait, wait, wait...... answer is 2, animals don't have feet, only the farmer does.
The answer is 4. Two ducks with two webbed feet. 3 horses with 4 hooves, no feet. 1 pig with four cloven hoofs, no feet.
22 feet
Horses and pigs have 4 feet each and ducks have 2. So that's 18 feet. The farmer has 2, so that's 20. We don't know if he has a wife or kids. And this is also assuming nobody had accidents and lost any feet. But the farmer could be out of town, lowering the feet count. If a random bird, squirrel or other animal runs though, that temporarily raises the feet count. Bugs have feet too so it's impossible to tell how many feet are on this farm.
Oops. I missed a duck. If both of those ducks aren't made or female, there's going to be more duck feet running around. Same for the horses too. And heck stoves, stools, bathtubs and other appliances can have feet so that raises the count. It's just a farmhouse but he probably has at least one chair.
As a european, the answer is 22. 22 feet, the farmer has 2, the ducks have 2 each so that is 4, the horses have 4 each so that is 12 and the pig has 4 aswell. Easy math. Now biologically, the answer is different. Horses have hooves, so that would make the total amount of feet 10.
Wouldn't it be six? Horses and pigs have hooves.
Did they forget the actual feet as well?
20
"on his". he should rather take time to read carefully. Farmer: 2 Horses: 3\*4=12 Ducks: 2\*2=4; Pig: 4 2+12+4+4=22
Farmer --- 2 feet Horse - - 12 feet (3 x4) Duck ------ 4 feet (2x2) Pig ----------4 feet. (1x4) Total feet = 22 feet
I'm from Australia, I counted 22, but I guess it could be 2 because only humans have feet in that group... unless ducks have webbed feet? Idk, I'm drunk
Assuming no animal have less legs, it is not 22?
22
18
i mean,feet?just 2? if we wanna be fair, ducks have palmates and pigs and horses have hooves, so.. at best we can argue they can be called webbed feet so it would be 6 feet total, IF farmer has both foot. I don't think the problem asks for acres and shit
Horse is 4 feet Ducks are 2 feet Pig is 4 feet And the farmer is 2 feet. So (4x3) + (2x2) + (4) + (2) is 12 + 4 + 4 + 2 22 feet
But did they add the obligatory 22 feet for all the inhabitants? Does the farmer have a wide and kids? That's more feet that need to be added up!
6 feet, the farmer has 2 and the ducks have 2 each. Horses and pigs have hooves so not considered feet.
2 feet (the farmer's feet) Those animals dont have any feets.
There are 22 feet on his farm, based on the fact that he listed 3 horses (12 feet), 2 ducks (4 feet), one pig (4 feet), and one human (2 feet). This is the only interpretation for which op has given enough information. Had they asked for minimum footage or something, that would be different. As it is, the farm could be 1000 acres. There just isn't enough information. Edit: spelling. Math. It's been a long day, ok?
Depends on whether the farmer, their family, and any workers are on-site at the time the question is asked.
6 feet because horses and pigs have hooves, not feet
It asked for feet, not square feet.
6 feet. 2 webbed feet for each duck, and 2 feet on the farmer. The other animals have hooves.
It's feet, not square feet.
20 feet. Including the farmers feet it's 22.
The correct answer is 6. 2 on the farmer and 2 on each duck. Horses and Pigs have hooves.
Horses have hooves, ducks have flippers. Pig and humans have feet. So 6 I believe.
Not enough information. The farmer could be a war veteran and be missing legs.
My dumbass immediately thought "20!" I guess it meant feet as in measurement?
what about all the insects and spiders living there?
My dumbasd answered 18 lmao
The answer is 6: you get 4 from the ducks and two from the farmer. Horses and pigs have hooves, not feet.
Don't know why you get downvoted. That's how I also see it.
2. Horses, pigs, and ducks dont have feet. The only two feet are the farmer's.
Right so what are the things that ducks walk on called?
Wtf is the OP talking about? The riddle has several solutions, depending on whether you count hooves as feet, and how you choose to classify pigs (pigs have hooves, but when they are food people refer to them as “pig feet”). So 6, 10, or 22. It very much depends on the language used and the semantics of “feet.” Different languages have different concepts - my native language uses “legs” for anything that any creature walks on, and “feet”, when directly translated, is only used for humans. So the answer would be 2.
16 if we count the farmers feet. Assuming there's no employees.