The answer changes depending on your interpretation of the wording, which, I believe, has been made intentionally vague so as to “fool” people into giving the wrong answer.
If 7 men have seven wives
Does that mean that each man has seven wives, or that there are seven men and seven wives total, meaning the man-to-wife ratio is 1-to-1.
First let’s consider the possibility that each man has seven wives.
Number of men = [math]7[/math]
Number of wives = [math]7 \cdot 7 = 49[/math]
Number of children = [math]49 \cdot 7 = 343[/math]
Total number of people = [math]7 + 49 + 343 = 399[/math] people
Need a chart? Here you go.
If the man-to-wife ratio is 1-to-1, t
The answer changes depending on your interpretation of the wording, which, I believe, has been made intentionally vague so as to “fool” people into giving the wrong answer.
If 7 men have seven wives
Does that mean that each man has seven wives, or that there are seven men and seven wives total, meaning the man-to-wife ratio is 1-to-1.
First let’s consider the possibility that each man has seven wives.
Number of men = [math]7[/math]
Number of wives = [math]7 \cdot 7 = 49[/math]
Number of children = [math]49 \cdot 7 = 343[/math]
Total number of people = [math]7 + 49 + 343 = 399[/math] people
Need a chart? Here you go.
If the man-to-wife ratio is 1-to-1, then your breakdown looks like this:
Number of men = [math]7[/math]
Number of wives = [math]7[/math]
Number of children = [math]7 \cdot 7 = 49[/math]
Total number of people = [math]7 + 7 + 49 = 63[/math] people
The total number of people in the scenario where 7 men have 7 wives and each man and each wife have 7 children can be calculated as follows:
- Calculate the number of men and wives:
- There are 7 men and 7 wives, so the total number of men and wives is 7 + 7 = 14 [2]. - Calculate the number of children:
- Each man and each wife have 7 children, so the total number of children is 7 x 7 = 49 [2]. - Calculate the total number of people:
- Add the number of men and wives (14) to the number of children (49): 14 + 49 = 63 [2].
Therefore, the total number of people in this scenario is 63 [2].
Learn mor
The total number of people in the scenario where 7 men have 7 wives and each man and each wife have 7 children can be calculated as follows:
- Calculate the number of men and wives:
- There are 7 men and 7 wives, so the total number of men and wives is 7 + 7 = 14 [2]. - Calculate the number of children:
- Each man and each wife have 7 children, so the total number of children is 7 x 7 = 49 [2]. - Calculate the total number of people:
- Add the number of men and wives (14) to the number of children (49): 14 + 49 = 63 [2].
Therefore, the total number of people in this scenario is 63 [2].
Learn more:
1. 7 men have 7 wives and each wife has seven children ... - Quora
2. The '7 men have 7 wives' riddle explained: This one has multiple answers!
3. 7 Men Have 7 Wives Riddle Answer (SOLVED) - GadgetGrasp
Where do I start?
I’m a huge financial nerd, and have spent an embarrassing amount of time talking to people about their money habits.
Here are the biggest mistakes people are making and how to fix them:
Not having a separate high interest savings account
Having a separate account allows you to see the results of all your hard work and keep your money separate so you're less tempted to spend it.
Plus with rates above 5.00%, the interest you can earn compared to most banks really adds up.
Here is a list of the top savings accounts available today. Deposit $5 before moving on because this is one of th
Where do I start?
I’m a huge financial nerd, and have spent an embarrassing amount of time talking to people about their money habits.
Here are the biggest mistakes people are making and how to fix them:
Not having a separate high interest savings account
Having a separate account allows you to see the results of all your hard work and keep your money separate so you're less tempted to spend it.
Plus with rates above 5.00%, the interest you can earn compared to most banks really adds up.
Here is a list of the top savings accounts available today. Deposit $5 before moving on because this is one of the biggest mistakes and easiest ones to fix.
Overpaying on car insurance
You’ve heard it a million times before, but the average American family still overspends by $417/year on car insurance.
If you’ve been with the same insurer for years, chances are you are one of them.
Pull up Coverage.com, a free site that will compare prices for you, answer the questions on the page, and it will show you how much you could be saving.
That’s it. You’ll likely be saving a bunch of money. Here’s a link to give it a try.
Consistently being in debt
If you’ve got $10K+ in debt (credit cards…medical bills…anything really) you could use a debt relief program and potentially reduce by over 20%.
Here’s how to see if you qualify:
Head over to this Debt Relief comparison website here, then simply answer the questions to see if you qualify.
It’s as simple as that. You’ll likely end up paying less than you owed before and you could be debt free in as little as 2 years.
Missing out on free money to invest
It’s no secret that millionaires love investing, but for the rest of us, it can seem out of reach.
Times have changed. There are a number of investing platforms that will give you a bonus to open an account and get started. All you have to do is open the account and invest at least $25, and you could get up to $1000 in bonus.
Pretty sweet deal right? Here is a link to some of the best options.
Having bad credit
A low credit score can come back to bite you in so many ways in the future.
From that next rental application to getting approved for any type of loan or credit card, if you have a bad history with credit, the good news is you can fix it.
Head over to BankRate.com and answer a few questions to see if you qualify. It only takes a few minutes and could save you from a major upset down the line.
