|
|
Post by brimfin on May 7, 2017 20:53:12 GMT
The fish problem The green house owns the fish. Won't bore you with the details. I made the chart, mapped out the neighborhood, and so on. A real challenge. Good puzzle.
Phil & Joel Okay, I think my puzzle is laying a peacock-sized egg, and will seem anti-climactic when I explain. Let me ask any of you this question: Have you ever met a real-life pair of twins (not babies, but children or adults of speaking age)? If so, what was one of the first things they must have told you? |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 7, 2017 21:01:55 GMT
brimfin Correct on the fish! Have you tried the Zoo Poser yet? Nope, never. I suppose I should get out more. Nor can I think of what they might tell me, if and when I do meet them for the first time. If they're identical I guess they'd probably ask me "which one is which?" 
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 7, 2017 21:16:10 GMT
I have met twins, on several occasions, and do you mean, brimfin , that they tell you if they're identical or fraternal? The first question that someone asks to every pair of twins I've met is "are you identical?" (even if they look nothing alike!). I was thinking along those lines, but I saw nothing pertinent to this puzzle. By the way, does anyone agree with me that--were it not stipulated afterwards that the two of the same age are indeed twins--the concept that they may simply be brothers born in the same year (an unlikelihood but not an impossibility) would indeed constitute a flaw in the riddle? Or is there something I'm missing? |
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on May 7, 2017 21:16:58 GMT
Zoo puzzle:
5 snakes, 13 lizards and 9 people. That makes 18 reptiles and 9 peoples, double as indicated. I started with 9 of each, then increased lizards and reduced snakes until the number of legs lined up.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 7, 2017 21:20:03 GMT
brimfin: Zoo puzzle: Incorrect. Sorry, try again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 21:35:21 GMT
tarathian123the snakes, lizards and people We have 6 snakes.
My solution: We have twice as many lizards as we have people, means we have ⅔ lizards and ⅓ people. I looked for a figure that is divisible by three
a) 27 divided by three is 9; 9 people, 18 lizards, doesn't work, too many feet and no snakes
b) 24 - 8: 8 people, 16 lizards, - too many feet
c) 21 - 7: 7 people, 14 lizards - 70 feet
d) 18 - 6: 6 people, 12 lizards - not enough feet (60)
and so on.
The correct answer is c) 7 people with a total of 14 feet
14 lizards with a total of 56 feet
6 snakes without feet
------------------------------------
27 heads and 70 feet
|
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 7, 2017 21:40:28 GMT
Nalkarj : Flaw. If they're all of the same age and born in the same year, the eldest born (say born 10 months before the others, or vice versa), then the equations certainly wouldn't work, but then the sum of the ages was said to be 13. How do you divide 3 into 13? And the product of the ages was said to be 36, which makes them 12 years old (can't be 12 months). The product of the ages works out at 1,728.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 7, 2017 21:42:48 GMT
@volver : Zoo. Snakes, lizards and people Correct volver. Absolutely spot on. Take a bow! |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 7, 2017 21:53:16 GMT
Nalkarj : Flaw. If they're all of the same age and born in the same year, the eldest born (say born 10 months before the others, or vice versa), then the equations certainly wouldn't work, but then the sum of the ages was said to be 13. How do you divide 3 into 13. And the product of the ages was said to 36, which makes them 12 years old (can't be 12 months). The product of the ages works out at 1,728. I'm reluctant to go too far into this reasoning, as brimfin has already said it wasn't the right answer, but I wasn't saying that all three boys were born in the same year, merely that two (either the nine-year-olds or six-year-olds--whom we've been calling "the twins") were. That is to say, we based the idea that 6-6-1 is incorrect on the third clue--"oldest son." But, conceivably (no pun intended in speaking about births!), there could be an oldest son, and not "oldest" by a mere matter of minutes either. If the mother gave birth to the first boy early in the year, she could have also given birth to another son late in the year (nine to twelve months afterwards, to be exact). That way, one son would be several months older than his brother, but both would be the same number of years old. If we grant all that, we cannot state that 6-6-1 is incorrect because one son is "the oldest." We cannot say that it is correct either, of course, but then we have no way to tell whether 6-6-1 or 9-2-2 is correct. It is, by necessity, one of those two (so the equations wouldn't change), but we can't determine which of those two. Again, though, Brimfin said that this reasoning is incorrect for the flaw of which he thought, so I'm just digressing, I guess. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 21:55:01 GMT
