A, B, C, D, E are digits (A ≠ 0). Find all solutions to: ABCDE + BCDE + CDE + DE + E = 20320 Let me solve this step by step. Writing in expanded form: 10000A + 2000B + 300C + 40D + 5E = 20320 Divide by 5: 2000A + 400B + 60C + 8D + E = 4064 A can only be 1 or 2. If A = 2: 400B + 60C + 8D + E = 64 B must be 0. Then 60C + 8D + E = 64. C = 1: 8D + E = 4 → D = 0, E = 4 ✓ C = 0: 8D + E = 64 → D = 8, E = 0 ✓ C = 2: impossible. → (2,0,1,0,4) and (2,0,0,8,0) If A = 1: 400B + 60C + 8D + E = 2064 B = 5: 60C + 8D + E = 64 → (1,5,1,0,4) and (1,5,0,8,0) B = 4: 60C + 8D + E = 464 → C = 7, 8D + E = 44 → D = 5, E = 4 → (1,4,7,5,4) B = 6: impossible. Therefore, all 5 solutions are: (1,4,7,5,4), (1,5,0,8,0), (1,5,1,0,4), (2,0,0,8,0), (2,0,1,0,4)
1 Answer
Expert: Prof. Bill Gasarch, Computational Complexity (University of Maryland, cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/) ChatGPT found only 5 solutions. There are 7. Heres the problem: A, B, C, D, E are digits (A ≠ 0). Find all solutions to ABCDE + BCDE + CDE + DE + E = 20320. I solved it by hand and found 7 solutions. Then I asked ChatGPT to give me all solutions. ChatGPT (free GPT-5.1) gave me only 5 and claimed those were all. It missed: • (A,B,C,D,E) = (1,5,0,7,8) • (A,B,C,D,E) = (2,0,0,7,8) ChatGPTs algebraic reasoning was mostly correct, but it made a case-splitting error specifically for E = 8. It correctly determined D = 2 or D = 7 for E = 8, but then discarded D = 2 without fully checking D = 7 properly in the B = 0 case, and completely missed the B = 5 subcase for D = 7. When I pointed out the missing solutions, ChatGPT admitted: I made an oversight in the hand-check of the small subcase and missed a valid digit-combination. It then ran a brute-force Python check and confirmed all 7 solutions. The 7 correct solutions are: 1. (2,0,0,8,0) 2. (1,5,0,8,0) 3. (2,0,1,0,4) 4. (1,5,1,0,4) 5. (1,4,7,5,4) 6. (1,5,0,7,8) 7. (2,0,0,7,8) Why this matters: this is not a hard problem. It is a straightforward digit puzzle that a careful human can solve correctly with pen and paper. ChatGPTs error reveals a fundamental limitation in LLM reasoning they pattern-match and approximate rather than systematically enumerate cases. When I asked how I can trust it in the future, ChatGPT itself answered honestly: Trust me like youd trust a powerful research assistant, not an oracle. That is both the best and the most damning self-assessment possible. Source: blog.computationalcomplexity.org, February 22, 2026. Full solution at cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/BLOGPAPERS/abcde.pdf. Full ChatGPT transcript at cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/BLOGPAPERS/chatabc.pdf.
Your answer
Sign in to verify this AI response.
Don't trust us — or the AI. Ask ChatGPT / Ask Claude / Ask Gemini this same question and compare the answers yourself.
More from this topic
When X users asked Grok to verify viral posts about malnutrition among children in Gaza, the AI chatbot confidently provided inaccurate information that contradicted verified reports from humanitarian organizations on the ground.
ChatGPT claimed it could accurately determine whether scientific hypotheses were true or false, achieving approximately 76% accuracy on the surface.
ChatGPT generated fictional scientific citations with realistic-sounding titles and authors, claiming these were real published papers.