How to get started
Hope this helps! Here are the links to get started:
Have a separate savings account
Stop overpaying for car insurance
Finally get out of debt
Start investing with a free bonus
Fix your credit
The question is ambiguously worded. Possible answers based on clarifications are:
“7 men are married, so they have 7 wives between them. Each husband-wife pair has 7 children.” There are 7 husbands, 7 wives, and 49 children, for a total of 63 people.
“7 men are married, so they have 7 wives between them. Each husband and each wife has 7 children. The husbands’ children are all distinct from the wives’ children.” (For example, each person had 7 children from a previous marriage.) There are 7 husbands, 7 wives, and 98 children, for a total of 112 people.
If the last clause about the children all be
The question is ambiguously worded. Possible answers based on clarifications are:
“7 men are married, so they have 7 wives between them. Each husband-wife pair has 7 children.” There are 7 husbands, 7 wives, and 49 children, for a total of 63 people.
“7 men are married, so they have 7 wives between them. Each husband and each wife has 7 children. The husbands’ children are all distinct from the wives’ children.” (For example, each person had 7 children from a previous marriage.) There are 7 husbands, 7 wives, and 98 children, for a total of 112 people.
If the last clause about the children all being distinct is not stated, then the question is again ambiguous, because “each man has 7 children and each wife has 7 children” is a true statement for a set of 7 children who are the husband’s only and 7 children who are the wife’s only, or for 7 children who are both the husband’s and the wife’s, or anything in between. In this case, the answer could be anywhere between 63 and 112 people.
“Each of 7 men is married to 7 wives. Each husband-wife pair has 7 children.” There are 7 men, 49 wives, and 343 children, for a total of 399 people.
“Each of 7 men is married to 7 wives. Each husband and each wife has 7 children that are all distinct.” There are 7 men, 49 wives, and 392 children, for a total of 448 people.
Without the “distinct” clause, the polygamy scenario could have anywhere between 399 and 448 people.
~ Idea 1 ~
1 - There are 7 men and there are 7 wives. This means:
14 People = 7 Men + 7 Women
2 - Each wife has 7 children so this means
49 Children = 7 Mothers * 7 Children
3 - The total number of people is…
63 People = 14 Adults + 49 Children
63 People = 7 Men + 7 Women + 49 Children
4 - There’s 63 people…unless this isn’t a trick question
~ Idea 2 ~ (Most Likely)
1 - Children: 7 Men * 7 Wives * 7 Children = 343
2 - Wives: 7 Men * 7 Wives = 49
3 - Men: 7 Men = 7
4 - 343 Children + 49 Wives + 7 Men = 399 People
5 - There’s 399 people…this is more of a trick math question then…
Most people would do the third
~ Idea 1 ~
1 - There are 7 men and there are 7 wives. This means:
14 People = 7 Men + 7 Women
2 - Each wife has 7 children so this means
49 Children = 7 Mothers * 7 Children
3 - The total number of people is…
63 People = 14 Adults + 49 Children
63 People = 7 Men + 7 Women + 49 Children
4 - There’s 63 people…unless this isn’t a trick question
~ Idea 2 ~ (Most Likely)
1 - Children: 7 Men * 7 Wives * 7 Children = 343
2 - Wives: 7 Men * 7 Wives = 49
3 - Men: 7 Men = 7
4 - 343 Children + 49 Wives + 7 Men = 399 People
5 - There’s 399 people…this is more of a trick math question then…
Most people would do the third idea. which is wrong…look below
~ Idea 3 ~ (Wrong)
1 - Uh durrr this is obvious lol: Just do 7 * 7 * 7
2 - Lol It’s 343.
3 - lololol where’s the trick. I see nu trick
4 - [This person has fallen for the trick]
Since the wording of the question is so ambiguous the best thing to do is to restate it as to give just one answer. The version of the question I shall be using is:
There are seven families. Each family is comprised of a wife, a husband, and seven children. What’s the total number of people?
From this we can see that each family has 9 people so for 7 families that would be 63 people.
There are also versions where:
- each husband has 7 children, but not with his current wife, and each wife has 7 children, but not with her current husband.
- each man has 6 bigamous marriages (and one legal one)
- and a vers
Since the wording of the question is so ambiguous the best thing to do is to restate it as to give just one answer. The version of the question I shall be using is:
There are seven families. Each family is comprised of a wife, a husband, and seven children. What’s the total number of people?
From this we can see that each family has 9 people so for 7 families that would be 63 people.
There are also versions where:
- each husband has 7 children, but not with his current wife, and each wife has 7 children, but not with her current husband.
- each man has 6 bigamous marriages (and one legal one)
- and a version where (1) and (2) are combined.
Original question: In the Harvard University interview, 90% were eliminated. 7 men have 7 wives. Each man and each wife have 7 children. What’s the total number of people?
In the Harvard University interview, 90% were eliminated. 7 men have 7 wives. Each man and each wife have 7 children. What’s the total number of people?
This question is ambiguous in several ways, so an answer is not readily possible. Did the men have seven wives between them? or seven wives each? Does each adult have seven children independently of anybody else? Are the seven children shared between a man and one wife? If so, why bother counting the men at all when considering children?
