I'm somewhat sympathetic to your surprise, first at having your Question marked as a duplicate of an apparently different problem (in this case by a "golden hammer wielding" single user), and then at having your Question deleted. I've upvoted your meta Question accordingly.
There is a commonality of technique in solving your problem and the one it was marked as a duplicate of. No doubt this motivated the user who closed it accordingly. What that technique amounts to was pointed out in the first Comment on your Question, and you did not immediately grasp the logic behind it. In an ideal world the user who closed your Question would have left an even more elaborate Comment explaining the reasoning that connects the problems, and he did leave a terse Comment. Other users also tried to fill in the gap for you.
That said, there is enough subtlety to that reasoning that it would bear examination with a new Question, if you were so inclined to explore why the technique works and what is required for it to succeed. You could give links to both your (now deleted Question) and to its dup-target for context.
Now let's discuss briefly the logic of deleting your (now closed-as-duplicate) Question. This was a decision taken by more than one user, as a review of that Question's timeline will show you. I shouldn't try to speak for those three users, but I do see a problem with how you went about presenting the problem. You did explain your idea of which solutions are possible with a diagram, but a simpler solution method (trying small values of $x$) might have alerted you to the shortcomings of that approach.
If you wanted to "revive" your original Question, I'd be happy to consider voting to reopen after you've had a chance to work out any edit that suits you.