|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 6, 2017 12:29:29 GMT
Tarathian123 Murder Case: 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. 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.
Excellent work. I'm now working on Joel and Phil. No, I haven't heard this one before. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 6, 2017 12:36:25 GMT
Okay, I haven't started the "Thirteen at Dinner" puzzle yet, as I know once I do I'll be obsessed with it until it's solved. So let me toss in my own puzzle. You've heard the phrase, "Stop me if you've heard this before..." Well, chances are you might have heard this one before. But I'm asking you to solve it anyway, because I'm going to add a new wrinkle to it after it is solved. Two men meet in a barber shop. As the waiting time is long, they start to talk. Phil asks Joel if he has any kids. Joel says, "Yes, I have 3 boys." "What ages?" asks Phil. "Tell you what," says Joel, who loves puzzles like we do, "I'll give you clues and you tell me when you can figure that out for yourself." "Sounds like fun," agrees Phil. "First clue," Joel says, "The sum of my sons' ages is 13." "Need more, obviously," replies Phil. "Second clue," Joel challenges, "The product of their ages is 36." "Not quite there yet," muses Phil. "Third clue. My oldest son loves hot dogs." "I've got it!" declares Phil. What is the solution? My first thought is this: if the oldest son loves hot dogs, then he has to be old enough to eat solid food like that, and not very young. My solution is that the oldest is 9 and the two younger boys are both 2--I have no idea if that's right, but either way you said you have another wrinkle... |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 6, 2017 13:18:45 GMT
Phil & Joel Mmm... Surely the proof is the maths? 3 + 1 + 9 = 13, but 3 x 1 x 9 = 27, not 36. 2, 2, and 9 are the only numbers which fit both equations. Unless I've missed a combination somewhere.  Just looked at your earlier spoiler, Al, because I thought you and I would be on the same track, and we are. I also don't see any other numbers that fit both equations--though, knowing my lack of skill with even the simplest arithmetic, it's very possible for me to miss something.
I'm of the opinion that it has to do something with our preconceived notions about the puzzle, rather than the equations. I've no idea what those notions are, though. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 6, 2017 13:42:27 GMT
In that case why introduce the equations into the puzzle?
I can't see how it could be any other answer. Time and brimfin will tell. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 6, 2017 14:07:50 GMT
In that case why introduce the equations into the puzzle?
I can't see how it could be any other answer. Time and brimfin will tell. I knew I saw something funny with Brimfin's phrasing, but I only just put my finger on it a moment ago. Stick with me--this is very tenuous reasoning, but it may be that "wrinkle" to which he referred earlier. As you know, in his last response to you, he wrote:
The term used to refer to the children goes from "son" to "kids" in the second sentence. Is this some kind of hint that there's a daughter in there too? At first glance, no--but our reasoning, Al, has already ruled out the possibility of any other son who could also like hot dogs. Let's look at what Joel says:
Now, yes, it is quite natural to say, "I have three boys," in response to this question, rather than "I have three children"--I told you the reasoning was tenuous. With that said, Joel's response does not absolutely, definitely, rule out his having other children other than those three boys. Why would someone respond like that? Beats me, except maybe that the puzzle stipulates that Joel "...loves puzzles like we do." Could he be trying to fool Phil by saying he has three boys, implying incorrectly that those three boys are his only children?
Well, if we suppose that there are other children, what does that mean?