This query might be based on a Cambridgeshire riddle:
As I was going to St Ives
I met a man with seven wives
Eve
In the Harvard University interview, 90% were eliminated. 7 men have 7 wives. Each man and each wife have 7 children. What’s the total number of people?
This question is ambiguous in several ways, so an answer is not readily possible. Did the men have seven wives between them? or seven wives each? Does each adult have seven children independently of anybody else? Are the seven children shared between a man and one wife? If so, why bother counting the men at all when considering children?
This query might be based on a Cambridgeshire riddle:
As I was going to St Ives
I met a man with seven wives
Every wife had seven cats
Every cat had seven kits
Kits, cats, man and wives…
How many were going to St Ives?
OK, there are 7 men, each with 7 wives. That means there are 49 wives, and 7 men, 56 adults in all
Each man and wife pair have 7 children. We can ignore the men for this, and just look at the wives: 49 wives, with 7 children each, that’s 343 children. That, then, means 343+56=399 total people.
Of course, that assumes that we’re looking at marriages where the men are each married to seven women, but not to any other men.
There is an alternate solution. What if there are 7 men, each married to the same 7 women. Now we have 14 adults, in one large poly marriage.
And they have 7 children in all: each
OK, there are 7 men, each with 7 wives. That means there are 49 wives, and 7 men, 56 adults in all
Each man and wife pair have 7 children. We can ignore the men for this, and just look at the wives: 49 wives, with 7 children each, that’s 343 children. That, then, means 343+56=399 total people.
Of course, that assumes that we’re looking at marriages where the men are each married to seven women, but not to any other men.
There is an alternate solution. What if there are 7 men, each married to the same 7 women. Now we have 14 adults, in one large poly marriage.
And they have 7 children in all: each man has fathered one child, each woman has borne one child.
That’s 21 people in all.
The problem, as presented, is poorly described, and while these two solutions work, there are probably others, mixing the two ideas.
The problem is certainly bad, though, as it says “what’s THE total number of people,” but does not give enough information to narrow down to a single solution.
Sorry, Harvard fails, I suppose I’ll apply to Yale.\
(edited to add an e. Where I added it is left as an exercise to the reader.)
I once met a man who drove a modest Toyota Corolla, wore beat-up sneakers, and looked like he’d lived the same way for decades. But what really caught my attention was when he casually mentioned he was retired at 45 with more money than he could ever spend. I couldn’t help but ask, “How did you do it?”
He smiled and said, “The secret to saving money is knowing where to look for the waste—and car insurance is one of the easiest places to start.”
He then walked me through a few strategies that I’d never thought of before. Here’s what I learned:
1. Make insurance companies fight for your business
Mos
I once met a man who drove a modest Toyota Corolla, wore beat-up sneakers, and looked like he’d lived the same way for decades. But what really caught my attention was when he casually mentioned he was retired at 45 with more money than he could ever spend. I couldn’t help but ask, “How did you do it?”
He smiled and said, “The secret to saving money is knowing where to look for the waste—and car insurance is one of the easiest places to start.”
He then walked me through a few strategies that I’d never thought of before. Here’s what I learned:
1. Make insurance companies fight for your business
Most people just stick with the same insurer year after year, but that’s what the companies are counting on. This guy used tools like Coverage.com to compare rates every time his policy came up for renewal. It only took him a few minutes, and he said he’d saved hundreds each year by letting insurers compete for his business.
Click here to try Coverage.com and see how much you could save today.
2. Take advantage of safe driver programs
He mentioned that some companies reward good drivers with significant discounts. By signing up for a program that tracked his driving habits for just a month, he qualified for a lower rate. “It’s like a test where you already know the answers,” he joked.
You can find a list of insurance companies offering safe driver discounts here and start saving on your next policy.
3. Bundle your policies
He bundled his auto insurance with his home insurance and saved big. “Most companies will give you a discount if you combine your policies with them. It’s easy money,” he explained. If you haven’t bundled yet, ask your insurer what discounts they offer—or look for new ones that do.
4. Drop coverage you don’t need
He also emphasized reassessing coverage every year. If your car isn’t worth much anymore, it might be time to drop collision or comprehensive coverage. “You shouldn’t be paying more to insure the car than it’s worth,” he said.
5. Look for hidden fees or overpriced add-ons
One of his final tips was to avoid extras like roadside assistance, which can often be purchased elsewhere for less. “It’s those little fees you don’t think about that add up,” he warned.
The Secret? Stop Overpaying
The real “secret” isn’t about cutting corners—it’s about being proactive. Car insurance companies are counting on you to stay complacent, but with tools like Coverage.com and a little effort, you can make sure you’re only paying for what you need—and saving hundreds in the process.
If you’re ready to start saving, take a moment to:
- Compare rates now on Coverage.com
- Check if you qualify for safe driver discounts
- Reevaluate your coverage today
Saving money on auto insurance doesn’t have to be complicated—you just have to know where to look. If you'd like to support my work, feel free to use the links in this post—they help me continue creating valuable content.
There’s not really enough information. Yes, yes, I know that *you* expect me to come up with 63 people, but that assumes that all seven couples are of the same generation.
