Find the simplest way to solve this....

[Vain]

You can actually be saved any amount of embarrassment at this point in proceedings?

I had Hope

[Hashi Lebwohl]

therefore x = 5 and y = 10

Like I said, most boundary problems have solutions either at the extremes or in the very middle.

[Fist and Faith]

So, Vain, let me make sure I understand this. You were translating a riddle from Chinese. And you were so sure of your translating skills that you repeatedly assured us that you had it all correct, with nothing missing. Kinda cocky, eh?

[wayfriend]

"Confident. Cocky. Lazy. Dead."

[Zarathustra]

I'd still like to know the answer, after all this. The one that doesn't use a formula.

[TheFallen]

If you've got any mathematical skill, Z, I wish you'd weigh in on the two envelopes paradox.

[wayfriend]

If I wanted to solve this without a "formula", I would do it his way.

I would start with 15 chickens and 30 feet.
Then I would switch a chicken for a horse to get 2 more feet.
Repeat until I reach 40.
Leaves me with 10 chickens and 5 horses.

Is this the kind of answer you are looking for, Vain?

BTW, the answer has 20 chicken feet and 20 horse feet. You nailed it, Hashi - the very middle indeed.

[TheFallen]

That's completely ridiculous, WF. What a drooling slack-jawed lackwit you are.

Entirely unlike your quite preposterous proposition, what one should obviously do instead is this:-

Start with 15 horses and 60 feet.
Then switch a horse for a chicken to get 2 less feet.
Repeat until you reach 40.
Leaves you with 5 horses and 10 chickens.

It's obvious, really. Well, clearly except to the intellectually benighted.

[Vain]

So, Vain, let me make sure I understand this. You were translating a riddle from Chinese. And you were so sure of your translating skills that you repeatedly assured us that you had it all correct, with nothing missing. Kinda cocky, eh?

When you say it like that, I don't feel so bad no more. It was the Chinese translation that was at fault

[Vain]

That's a pretty cool way to solve for that WF

OK so here goes.

Stand in front of all the animals, and tell them that every time you blow a whistle, they must lift one leg.

After two blows of the whistle, all the chickens are sitting on their bums and there's only 10 legs left on the ground - and they must belong to horses.

And they have to belong to 5 horses

[TheFallen]

A purely logical way to solve things, huh?

So, let's see...

1) You have to be an expert horse trainer...

2) And an expert chicken trainer...

3) Or alternatively have the communication powers of Dr. Doolittle...

4) And hope that your motley collection of animals are all feeling compliant...

5) And you have to have sourced chickens that can balance on one leg for a while without falling over or putting the other leg back down. Wouldn't flamingos have been a better choice?

6) And you have to have sourced horses that can stay rearing on their back legs for at least long enough to be counted.

I think we can draw two conclusions here:-

1. Never ask Vain for his logical opinion on anything. At all. Ever.

and...

2. Never ask Vain to order for you in a Chinese restaurant. At all. Ever.

[Vain]

I should have known not to venture into the smart forums

[wayfriend]

I don't think horses can stand on two legs, Vain. At least, not for long enough to count them all!

[Vraith]

I don't think horses can stand on two legs, Vain. At least, not for long enough to count them all!

OTOH, chickens can stand on 1 leg practically forever if they want to.

[Zarathustra]

That's a pretty cool way to solve for that WF

OK so here goes.

Stand in front of all the animals, and tell them that every time you blow a whistle, they must lift one leg.

After two blows of the whistle, all the chickens are sitting on their bums and there's only 10 legs left on the ground - and they must belong to horses.

And they have to belong to 5 horses

I thought you had to solve it based on the information given in the original riddle. If your solution requires you to stand in front of all the animals and look at them, can't you just count how many are chickens and how many are horses? Why do you have to count their legs at all? Isn't that the easiest way to do it?

WF's solution is pretty good, but it's still an algorithmic function involving numbers. You must still use math to come up with the answer, except that the relations or steps hidden by our normal mathematical notation is made explicit by the algorithm (much like programming a computer to crunch numbers).