|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 6, 2017 21:38:36 GMT
Correct Volver! Bravissimo! See y'all tomorrow.   |
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on May 6, 2017 22:36:04 GMT
Apologies. Thought I had, then went elsewhere. Better cover yours up too Yes I do realise that riddles are not real life, but logic employed to solve illogic problems. Anyone interested in my fish problem? If not I'll delete it. Pity to do so. It was allegedly written by Albert Einstein. Please don't delete your fish problem. I will get to it eventually. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 6, 2017 22:48:35 GMT
(Submitted—for your approval, as Rod Serling would say—at Brimfin's request...) We have two possibilities: one, that there two six-year-old twins, one only a few minutes older than the other, and another one-year-old son--or, two, that there is indeed only one 9-year-old eldest son and two 2-year-old twins. The second seems the most logical unless we presume that Joel was really being cruel. |
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on May 6, 2017 22:51:32 GMT
Okay, volver, tarathian123, and salzmank, you have all solved the Phil and Joel problem. To recap, this is the classic solution to the problem: The first two clues give you two possible equations: 9-2-2 and 6-6-1. The third clue, which can be anything from "My oldest son likes hot dogs" to "My oldest son loves the color blue" seems pointless but the key is the phrase "oldest son." Since the 6 year olds would be twins, and the same age, he would not have an "oldest son." Therefore, the answer was 9-2-2. This is indeed the classic solution to this riddle told many times.
And now, the new wrinkle - explain to me why the solution is 100% bogus. To clarify - I'm not asking you to re-solve the problem or give me a different answer. Just point out the flaw in the reasoning. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 6, 2017 23:28:29 GMT
I was reading this in bed, thought about it, think this is the answer, so now I'm back up again This is a guess. A twin birth, one twin born just before midnight on 31st Dec, followed by the second birth just after midnight on 1st Jan in the new year. Although there would be only minutes between each birth, in effect one twin would be a calender year older than the other. So the equations wouldn't work. This I think is the flaw brimfin. Am I right? PS. No I won't delete the fish problem. I'll keep it up. |
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on May 7, 2017 0:52:57 GMT
I was reading this in bed, thought about it, think this is the answer, so now I'm back up again This is a guess. A twin birth, one twin born just before midnight on 31st Dec, followed by the second birth just after midnight on 1st Jan in the new year. Although there would be only minutes between each birth, in effect one twin would be a calender year older than the other. So the equations wouldn't work. This I think is the flaw brimfin. Am I right? PS. No I won't delete the fish problem. I'll keep it up. It's actually more basic than that. It would apply no matter what date or dates the twins were born on.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 7, 2017 5:18:16 GMT
brimfin said: The only other possible flaw I can think of at the moment would be in actual birthdays rather than years and that would be twins born on the 29th Feb, i.e. a leap year. But you say born dates don't matter, so... ? I'll keep my thinking cap on. Ah! What if... ...the 9 going on 10 year old's birth date was the same as the twins? The 9-2-2 would depend on the time of birth of the 9 year. If it was the same time then the 9-2-2 wouldn't apply. Nah! That doesn't sound right either. ? ? ?
Or is it that (forgetting the calender timing, which is artificial anyway) in reality the twins could never be born at the same time so the equations could never apply?
Oh well, what the hell, I'll give it a shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 7, 2017 6:05:20 GMT
I should be asleep, but because--as usual--I can't sleep, let me thrown my probably ridiculous and overly semantic answer into the mix: Would Joel say "oldest son" if he were comparing one older boy to two younger boys of the same age? Isn't the phraseology "older son" more accurate? After all, if we're comparing their ages (rather than themselves as individuals), older is the grammatically correct term.