(It also requires us to read your problem as “each of seven men has 1 wife, so there are 7 men and 7 total wives to begin with. But a straight reading of the problem initially looks like each of 7 men has 7 wives. That answer would be different and not what you probably intended. Writing problems is harder than it looks.)
Anyway, you could have as few as 57 people in total. Example:
Abraham and his wife have seven children: Ben
There’s not really enough information. Yes, yes, I know that *you* expect me to come up with 63 people, but that assumes that all seven couples are of the same generation.
(It also requires us to read your problem as “each of seven men has 1 wife, so there are 7 men and 7 total wives to begin with. But a straight reading of the problem initially looks like each of 7 men has 7 wives. That answer would be different and not what you probably intended. Writing problems is harder than it looks.)
Anyway, you could have as few as 57 people in total. Example:
Abraham and his wife have seven children: Benjamin and his six sisters.
Benjamin marries (from outside the family, dude, ewww), and he and his wife have seven children: Cain and his six sisters.
Cain marries (similarly) begetting David and his six sisters
David (etcetera) begets Ephraim and his six sisters
Ephraim begets Fyvush and his six sisters
Fyvush begets Gamaliel and his six sisters
Gamaliel and his bride have seven children, all girls.
SO…
You have7 men, 7 wives, and 43 unmarried female children. (Yes, some of those are spinsters or deceased by now. Life was hard back then.)
That’s 57 people total.
And if any of those male children are allowed to marry cousins, the total number can be trimmed a bit further.
Meanwhile, what on earth does Harvard have to do with any of this? Did Harvard eliminate ninety percent of the children? Even for the Ivy League, that seems harsh.
Akapale Vitus I think the intention here (and what makes the question “tricky”) is for the interviewee to recognize that the 7 children belonging to a man are the same 7 children that belong to his wife. So you don’t want to double count them. Instead, you have 7 couples (14 people), each having 7 children (per couple). That’s a total of 49 children. And 49+14 = 63 total people.
In the Harvard University interview, 90% were eliminated. 7 men have 7 wives. Each man and each wife have 7 children. What’s the total number of people?
Here’s the thing: I wish I had known these money secrets sooner. They’ve helped so many people save hundreds, secure their family’s future, and grow their bank accounts—myself included.
And honestly? Putting them to use was way easier than I expected. I bet you can knock out at least three or four of these right now—yes, even from your phone.
Don’t wait like I did. Go ahead and start using these money secrets today!
1. Cancel Your Car Insurance
You might not even realize it, but your car insurance company is probably overcharging you. In fact, they’re kind of counting on you not noticing. Luckily,
Here’s the thing: I wish I had known these money secrets sooner. They’ve helped so many people save hundreds, secure their family’s future, and grow their bank accounts—myself included.
And honestly? Putting them to use was way easier than I expected. I bet you can knock out at least three or four of these right now—yes, even from your phone.
Don’t wait like I did. Go ahead and start using these money secrets today!
1. Cancel Your Car Insurance
You might not even realize it, but your car insurance company is probably overcharging you. In fact, they’re kind of counting on you not noticing. Luckily, this problem is easy to fix.
Don’t waste your time browsing insurance sites for a better deal. A company called Insurify shows you all your options at once — people who do this save up to $996 per year.
If you tell them a bit about yourself and your vehicle, they’ll send you personalized quotes so you can compare them and find the best one for you.
Tired of overpaying for car insurance? It takes just five minutes to compare your options with Insurify and see how much you could save on car insurance.
2. You Can Become a Real Estate Investor for as Little as $10
Take a look at some of the world’s wealthiest people. What do they have in common? Many invest in large private real estate deals. And here’s the thing: There’s no reason you can’t, too — for as little as $10.
An investment called the Fundrise Flagship Fund lets you get started in the world of real estate by giving you access to a low-cost, diversified portfolio of private real estate. The best part? You don’t have to be the landlord. The Flagship Fund does all the heavy lifting.
With an initial investment as low as $10, your money will be invested in the Fund, which already owns more than $1 billion worth of real estate around the country, from apartment complexes to the thriving housing rental market to larger last-mile e-commerce logistics centers.
Want to invest more? Many investors choose to invest $1,000 or more. This is a Fund that can fit any type of investor’s needs. Once invested, you can track your performance from your phone and watch as properties are acquired, improved, and operated. As properties generate cash flow, you could earn money through quarterly dividend payments. And over time, you could earn money off the potential appreciation of the properties.
So if you want to get started in the world of real-estate investing, it takes just a few minutes to sign up and create an account with the Fundrise Flagship Fund.
This is a paid advertisement. Carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of the Fundrise Real Estate Fund before investing. This and other information can be found in the Fund’s prospectus. Read them carefully before investing.
3. Ask This Company to Get a Big Chunk of Your Debt Forgiven
A company called National Debt Relief could convince your lenders to simply get rid of a big chunk of what you owe. No bankruptcy, no loans — you don’t even need to have good credit.
If you owe at least $10,000 in unsecured debt (credit card debt, personal loans, medical bills, etc.), National Debt Relief’s experts will build you a monthly payment plan. As your payments add up, they negotiate with your creditors to reduce the amount you owe. You then pay off the rest in a lump sum.
