What's the answer?

Not necessarily. It could be a problem about finite rings of integers.

Can it be solved using wheels?

O = 8

8 doesn't necessarily have to equal 8

If 1=2, then 2*1=2*2. Doing the operation again we get 2*2*1=2*2*2. In other words, 4=8. Since equality is commutative, 8=4. We know that 8=O, so it must be that O=4.

Wrong

███████

Let me try again. We know 0=6 and 1=2. It is well known that 8=2+6 (proof left to the reader). Replacing 2 and 6 by their 'alternative' values, we get 8=1+6 or 8=2+0 or 8=1+0. Therefore, 8 equals 1, 2 or 7. It cannot equal 1 because we know that's equal to 2 (of course). It cannot be 2 because we know that's equal to 1.

Conclusion: 8=7.

Wrong.

8=3

I'm not wrong, I'm offering an alternative option. Brainlet.

Not science nor mathematics, reported

It's math, brainlet

No it's not, it's fucking stupid. If the question was f(x), then it would make sense. 8 equals nothing but 8. There's nothing to find.

Give up, and make a connection with an attractive Slavic woman.

Brainlet

No, you're plain wrong.

There's no relation to this. At least not to solve for O.

Only thing i've found is that if you take the difference between 6 and 2 (4), add the 1 on the other side, you get 5. Method holds seeing as when you take the difference between the 2 and 5 (3) and add the 5 on the other side you get 8.

My best guess is this being another troll attempt

Is it meant to be the number of bars in a digital display of that number?

In which case 8=7.

Only correct answer so far. Glad I have a Veeky Forums Pass so I can see it.

>8 doesn't necessarily have to equal 8