Probably silly, but in this stupor before I head off to bed, it's a point that struck me. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 7, 2017 6:23:45 GMT
Re semantics. As I see it... Older is comparative, oldest is superlative. e.g. Yesterday he was old. Today he's older than the others. Tomorrow he will be the oldest of all. But then our lady English teacher was a wow, I wasn't really concentrating on her voice. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 8:21:22 GMT
This is such a fascinating thread, though it robs me of my sleep.  |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 7, 2017 9:09:30 GMT
You too? Join the club. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 7, 2017 11:07:32 GMT
This thread is called "Trivia and Quiz Games", so here's a bit of trivia. It will be appreciated by some but perhaps not by others.
---------------
Ballade of Soporific Absorption (by Sir J.C.Squire)
Ho! Ho! Yes! Yes! It's very all well,
You may drunk I am think, but I tell you I'm not,
I'm as sound as a fiddle and fit as a bell,
And stable quite ill to see what's what.
I under do stand you surprise a got
When I headed my smear with gooseberry jam;
And I've swallowed, I grant, a beer of lot -
But I'm not so think as you drunk I am.
Can I liquor my stand? Why, yes, like hell!
I care not how many a tossed I've pot,
I shall stralk quite weight and not yutter an ell,
My feech will not spalter the least little jot:
If you knownly had own! - well, I gave him a dot,
And I said to him, 'Sergeant, I'll come like a lamb -
The floor it seems like a storm in a yacht,
But I'm not so think as you drunk I am.
For example, to prove it I'll tale you a tell -
I once knew a fellow named Apricot -
I'm sorry, I just chair over a fell -
A trifle - this chap, on a very day hot -
If I hadn't consumed that last whisky of tot! -
As I said now, this fellow, called Abraham -
Ah? One more? Since it's you! Just a do me will spot -
But I'm not so think as you drunk I am.
Envoi
So, Prince, you suggest I've bolted my shot?
Well, like what you say, and soul your damn!
I'm an upple litset by the talk you rot -
But I'm not so think as you drunk I am.
=========
|
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 7, 2017 11:20:01 GMT
Just to pass the time while everyone wakes up, another bit of trivia which I know a couple of you have already seen.
--------------
This from the Smithsonian Magazine...
Label Babel by Richard Liebmann-Smith
Ever since George W. Bush set eyebrows rising when he mistakenly called the East Timorese by the name East Timorians, I’ve been lying awake nights trying to figure out the rules for the way we label people from various places.
Let’s start with something ese-y, like the Chinese, the Japanese and those beleaguered East Timorese. At first blush it seems there’s a simple rule in operation here: people from countries in Asia take the suffix "ese." Hence, in addition to the aforementioned, we have the Taiwanese, the Vietnamese and, naturally, the West Timorese. It all looks perfectly neat. Yet if the Asia rule held, wouldn’t we also have the Cambodese, the Tibetese and the Indonesiaese? Conversely, how can we account for the non-Asian Congolese,
Senegalese and Lebanese? And if you believe the answer lies in Eurocentrism, how do you explain the Portuguese?
Perhaps these designations derive not so much from geography as from spelling. Maybe the "or" at the end of Timor should have tipped Mr. Bush off to the appropriate "ese" suffix. Sounds plausible, but then why aren’t people from Ecuador called Ecuadorese or those hardy souls up in Maine known as the Bangorese? (Speaking of Maine, if people from Spain are Spaniards, shouldn’t Down Easters be Maniards?)
Once you start obsessing along these lines, you quickly realize there’s precious little rhyme and not much reason to these quirky designations. Consider, for example, the ticklish "ish" situation: countries whose names end in "land" tend to produce "ish" people. England and Ireland are nicely behaved examples. But it turns out that a "land" country by no means guarantees an "ish" people. Iceland is home to the Icelanders, not the Icish. Likewise, the upstanding citizens of Newfoundland are not Newfoundish, but Newfoundland-ers. And to totally muddy the linguistic waters, while the people of England are indeed English, New England is the land of New Englanders, not of the New English. Worse, if Thais come from Thailand and Finns come from Finland, why aren’t people from Holland called Holls? (They’re Dutch, of course. Go figure.)