On average, you could become debt-free within 24 to 48 months. It takes less than a minute to sign up and see how much debt you could get rid of.
4. Stop Paying Your Credit Card Company
If you have credit card debt, you know. The anxiety, the interest rates, the fear you’re never going to escape… but a website called AmONE wants to help.
If you owe your credit card companies $100,000 or less, AmONE will match you with a low-interest loan you can use to pay off every single one of your balances.
The benefit? You’ll be left with one bill to pay each month. And because personal loans have lower interest rates (AmONE rates start at 6.40% APR), you’ll get out of debt that much faster.
It takes less than a minute and just 10 questions to see what loans you qualify for.
5. Earn as Much as $1K/Month Doing Simple Online Tasks
Is there such a thing as easy money? If you know your way around the web, there certainly is.
That’s because data is currency these days, and many companies are willing to pay cash for it — up to $1,000 per month.
Finding these companies can be time-consuming on your own. But a company called Freecash has compiled all sorts of quick cash tasks from about a dozen advertisers and market research companies thirsty for more data. Freecash has paid out over $13 million to users since 2019.
You can pick and choose your tasks and complete them at your convenience. The coins you earn from each completed task can be converted into things like Visa gift cards, Amazon gift cards, cryptocurrency or cold-hard PayPal cash.
Signing up for a Freecash account is easy and there’s no minimum amount you need to earn before you can cash out. And if you’ve got enough free time on your hands, you can join the ranks of Freecash users making more than $1,000 a month in extra cash.
Sign up here to see how much you could earn.
6. Skip the Interest Until 2026 With This Balance Transfer Card
Aiming to ditch high-interest payments and score cash back on everything you buy? Who isn’t, right?
This card makes a balance transfer easy and affordable, plus you can save money on interest while you earn rewards. With a lengthy 0% intro APR on balance transfers until 2026, you’ll get some well-deserved breathing room to pay down balances interest-free. Plus, a $200 cash bonus is waiting for you, and you’ll enjoy 2% cash back on everything you buy — helping you make the most of your everyday spending.
Here’s what makes this card a win-win:
- $200 cash back bonus
- Unlimited 2% cash back
- $0 annual fee
- 0% APR on balance transfers for 18 months
Get the most out of your spending. Learn more about this balance transfer card today.
7. Get a $250 Bonus and Zero Fees With This Checking Account
Are you tired of paying through the ear to keep your money in the bank? Let’s face it, we’ve all got bills, errands to run, and checks to cash every month— who has time to micromanage all these sneaky checking account fees?
Well, what if we told you we found a checking account that actually means it when it says, “no fees?” Even better... what if you could earn a $250 bonus when you sign up?
With a Capital One 360 Checking Account, you’ll get access to over 70,000 fee-free ATMs, 24/7 mobile deposit and account access through their top-rated banking app, and zero overdraft fees (if an approved transaction takes your account below $0).
There is no minimum deposit to open and maintain your account, and you’ll never pay monthly or maintenance fees to access your money. Plus, with the Capital One Early Paycheck feature, you can get your paycheck up to two days faster without paying extra fees for that, either—and with built-in Zelle access, sending money is a snap.
Does your checking account do all of that? Sign up for a Capital One 360 Checking Account and claim your $250 bonus!*
*Terms apply. Visit Capital One 360 for details.
15, in the strictest sense.
First, let’s substitute every person. Let:
M = “man”
- = “married with”
F = “wife”
Now, imagine an inverted pyramid:
M1-F1 M2-F2 M3-F3 M4-F4
M5———F5 | M6———F6
M7———————-F7
Child
M1 and F1 marry and have M5 as their child.
M2 and F3 marry and have F5 as their child.
M5 and F5 marry and have M7 as their child.
M3 and F3 marry and have M6 as their child.
M4 and F4 marry and have F6 as their child.
M6 and F6 marry and have F7 as their child.
M7 and F7 go on to marry and have a Child.
Now, let’s count all the persons present.
There are 7 males, 7 wives and 1 child: 7 + 7 + 1
15, in the strictest sense.
First, let’s substitute every person. Let:
M = “man”
- = “married with”
F = “wife”
Now, imagine an inverted pyramid:
M1-F1 M2-F2 M3-F3 M4-F4
M5———F5 | M6———F6
M7———————-F7
Child
M1 and F1 marry and have M5 as their child.
M2 and F3 marry and have F5 as their child.
M5 and F5 marry and have M7 as their child.
M3 and F3 marry and have M6 as their child.
M4 and F4 marry and have F6 as their child.
M6 and F6 marry and have F7 as their child.
M7 and F7 go on to marry and have a Child.
Now, let’s count all the persons present.
There are 7 males, 7 wives and 1 child: 7 + 7 + 1 = 15.
Now, let’s cross-check with logic:
- Are there 7 men? YES. (M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7)
Are there 7 wives? YES. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
Are there 7 children? YES. (M5, F5, M6, F6, M7, F7, Child)
Now, you may ask, How did I come up with this?
Have you encountered the “Two fathers, two sons” riddle? It’s the same thing. There are 3 people only: The grandfather, the father, and the son. 2 fathers (1 grandfather and 1 father); and 2 sons (1 father and 1 son).