brimfinTwins usually tell you that they are twins and of the same age.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 7, 2017 22:03:18 GMT
Re: Flaw --- I guess brimfin is going to have to come clean on this. We seem to be back again to the Sleuth songs, the end of the rainbow, and the Holy Grail. It has to be something simple that we've overlooked. Or else there's a flaw in the flaw. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 7, 2017 22:06:46 GMT
Re: Flaw --- I guess brimfin is going to have to come clean on this. We seem to be back again to the Sleuth songs, the end of the rainbow, and the Holy Grail. It has to be something simple that we've overlooked. Or else there's a flaw in the flaw. Hah! Y'know, I'm going to have to use "the Sleuth songs" in the future as something that's impossible to find, à la the end of the rainbow and the Holy Grail. No one will know what I'm talking about, but I'll bet everyone'll be interested once I explain it... |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 7, 2017 22:42:46 GMT
Here's an old favourite which you may know. Variations of it have been used by street conners for ever. I'll call it the Bellhop.
Three people check into a hotel.
They pay £30 to the manager and go to their room.
The manager suddenly remembers that the room rate is £25 and gives £5 to the bellboy to return to the people.
On the way to the room the bellboy reasons that £5 would be difficult to share among three people so he pockets £2 and gives £1 to each person.
Now each person paid £10 and got back £1.
So they paid £9 each, totalling £27. The bellboy has £2, totalling £29.
Where is the missing £1?
|
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on May 7, 2017 22:55:21 GMT
brimfin : Zoo puzzle: Incorrect. Sorry, try again. My mistake. I thought you had said there were twice as many reptiles (lizards & snakes) as people, but you said twice as many lizards as people. The answer would be 6 snakes, 14 lizards and 7 people. This time I started with 18 lizards and 9 people, then reduced people by one and increased lizards by 2 with snakes being adjusted for the difference until the total of legs hit 70. See if that isn't a better answer. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 7, 2017 23:05:45 GMT
brimfin --- Zoo. Much better, and correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on May 7, 2017 23:31:38 GMT
Re: Flaw --- I guess brimfin is going to have to come clean on this. We seem to be back again to the Sleuth songs, the end of the rainbow, and the Holy Grail. It has to be something simple that we've overlooked. Or else there's a flaw in the flaw. Hah! Y'know, I'm going to have to use "the Sleuth songs" in the future as something that's impossible to find, à la the end of the rainbow and the Holy Grail. No one will know what I'm talking about, but I'll bet everyone'll be interested once I explain it... Okay, let's put this baby to rest and never speak of it again.  Actually, salzmank almost said it with this comment: That is to say, we based the idea that 6-6-1 is incorrect on the third clue--"oldest son." But, conceivably (no pun intended in speaking about births!), there could be an oldest son, and not "oldest" by a mere matter of minutes either. The crux of the riddle hinges on the fact that when he says "oldest son" we reason that if the children were ages 6,6, and 1 and since the twins were the same age, he wouldn't have an "oldest son." However, my experiences with twins in real life and even those on TV is that one of the first things they will tell you is which is the older of the two and by how many minutes. So saying that since he had a pair of twins first that he didn't have an "oldest son" is poppycock. The twins themselves will tell you which one is the older of the two. One of my favorite exchanges on this came from a Disney movie called EMIL AND THE DETECTIVES. Emil meets a bunch of kids at once and two of them are twin brothers. I will paraphrase, since I last saw this movie in the 60's. Steve: I'm Steve, and this is my younger brother, Daniel. Daniel: (annoyed) Only by ten minutes! Even in this exchange, Daniel does not deny that his brother is older than him, just not by very much. He doesn't shout, "We're the same age, dummy!" This idea occurred to me the first time I heard the puzzle, though I still got it correct by reasoning that this was what the author meant to imply. But I always thought that just because his oldest boy was a twin, that didn't mean he didn't have an "oldest son." I even spoke to someone who mentioned she had twins and asked her, "Do they