Deeper mysteries abound: people from Canada and Florida somehow pick up an internal "i," becoming Canadians and Floridians, yet those from other "a" places do not, or else we would have Americians, Alaskians and Arubians. So, you say, an "a" ending is not sufficient. After all, both Canada and Florida end in "da." Well, tell that to the Ugandans.
And how did people from Peru come to be called Peruvians? Who slipped in that silly "v"? It certainly wasn’t dictated by the "u," or we would also have Honoluluvians and Timbuctuvians. Likewise, if the "o" at the end of Kosovo makes for Kosovars, where are the Congovars, the Ohiovars, the Pagovars and the Tierra del Fuegovars? Come to think of it, are those folks more properly the Tierra del Fuegans or the Tierrans del Fuego?
If the denizens of Rome, Italy, are Romans, what are people from Nome, Alaska? Nomans? And if residents of Los Angeles are known as Angelenos, why aren’t those who live in Las Vegas called Veganos? Norway gives us Norwegians and Galway supplies Galwegians; but are those suburbanites out on Long Island Far Rockawegians? Is Hunan Province in China populated by Hunaners, Hunanese or Hunanians? Or Hunan beings?
No doubt you now understand why these linguistic mysteries have disturbed my sleep for the past couple of years. Just last night, as I was about to drift off to the Land of Nod, I began to wonder: Who lives there? The Nodians? The Noddish? The Nodlanders? The Nodese? The Nodovars? The Noss?
As I’m sure George W. would agree, this is not an endeavor for the timorous. Not to mention the timorish.
[Richard Liebmann-Smith]
================
|
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 7, 2017 11:30:27 GMT
OK gang. For anyone now awake, here is a little ZOO poser:
------------
At a recent visit to the reptile house at the local zoo, I counted a total of 27 heads and 70 feet (the ones with toes, not inches).
I was counting snakes, lizards and people and I know that there were exactly twice as many lizards as people.
How many snakes did I count? Give the reasoning behind your solution.
===========
|
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on May 7, 2017 11:56:33 GMT
Tarathian123 said: Or is it that (forgetting the calendar timing, which is artificial anyway) in reality the twins could never be born at the same time so the equations could never apply?
This is the closest so far to what I am going for. It has more to do with human nature, especially the nature of twins. It does hinge on the phase "oldest son," although nothing to do with its grammatical use. (I hope that helps, because some of my clues in this puzzle just seem to cause more confusion.)
|
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 7, 2017 12:07:09 GMT
brimfin said:
Does this refer to the oldest twin maybe? I'm clutching at straws here. Siamese twins perhaps?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 7, 2017 19:13:01 GMT
brimfin, I wonder if the answer could be that the two six-year-olds do not necessarily have to be twins (or triplets, or anything but brothers, for that matter). That is to say, the three trimesters of pregnancy take nine months in total, correct? If one child were born very early in a certain year, and the second child born very late in that certain year, both would be six-years-old but do not logically have to be twins. Therefore, the second solution (6-6-1) need not be incorrect, because there could still be one oldest son who is older than his younger brother (born later in the year), who is himself older than the 1-year-old. I hope that all makes sense. Anyway, logically, the point would be that there is no way to determine, by the terms set forth in the puzzle, which of the two solutions is therefore accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 7, 2017 19:28:43 GMT
NalkarjBrimfin seems to have comfirmed that two of the boys are indeed twins when he stated:
"This is the closest so far to what I am going for. It has more to do with human nature, especially the nature of twins".
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 7, 2017 19:39:29 GMT
Nalkarj Brimfin seems to have comfirmed that two of the boys are indeed twins when he stated:
"This is the closest so far to what I am going for. It has more to do with human nature, especially the nature of twins". I suppose so. Still, what I wrote would, as far as I can see, still be a flaw with the original riddle, as presented. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 7, 2017 19:44:27 GMT
Nalkarj I think the answer lies with Siamese twins and how they're viewed, i.e. either as a single entity or a double. But I can't see how that would alter the maths. If viewed as a single entity then there would only be two sons, if as a double then he has three sons. It doesn't flaw the equations any. They don't change.
|
|