ALTERNATIVE TAKE: (You don’t have to read this)
But, of course, the trick is in the question. Here’s how you may interpret it:
If 7 men have 7 wives
This can be interpreted as either:
- (a) Each man has 7 wives, or
(b) Each man has 1 wife
Each man and each wife has 7 children
This can be interpreted as:
- (c) Each man has 7 children, PLUS each wife has 7 children; or,
(d) Both the 1 man and 1 wife will have 7 children; or,
(e) Both the 1 man and 1 wife will have 1 child.
Scenarios:
- If we follow (a) and (c), we’ll have: 1 man + 7 wife + 7 children each man + 7 children each wife = 1 + 7 + (7x1) + (7x7) = 64 people per man or 448 people collectively (64 x 7 men). There are 49 children who are NOT related to the man.
- If we follow (a) and (d): The man shares 1 child per wife, we’ll have a total of 57 people per man (or 399 people collectively) by canceling out “7 children each man” from the previous equation (1 man + 7 wife + 7 children each wife (with each wife sharing 1 child with man). There remain to be 42 children who are NOT related to the man.
- If we follow (a) and (e), it will be logically FALSE because 1 man can only have 1 child but since he has 7 wives, sharing 1 child each, there are 7 children in all—which negates the 1 child per man rule.
- If we follow (b) and (c), we'll have: 1 man + 1 wife + 7 children for the man + 7 children for the wife = 16 people per man (or 112 people collectively). This is like a blended family where none of the children are related to each other, and that the man has 7 children from the previous marriage and the wife has another set of 7 children from the previous marriage.
- If we follow (b) and (d), we'll have: 1 man + 1 wife + 7 children = 9 people per man (or 63 people collectively). This is the same as Scenario 2 where the man and the wife share 7 children.
- If we follow (b) and (e), we'll have either:
- 1 man + 1 wife + 1 child = 3 people per man (or 21 people collectively); or,
- The foremost explanation above = 15 people collectively.
As you may have noticed, these scenarios are not exhaustive. There are still many possible answers. You may even have the 7 men share the same 7 wives, but let’s not go there anymore.
I answered ‘15 people’ because I think it is the most sensible one and is in the strictest sense of this rather ambiguous question.
ANS :- There are seven families. Each family is comprised of a wife, a husband, and seven children. What's the total number of people? From this we can see that each family has 9 people so for 7 families that would be 63 people.
Need more clarification:
If each of the 7 men has 7 wives then,
7 men x 7 wives = 49 wives; 49 couples x 7 children = 343 children
+ the original 7 men + 49 wives + 343 children = 399 people
If each man has one wife, then.
7 men - 7 wives = 14 as couples
each of the 7 couples has 7 children = 49 children
14 + 49 = 63 people
63 would be the correct answer.
Just break it down to the total number of family members in each of the seven families. That's 9 for each family, a couple and 7 children. Now 9 families multiplied by 7. There's your answer of 63 as the total number of people.
Let's consider for 1 man :
1 man has 7 wives and each have 7 children, so total family member of 1 man will be,
1 man
1 wife has 7 children, so total 8 ( wife + her children) and like wise he has 7 wives
Therefore,
(8 × 7) + 1 = 57
So,
For 7 men, it will be :
57 × 7 = 399
Hence,
Total number of people are 399
63 in total
Men = 7
Wives = 7
Kids = 7x7 (49)
There is an ambiguity in the phrase “7 men have 7 wives". One meaning is that each man is a polygamist with 7 wives for each man. The other is that the 7 men have a total of 7 wives, meaning that each is a monogamist. This must be clarified.
What does it mean for “each man and each wife have 7 children"? For a married monogamous couple, does it mean 7 children, or does it mean 14 children with 7 for the man and 7 for the wife?
Even if it meant that each man had 7 wives, it is unclear whether each woman is married to multiple husbands or just one husband. It is also unclear whether some of the me
There is an ambiguity in the phrase “7 men have 7 wives". One meaning is that each man is a polygamist with 7 wives for each man. The other is that the 7 men have a total of 7 wives, meaning that each is a monogamist. This must be clarified.
What does it mean for “each man and each wife have 7 children"? For a married monogamous couple, does it mean 7 children, or does it mean 14 children with 7 for the man and 7 for the wife?
Even if it meant that each man had 7 wives, it is unclear whether each woman is married to multiple husbands or just one husband. It is also unclear whether some of the men are married to the daughters of other men.
Each of these questions has a significant effect on the resultant number of people.
Needless to say when I heard the song lyrics “I've been through the desert on a horse with no name", I couldn't tell who had No Name, the singer, the horse, or the desert.
Seven men seven wives =14
Seven men having seven children =0
seven wives having seven children =49
49+14=63!!
Let’s break this question down:
Let’s go through the possibilities first:
‘If 7 men have 7 wives’
We can either assume that each man had:
- 1 Wife, or
- 7 Wives.
‘Each man and each wife had seven children’
We can either assume that:
- Option 1 >> A man got 7 children, a wife got 7 children, or
- Option 1 >> A man and a wife had 7 children, or
- Option 2 >> A man and 7 wives got 7 children.
