Post by Salzmank on May 6, 2017 12:29:29 GMT
Ah, a "logic puzzle." I've always enjoyed those.
I conclude Jeff killed Mike. Here is the logic:
We know 2 things about the murderer - he is Jack's brother, whom he grew up with, and he had his leg amputated last month. That eliminates Jack of course. Also eliminates Dan, who ran in a marathon yesterday. So who is Jack's brother? Not Ben whom he first met 6 months ago. And not Mike who "moved to the city" and hence didn't grow up in Seattle, a big city. So the murderer is Jeff by elimination.
So who is the victim? It's not Jack, who's been in seclusion "since the crime." Nor Ben; if Jeff wants to install his computer next week, he must still be alive to need one. Now here's where it gets a little wonky. it appears that when they state that Dan ran in the marathon yesterday "with one of the innocent men" that implies that he would not have been "innocent" if the crime had not already been committed. Hence, Dan is also alive after the crime. The victim, by elimination, is Mike. I'm not really happy with that logic; you could easily call someone "the innocent man" prior to the crime - especially in a logic puzzle like this where your job is usually to solve it by process of elimination. Another possibility is that the murder took place in Seattle, so it was unlikely (though not impossible) that Dan returned to Seattle in time to get killed. But it's never stated that the murder took place in Seattle so that logic is even weaker. One other note: if Jeff is planning to install people's computers next week, clearly he hasn't been caught, and may not even be a suspect yet.
I conclude Jeff killed Mike. Here is the logic:
We know 2 things about the murderer - he is Jack's brother, whom he grew up with, and he had his leg amputated last month. That eliminates Jack of course. Also eliminates Dan, who ran in a marathon yesterday. So who is Jack's brother? Not Ben whom he first met 6 months ago. And not Mike who "moved to the city" and hence didn't grow up in Seattle, a big city. So the murderer is Jeff by elimination.
So who is the victim? It's not Jack, who's been in seclusion "since the crime." Nor Ben; if Jeff wants to install his computer next week, he must still be alive to need one. Now here's where it gets a little wonky. it appears that when they state that Dan ran in the marathon yesterday "with one of the innocent men" that implies that he would not have been "innocent" if the crime had not already been committed. Hence, Dan is also alive after the crime. The victim, by elimination, is Mike. I'm not really happy with that logic; you could easily call someone "the innocent man" prior to the crime - especially in a logic puzzle like this where your job is usually to solve it by process of elimination. Another possibility is that the murder took place in Seattle, so it was unlikely (though not impossible) that Dan returned to Seattle in time to get killed. But it's never stated that the murder took place in Seattle so that logic is even weaker. One other note: if Jeff is planning to install people's computers next week, clearly he hasn't been caught, and may not even be a suspect yet.
So, is my logic correct? Or did I miss something?
Oh, and the cipher solution is:
"This is a secret message."
Brimfin, I also determined that Jeff was the killer, but I had so much trouble with determining the victim's identity that I gave in and looked at Sostie's correct solution--but wasn't (and am still not) all that fond of the logic leading to the identification of Mike as victim.
Either way, I don't think that Jeff's desire to install Ben's computer next week proves that Ben is still alive, as I wrote: property still belongs to someone even after he's dead, just as you say that a house is still an old man's even after he's gone (until the will divvies everything up).
I didn't think of your clever reasoning re: Dan as "the innocent man," and I'm kicking myself for not seeing it now. Yes, it is shaky, but no more so than some of the logical leaps I made.
Either way, I don't think that Jeff's desire to install Ben's computer next week proves that Ben is still alive, as I wrote: property still belongs to someone even after he's dead, just as you say that a house is still an old man's even after he's gone (until the will divvies everything up).
I didn't think of your clever reasoning re: Dan as "the innocent man," and I'm kicking myself for not seeing it now. Yes, it is shaky, but no more so than some of the logical leaps I made.
Excellent work.
I'm now working on Joel and Phil. No, I haven't heard this one before.