tell people which one is older and by how many minutes?" "All the time," she answered, and then asked me, "Do you have twins, too?" That told me that since I knew about that behavior, she thought I have experienced the same thing with my own kids. From the way this puzzle went over like a lead balloon, maybe it's not as obvious as I thought it was. Granted, a father whose firstborns were twins might be less inclined to say "My oldest boy," since the next oldest is so close in age. I've never thought to ask any parents of twins about that, and I currently don't know anyone with twins to check it out with. And granted the dynamics of having twins in your family is different. Your oldest son will never be babysitting his slightly younger brother for example. And when the time comes to give the oldest boy his first car, his brother will likely be getting one as well. Thank you all for participating. Maybe I should have just written it up as an analysis rather than presenting it as a puzzle. Lesson learned for next time. By the way, salzmank, I loved your line "But, conceivably (no pun intended in speaking about births!)" Brilliant! |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 7, 2017 23:49:02 GMT
Hah! Y'know, I'm going to have to use "the Sleuth songs" in the future as something that's impossible to find, à la the end of the rainbow and the Holy Grail. No one will know what I'm talking about, but I'll bet everyone'll be interested once I explain it... Okay, let's put this baby to rest and never speak of it again. Actually, salzmank almost said it with this comment: That is to say, we based the idea that 6-6-1 is incorrect on the third clue--"oldest son." But, conceivably (no pun intended in speaking about births!), there could be an oldest son, and not "oldest" by a mere matter of minutes either. The crux of the riddle hinges on the fact that when he says "oldest son" we reason that if the children were ages 6,6, and 1 and since the twins were the same age, he wouldn't have an "oldest son." However, my experiences with twins in real life and even those on TV is that one of the first things they will tell you is which is the older of the two and by how many minutes. So saying that since he had a pair of twins first that he didn't have an "oldest son" is poppycock. The twins themselves will tell you which one is the older of the two. One of my favorite exchanges on this came from a Disney movie called EMIL AND THE DETECTIVES. Emil meets a bunch of kids at once and two of them are twin brothers. I will paraphrase, since I last saw this movie in the 60's. Steve: I'm Steve, and this is my younger brother, Daniel. Daniel: (annoyed) Only by ten minutes! Even in this exchange, Daniel does not deny that his brother is older than him, just not by very much. He doesn't shout, "We're the same age, dummy!" This idea occurred to me the first time I heard the puzzle, though I still got it correct by reasoning that this was what the author meant to imply. But I always thought that just because his oldest boy was a twin, that didn't mean he didn't have an "oldest son." I even spoke to someone who mentioned she had twins and asked her, "Do they tell people which one is older and by how many minutes?" "All the time," she answered, and then asked me, "Do you have twins, too?" That told me that since I knew about that behavior, she thought I have experienced the same thing with my own kids. From the way this puzzle went over like a lead balloon, maybe it's not as obvious as I thought it was. Granted, a father whose firstborns were twins might be less inclined to say "My oldest boy," since the next oldest is so close in age. I've never thought to ask any parents of twins about that, and I currently don't know anyone with twins to check it out with. And granted the dynamics of having twins in your family is different. Your oldest son will never be babysitting his slightly younger brother for example. And when the time comes to give the oldest boy his first car, his brother will likely be getting one as well. Thank you all for participating. Maybe I should have just written it up as an analysis rather than presenting it as a puzzle. Lesson learned for next time. By the way, salzmank, I loved your line "But, conceivably (no pun intended in speaking about births!)" Brilliant! First of all, many thanks for the compliment! I looked at the line as-written and then broke out in laughter. Conceivably, indeed. As for the point in question... I thought tarathian123 and I had covered that here and here, so I tried to think of something else. By the way, is my "born at different times in the year, several months apart" theory possible? It seems unlikely but possible to me, but I'm just not sure. Anyway... Is the difference only that the father would not say "oldest son" because of the time difference? Is that the piece we were missing?