‘What is the total number of people?’
For option 1 just now:
1 man X 1 Wife and 1 man: 7 children and 1 wife: 7 Children
So: (1 man + 7 children + 1 wife + 7 children) X 7 = 112 People
For option 2 just now:
1 man X 1 Wife and 1 man
Let’s break this question down:
Let’s go through the possibilities first:
‘If 7 men have 7 wives’
We can either assume that each man had:
- 1 Wife, or
- 7 Wives.
‘Each man and each wife had seven children’
We can either assume that:
- Option 1 >> A man got 7 children, a wife got 7 children, or
- Option 1 >> A man and a wife had 7 children, or
- Option 2 >> A man and 7 wives got 7 children.
‘What is the total number of people?’
For option 1 just now:
1 man X 1 Wife and 1 man: 7 children and 1 wife: 7 Children
So: (1 man + 7 children + 1 wife + 7 children) X 7 = 112 People
For option 2 just now:
1 man X 1 Wife and 1 man + 1 wife: 7 children
So: (1 man + 1 wife + 7 children ) X 7 = 63 People
For option 3 just now:
1 man X 7 wives and 1 man + 7 wives: 7 children
So: (1 man + 7 wife + 7 children ) X 7 = 105 People
Then I just realised:
This trick question did not say who was considered a part of ‘people’.
So the answer can be:
- 0
- 112
- 63
- 105
- (And there are too many as if children aren’t part of ‘people’…, well yeah, you get the picture.)
63
Explanation:
&men and 7 wives are 7 couples.=14 people
Each couple had 7 children. That means 7x7=49 children
14 parents and 49 children =63 people
The answer changes. The wording fools people. Seven men have seven wives. Each man has seven wives, or seven men and seven wives mean a 1-to-1 ratio. Consider each man having seven wives. Seven men. Seven wives times seven equals forty-nine wives. Forty-nine wives times seven equals three hundred forty-three children. Seven plus forty-nine plus three hundred forty-three equals three hundred ninety-nine people. Or, a 1-to-1 ratio: seven men, seven wives, forty-nine children. Seven plus seven plus forty-nine equals sixty-three people. You can find more information about this perplexing mathemati
The answer changes. The wording fools people. Seven men have seven wives. Each man has seven wives, or seven men and seven wives mean a 1-to-1 ratio. Consider each man having seven wives. Seven men. Seven wives times seven equals forty-nine wives. Forty-nine wives times seven equals three hundred forty-three children. Seven plus forty-nine plus three hundred forty-three equals three hundred ninety-nine people. Or, a 1-to-1 ratio: seven men, seven wives, forty-nine children. Seven plus seven plus forty-nine equals sixty-three people. You can find more information about this perplexing mathematical puzzle in my biography description.
there re only 63 persons. 7 men have 7 wives => every man has one wife
each couple has seven kids, making a family of 9
there are 7 families so totaling 7 times 9= 63
63 total. 7 men and 7 women = 14 people.
Each woman has 7 children = 49 children (people)
Total 14 + 47 = 63 people.
7 couples x 7 children each couple = 49 children
7 couples = 14 parents
49 children + 14 parents = 63 persons
however
If read another way, that each man has 7 children, and each wife has 7 children…
7 men have 49 children, 7 women have 49 children
98 children + 14 parents = 112 persons
but the again one could read it as…
Each man has 7 wives and each man and each wife has 7 children…
7 men = 49 children
49 wives = 343 children
7 + 49 + 343 = 399 persons
Take your pick!
Each family unit has 9 people - mom, dad and 7 kids. There are 7 of these families, so 7x9=63.
Unless you are talking about polygamy, where each man has 7 wives and each pairing produces 7 children, then the math gets much more complicated. Each blended family would be dad, 7 moms and 49 kids - 57 people. If there are 7 of these poly-family groups, that would be 399 people.
Yikes!
There are seven men and seven wives. That makes 14 adults.
Each couple has seven children. As there are seven couples, there are 49 children.
14 adults + 49 children = 63 people
Here's how we can solve the problem:
* Count the men and wives: There are 7 men and 7 wives, making a total of 14 people.
* Count the children: Each wife has 7 children. Since there are 7 wives, the total number of children is 7 wives * 7 children/wife = 49 children.
* Add everyone together: 14 adults + 49 children = 63 people.
Therefore, the total number of people is 63.
343
Well, you don’t give us nearly enough detail to say. But I’ll give you one example
Abe and Anne have seven children
Bart, Betty, Brenda, Belinda, Beatrice, Barbara, and Beverly
Bart and his wife Beyonce have seven children
Carl, Charlotte, Chloe, Camila, Claire, Caroline, and Cora
Carl and his wife Cynthia have seven children
Donald, Delilah, Daisy, Daniela, Destiny, Diana, and Dakota
Donald and his wife have seven children
(you see the pattern I hope)
This means there are fourteen people who are the couples spoken of, seven generations of sons and their wives, and thirty six spinster women, a total of
Well, you don’t give us nearly enough detail to say. But I’ll give you one example
Abe and Anne have seven children
Bart, Betty, Brenda, Belinda, Beatrice, Barbara, and Beverly
Bart and his wife Beyonce have seven children
Carl, Charlotte, Chloe, Camila, Claire, Caroline, and Cora
Carl and his wife Cynthia have seven children
Donald, Delilah, Daisy, Daniela, Destiny, Diana, and Dakota
Donald and his wife have seven children
(you see the pattern I hope)
This means there are fourteen people who are the couples spoken of, seven generations of sons and their wives, and thirty six spinster women, a total of fifty people.
