For some reason I was feeling slightly misunderstood.
Is this explanation for my answer any clearer?
Basically, it's just a different way of interpreting the way the matches are laid out.
Kinda like what Rshaffer said. {BTW Thanks for the cookies Rshaffer and TomK !!}
It's a visual perception thing where you keep the + and = signs "as is" in the layout and decide to "see" all the rest of the matches as just matchsticks to count – ignoring how they are laidout.
I think we understand. Your answer is that if we just count the matchsticks that don't represent mathematical symbols, we will find that there are three on either side of the equals sign, rather than forming an actual equation.
"…if we just count the matchsticks that don't represent mathematical symbols, we will find that there are three on either side of the equals sign, rather than forming an actual equation."
could we say instead…
"…if we just count the matchsticks that don't represent mathematical [function] symbols,
we will find that 2 matchsticks + 1 matchstick = 3 match sticks."
Questions:
1. Aren't Roman Numerals considered mathematical numerical symbols?
2. If you keep the mathematical function symbols shown as "+" and "="; and use exact pictoral quantities in lieu of numerals, [i.e. picture of two matchsticks, instead of writing numeral "2" and picture of one matchstick, instead of writing the numeral "1" and picture of three matchsticks instead of writing numeral 3] why could you not call that an equation?
Elizabeth Clare,
I believe that in common usage what you have said could be considered true… however, I live in a little "black-and-white" world where things are what they are, rather than what people call them.
It is true that letters and numbers are symbols. Doesn't matter if your talking Roman numerals, Arabic numbers, or any other written "code". Numerical symbols are not math. Mathematics actually require a "problem' and a "solution". A number by itself is not math. You must do something with it.
The counting of objects - or Tallying - doesn't require operators such as the plus or equals sign - because, obviously, the count is the count. When you "add" to a tally, you don't actually perform arithmetic… you just increase the tally.
All of that being said… the purpose of Monday Madness is riddles… which often take things out of context in order to "confuse" the responder. Therefore it isn't out of the realm of possibility that a "question" will be presented where the facts presented cannot be taken literal. Therefore your solution - though not the "official" answer - is as valid as any other response. Seeing as how your solution moves no match sticks… it equals the "official" answer in the relocating of the fewest number of matchsticks.
Elizabeth Clare,
All of that being said… the purpose of Monday Madness is riddles… which often take things out of context in order to "confuse" the responder. Therefore it isn't out of the realm of possibility that a "question" will be presented where the facts presented cannot be taken literal. Therefore your solution - though not the "official" answer - is as valid as any other response. Seeing as how your solution moves no match sticks… it equals the "official" answer in the relocating of the fewest number of matchsticks.
Ok in other words we all still get a cookie right ?
Your words are like food to me. After receiving this "nourishment" along with the energy that comes with being affirmed by you - a reputable and notable expert - I have now been given what seems to be the rebirth of my intrigue and thirst for knowledge in the field of Mathematics and Arithmatic.
Most always the inspiration for my various searches for knowledge leads me to begin with the definitions of words. This process is very interesting because many times, one discovers that "authorities differ".
I'm excited to share with you what I found as I, after reading your response, began researching the word "tallying" and its relevance (or non-relevance) in the field of Mathematics. Additionally, the word Arithmatic caught my attention and I was trying to find reputable, online sources that might clarify the definitions of these terms and their "standing" or relationship with each other. After many searches, I found, among other things, this very interesting article that I'm excited to share with you for your review (all or in part), comments and/or critique. Basically, I'm wondering if you have any insights or experience with the topics and persons mentioned in this article. Minimally if you could tell me if the author and/or subject matter, in your opinion, carry any credibility in your circle of Mathematics.
Odds are I'll have comments on the article… as I have an opinion on everything - and though I have "the right to remain silent"… I just don't have the ability.
However, when I click the link you provided I get:
Wikisource does not have a text with this exact name
I appreciate you respecting what I have to say… but I'm no expert… I'm just highly opinionated loud mouth.
You can all share my cookie cos I dont eat them 
Now if it was chocolate, well, that would be a whole different matter!!