Very enjoyable, Brimfin. Many thanks! By the way, you wrote before that you've seen the '70s Ellery Queen show with Jim Hutton. Did you like it? I have a thread on it here. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 8, 2017 0:11:50 GMT
Any more for any more, or can I go to bed now? I join the thanks brimfin. What is termed an excellent conversation piece as well as a puzzle. btw - Don't forget the Bellhop. It should take all of 30 secs to solve it. Goodnight all.  |
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on May 8, 2017 1:17:22 GMT
Okay, let's put this baby to rest and never speak of it again. Actually, salzmank almost said it with this comment: That is to say, we based the idea that 6-6-1 is incorrect on the third clue--"oldest son." But, conceivably (no pun intended in speaking about births!), there could be an oldest son, and not "oldest" by a mere matter of minutes either. The crux of the riddle hinges on the fact that when he says "oldest son" we reason that if the children were ages 6,6, and 1 and since the twins were the same age, he wouldn't have an "oldest son." However, my experiences with twins in real life and even those on TV is that one of the first things they will tell you is which is the older of the two and by how many minutes. So saying that since he had a pair of twins first that he didn't have an "oldest son" is poppycock. The twins themselves will tell you which one is the older of the two. One of my favorite exchanges on this came from a Disney movie called EMIL AND THE DETECTIVES. Emil meets a bunch of kids at once and two of them are twin brothers. I will paraphrase, since I last saw this movie in the 60's. Steve: I'm Steve, and this is my younger brother, Daniel. Daniel: (annoyed) Only by ten minutes! Even in this exchange, Daniel does not deny that his brother is older than him, just not by very much. He doesn't shout, "We're the same age, dummy!" This idea occurred to me the first time I heard the puzzle, though I still got it correct by reasoning that this was what the author meant to imply. But I always thought that just because his oldest boy was a twin, that didn't mean he didn't have an "oldest son." I even spoke to someone who mentioned she had twins and asked her, "Do they tell people which one is older and by how many minutes?" "All the time," she answered, and then asked me, "Do you have twins, too?" That told me that since I knew about that behavior, she thought I have experienced the same thing with my own kids. From the way this puzzle went over like a lead balloon, maybe it's not as obvious as I thought it was. Granted, a father whose firstborns were twins might be less inclined to say "My oldest boy," since the next oldest is so close in age. I've never thought to ask any parents of twins about that, and I currently don't know anyone with twins to check it out with. And granted the dynamics of having twins in your family is different. Your oldest son will never be babysitting his slightly younger brother for example. And when the time comes to give the oldest boy his first car, his brother will likely be getting one as well. Thank you all for participating. Maybe I should have just written it up as an analysis rather than presenting it as a puzzle. Lesson learned for next time. By the way, salzmank, I loved your line "But, conceivably (no pun intended in speaking about births!)" Brilliant! First of all, many thanks for the compliment! I looked at the line as-written and then broke out in laughter. Conceivably, indeed. As for the point in question... I thought tarathian123 and I had covered that here and here, so I tried to think of something else. By the way, is my "born at different times in the year, several months apart" theory possible? It seems unlikely but possible to me, but I'm just not sure. Anyway... Is the difference only that the father would not say "oldest son" because of the time difference? Is that the piece we were missing?
Very enjoyable, Brimfin. Many thanks! By the way, you wrote before that you've seen the '70s Ellery Queen show with Jim Hutton. Did you like it? I have a thread on it here. Yes, I enjoyed the Ellery Queen series very much. I saw as many as I could on its original run, taped the reruns of it on A&E, and recently bought the DVD set as well. I haven't had a chance to play the DVDs yet, though. I will also have to check out your thread. |
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on May 8, 2017 1:24:12 GMT
Any more for any more, or can I go to bed now? I join the thanks brimfin. What is termed an excellent conversation piece as well as a puzzle. btw - Don't forget the Bellhop. It should take all of 30 secs to solve it. Goodnight all. Yes, that was classic misdirection. You need to subtract the $2 the crooked bellhop took from the $27 to get $25, the amount paid for the room. If you're looking for the whole $30, the desk clerk has $25 of it, the renters have $3 of the refund and the crooked bellhop has the other $2. A clever little riddle for the ages. Have a good night's sleep.  |
|