But here’s another
Abe and Anne marry, have one child, Abigail
Bart and Beyonce marry, have one child, Belinda
(and so forth, each with one child)
Then everyone divorces and remarries
Abe and Beyonce have one child, Henrietta
Bart and Cynthia have one child, Imelda
(and so forth until Gerald and Anne with their child Nancy)
And this repeats five more times.
Each man, and each woman, have seven children
There are 49 children, and 14 parents, 53 people in all
There are many other potential ways to satisfy your conditions, with other numbers of people.
357
A group marriage of seven men to seven women, with a total of seven children (each of which have seven mothers). 7+7+7 = 21
Or
Each man has seven wives (who are monogamous), for 49 wives, who each have seven children, 343 children+49 wives +7 men = 399 people. (Edit:this doesn't work because each man has 49 children)
Or
Seven men each has one wife and seven children, 7 families of 9=63 people.
Or
7 families, where each spouse had seven children outside the marriage, 7 families of 16 = 112 or anything between this and the previous.
How many women are there? The problem suggests 8, but could be as few as 4. How? Man 1 marries A & B, 2 marries B & C, 3 marries C & D, 4 marries D & A.
But it could be 5 women. 1 marries A & E, 2 marries B & E, etc. 6 or 7 women are possible, as well.
Let's look at the 8-woman scenario. Each of the 8 women has 10 children, so each man has 20 children, which violates the terms of the problem.
So, let's go back to my original 4-woman scenario. Each union produces only 5 children, but since each man and each woman were in 2 unions, each has 10 children per the terms of the problem. This results in
How many women are there? The problem suggests 8, but could be as few as 4. How? Man 1 marries A & B, 2 marries B & C, 3 marries C & D, 4 marries D & A.
But it could be 5 women. 1 marries A & E, 2 marries B & E, etc. 6 or 7 women are possible, as well.
Let's look at the 8-woman scenario. Each of the 8 women has 10 children, so each man has 20 children, which violates the terms of the problem.
So, let's go back to my original 4-woman scenario. Each union produces only 5 children, but since each man and each woman were in 2 unions, each has 10 children per the terms of the problem. This results in 48 people (4 men, 4 women, and 40 children).
What happens if this occurs in a multi-generation scenario? Then some of the children are double-counted as both children and men/wives. This results in a lower people count.
Answer is 412 people…each man has 7 wives who bear 7 children equals 49 children per man and 7 wives. therefore 7 x 49 equals 356 plus the 7 men equals 363 plus 49 wives equals 412 total people
If 7 men have 7 wives, and each man and each wife have 7 children, what's the total number of people?
7 men and 7 wives = 14 __ 7 couples and 7 children each = 49 __ 49 + 14 = 63 persons.
Regards, James.
- No. Of Men = 6
- No of Wives= 6
- No. Of kids Each wife has = 6
- No of kids = 6 × 6 = 36
Answer Total no. If people = 6+6+36 = 48
21ans 7men 7wife related to husband wife =14
and husband wife have 7 children then total people=21
7 men x 7 children = 7 + (7 x 7 = 49) = 56 people
7 wives x 7 children = 7 + (7 x 7 = 49) = 56 people
56 + 56 = 112 people in total
(i) Seven men have seven wives
Therefore:
There exist seven men
There exist seven women who are married
The women are married to the men who exist, but it doesn't matter which, as it doesn't specify.
(ii) Each man and each wife have seven children
Therefore:
There exist seven children whose father is a particular man and whose mother is a particular married woman
There exist seven more children for that particular man and every other married woman
There exist seven more children for every other man and the particular married woman
There exist seven more children for every other man and every other marri
(i) Seven men have seven wives
Therefore:
There exist seven men
There exist seven women who are married
The women are married to the men who exist, but it doesn't matter which, as it doesn't specify.
(ii) Each man and each wife have seven children
Therefore:
There exist seven children whose father is a particular man and whose mother is a particular married woman
There exist seven more children for that particular man and every other married woman
There exist seven more children for every other man and the particular married woman
There exist seven more children for every other man and every other married woman
So the count of the children is 7 + 7×6 + 7×6 + 7×6×6
Which is really 7×(1+6)×(1+6) = 7×7×7 = 343
Put simply, multiply for “each”
(iii) How many people?
7 men and 7 married women and 343 children
7+7+343 = 357
Another way to look at it we had to use existential quantification when we introduced each type of person and we had to use universal quantification when we said “each” and that’s not obvious, they’re really undergraduate topics.
So a slightly more formal way could be:
There exist seven men, there exist seven wives. For all men, for all wives, there exist seven children. The people are 7+7+7×7×7 = 357
If there is a total of 339. And 90 % were eliminated, 10 % would be 39.9.. I didn't graduate HS so I'm probably not even close.