It means the equations refer only to the boys, as Joel explicitly uses the word sons in reference to them. It could mean that his daughter also loves hot dogs. Now, I'm stumped. I can't fathom a deduction to be made from this, so it may all be shaggy-dog reasoning, but it is something I noticed, even if I'm only looking too deeply into it. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 6, 2017 14:10:58 GMT
Nalkarj - Re 13 at Dinner Can I deduce from that answer that the queries are irrelevant? Or is that giving too much away?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 6, 2017 14:16:21 GMT
Nalkarj - Re 13 at Dinner Can I deduce from that answer that the queries are irrelevant? Or is that giving too much away? You can make that deduction, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 6, 2017 14:19:58 GMT
Nalkarj - Joel puzzle It makes a nonsense of the puzzle, that's what it means. How many kids does he have...4, 5, even 6? The puzzle makes no reference to more kids or girls. Specifically 3 boys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 6, 2017 14:23:08 GMT
Nalkarj - Joel puzzle It makes a nonsense of the puzzle, that's what it means. How many kids does he have...4, 5, even 6? The puzzle makes no reference to more kids or girls. Specifically 3 boys. Well, I probably was looking too deeply into it, anyway, especially as @volver sent me another solution in a PM. It seems there is another mathematical solution, which fits both equations, that we missed! |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 6, 2017 14:24:56 GMT
Nalkarj - 13 at Dindins Oh how I love these double-edged answers which signify nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 6, 2017 14:28:46 GMT
Nalkarj - 13 at Dindins Oh how I love these double-edged answers which signify nothing. Well... Yes, those queries are irrelevant to the puzzle and the pattern, yes. It is indeed an accurate deduction to make. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 6, 2017 14:33:09 GMT
@ Salzmank - Joel puzzle.Mmm... So what gives an edge of one over the other?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 6, 2017 14:34:19 GMT
@ Salzmank - Joel puzzle.Mmm... So what gives an edge of one over the other? Only that it would explain Brimfin's response to you. P.S. Volver may come on this thread and explain it herself. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 6, 2017 14:40:28 GMT
Hope she puts it in a spoiler. I ain't beat yet! :-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2017 14:44:14 GMT
the Joel riddle: Two of the kids are twins, aged 6, one is a boy, the other one is a girl.
The third kid is 1 year old.
That sums up to 13 and makes the product of 36.
The older son (presuming that the 1-year-old kid is also a boy) loves hotdogs, but not only one of his kids love hotdogs (the girl, too?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2017 14:58:51 GMT
Hope she puts it in a spoiler. I ain't beat yet! :-) She apologized for not putting it in a spoiler, but she didn't know how to use that function. I told her about the button. Sorry, Salzmank, I spoilt it for you by my PM, though I thought that you had given up  |
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on May 6, 2017 14:59:18 GMT
Okay, you are all way overthinking this puzzle. Let me clarify some things. Joel has three boys - period. No other children;no girls.
Change the third clue to "My oldest son likes the color blue." Forget the hot dogs entirely.
Recheck your numbers. There is another combination that works besides 9-2-2.
Good luck with this, as I struggle with the "Thirteen at Dinner" puzzle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 6, 2017 15:09:35 GMT
She apologized for not putting it in a spoiler, but she didn't know how to use that function. I told her about the button. Sorry, Salzmank, I spoilt it for you by my PM, though I thought that you had given up No worries at all, Volver! I had my own moment of anagnorisis when I read your solution, which amused me a great deal. I greatly enjoyed reading it, too. No worries at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 6, 2017 15:11:14 GMT
Okay, you are all way overthinking this puzzle. Let me clarify some things. Joel has three boys - period. No other children;no girls.
Change the third clue to "My oldest son likes the color blue." Forget the hot dogs entirely.
Recheck your numbers. There is another combination that works besides 9-2-2.
Good luck with this, as I struggle with the "Thirteen at Dinner" puzzle.
Wow. OK. That kinda blows everything I was thinking out of the water. Excellent! |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 6, 2017 15:20:55 GMT
@ volver - the Joel riddle: Had to look, but your answer is wrong... You said:But the puzzle says specifically that: a) "The sum of my sons' ages is 13." b) "The product of their ages [referring to the sons] is 36." Agreed that same-sex twins (boys) would make both equations right, but the oldest son singular likes hot dogs. Unless you're counting minutes between births they're bothat the same age. Where did the girl come from? |
|
