|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Jun 7, 2017 17:32:10 GMT
As this is from "Author, Author", I take it there's no correct solution to this problem? |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 7, 2017 22:27:35 GMT
As this is from "Author, Author", I take it there's no correct solution to this problem? Pretty much. I was looking for something similar to what the authors on the radio show thought up (and you got Dannay's solution, for the most part), but, yeah, really there's no correct solution. We could decide on the best one, though, if we ever think up one that explains all, or nearly all, of the variables. |
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on Jun 8, 2017 1:12:22 GMT
The mean old Barnaby Weste puzzle: We know 2 things from the setup for this puzzle:
1. Barnaby Weste is mean.
2. Billy Weste is a gambler, and a bad one if he owes $100,000.
Therefore, my theory is this: Contrary to what people thought - that Barnaby did one nice thing in his life by willing his money to Billy Weste to pay his gambling debts - he wasn't being nice at all. He set up this choice between taking the money or a seemingly empty envelope. Most people would go for the safe bet, the money. But Billy, the gambler, does not. He sees it's an empty and blank envelope with no stamps or writing, but bad gamblers take chances all the time. He figures his mean grandpa would want him to take the money only to then have the attorney reveal that the envelope was more valuable - perhaps with instructions written in invisible ink to a goldmine or something like that. (You said there was no invisible ink on it, but that wouldn't mean he couldn't think that there was.) So he takes the envelope. After hearing nothing from the attorney, he takes the letter home and checks it for invisible ink, has it x-rayed, maybe even examined by a scientist, before he realizes he traded away enough money to pay off his gambling debts for a worthless, empty envelope.
So, Barnaby scores one more wicked deed from the grave. But wait, it gets better. Now there is no one to claim the money. So, as predicted, the other heirs fight it out in court for years to get their hands on the money - with the one assurance that the man who needs it most, Billy Weste, won't be able to get a dime because he legally forfeited his claim to it. Barnably Weste was a mean man, but no one could say he wasn't clever. Oh, and what if Billy had taken the money instead? What difference would it make to a dead man? Barnaby was the one with nothing to lose in that deal. |
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on Jun 8, 2017 1:46:09 GMT
I pondered this puzzle for at least an hour before my transistors blew. Then I poured a drink and read the spoilers.
Tarathian has many intriguing ideas, any of which may pan out.
But I have to say Bravo Brimfin for an elegant presentation of a fascinating theory. It seems like just the crafty stunt that a dastardly bastard like Old Man Weste would pull from his death bed. I hope it turns out to be true.
Thank you Salzmank for keeping the puzzles coming. I still hold out hope of solving one of them eventually.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Jun 8, 2017 3:30:11 GMT
It's not unlike the scenario of a contestant on Take your Pick. Take the money or open the box. The envelope may be empty, but what unknown secrets may it hold, if any? Would a gambler take a risk on losing a $100,000 legacy, and go for hopefully something bigger? Would he risk a legacy for a 10 cent lollipop?
|
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Jun 8, 2017 4:27:52 GMT
Here's a nice simple puzzle...
A detective who was mere days away from cracking an international oil smuggling ring has suddenly gone missing. While inspecting his last-known location, officers find a note:
710 57735 34 5508 51 7718.
Currently there are 3 suspects: Bill, John, and Todd.
Can you break the detective’s code and find the criminal's name?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 8, 2017 13:55:26 GMT
Here's a nice simple puzzle... A detective who was mere days away from cracking an international oil smuggling ring has suddenly gone missing. While inspecting his last-known location, officers find a note: 710 57735 34 5508 51 7718. Currently there are 3 suspects: Bill, John, and Todd. Can you break the detective’s code and find the criminal's name? First, a question: are you allowed to let us know if the criminal's name is indeed in the puzzle? Because, if so, is the criminal John? |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Jun 8, 2017 14:00:52 GMT
The name is mentioned in the puzzle... Because, if so, is the criminal John? ...and your answer is incorrect. Sorry. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 8, 2017 14:06:01 GMT
The mean old Barnaby Weste puzzle: We know 2 things from the setup for this puzzle:
1. Barnaby Weste is mean.
2. Billy Weste is a gambler, and a bad one if he owes $100,000.
Therefore, my theory is this: Contrary to what people thought - that Barnaby did one nice thing in his life by willing his money to Billy Weste to pay his gambling debts - he wasn't being nice at all. He set up this choice between taking the money or a seemingly empty envelope. Most people would go for the safe bet, the money. But Billy, the gambler, does not. He sees it's an empty and blank envelope with no stamps or writing, but bad gamblers take chances all the time. He figures his mean grandpa would want him to take the money only to then have the attorney reveal that the envelope was more valuable - perhaps with instructions written in invisible ink to a goldmine or something like that. (You said there was no invisible ink on it, but that wouldn't mean he couldn't think that there was.) So he takes the envelope. After hearing nothing from the attorney, he takes the letter home and checks it for invisible ink, has it x-rayed, maybe even examined by a scientist, before he realizes he traded away enough money to pay off his gambling debts for a worthless, empty envelope.
So, Barnaby scores one more wicked deed from the grave. But wait, it gets better. Now there is no one to claim the money. So, as predicted, the other heirs fight it out in court for years to get their hands on the money - with the one assurance that the man who needs it most, Billy Weste, won't be able to get a dime because he legally forfeited his claim to it. Barnably Weste was a mean man, but no one could say he wasn't clever. Oh, and what if Billy had taken the money instead? What difference would it make to a dead man? Barnaby was the one with nothing to lose in that deal. A brilliant solution, Brimfin. Apologies for not going more in detail, but I'll try to do so at a later date. Excellent work! |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 8, 2017 14:09:39 GMT
The name is mentioned in the puzzle... Because, if so, is the criminal John? ...and your answer is incorrect. Sorry. :-) No, I meant to ask if the criminal's name were in the code itself. Because for both Bill and Todd, the last letter is doubled. Not so for John. If the numbers of the code stand for letters and the name is in the code, it can't be Bill or Todd because no last number is doubled. Unless that's a red herring? |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Jun 8, 2017 14:11:22 GMT
Yes it is. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 8, 2017 14:13:12 GMT
Unless the solution is just like the Dubya puzzle, and you just have to flip it over—making Bill the criminal. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Jun 8, 2017 14:17:51 GMT
Correct! Sneaky of me wasn't it.  Try this one: A man is found murdered on a Sunday morning. His wife calls the police, who question the wife and the staff, and are given the following alibis: the wife says she was sleeping, the butler was cleaning the closet, the gardener was picking vegetables, the maid was getting the mail, and the cook was preparing breakfast. Immediately, the police arrest the murderer. Who did it and how did the police know? |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 8, 2017 14:48:29 GMT
That one I know well, so I'll leave it for someone who may not know it.
Reminds me of another one, though:
One dark and stormy night, a man is sitting in a room with several other people. Suddenly, one of the others kills the first man and leaves the room. The next day, the murderer confesses to the police, his conscience having got to him in the interim. The police go to the room--and they see the dead man lying there still--but surrounded by fifty-three bicycles!
Your question: why did the murderer kill his victim?
|
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Jun 8, 2017 14:56:14 GMT
NalkarjIsn't Bicycle a brand of playing cards? But not one I think with 53 cards, so he was obviously killed for cheating at cards
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 8, 2017 14:57:55 GMT
Nalkarj Isn't Bicycle a brand of playing cards? But not one I think with 53 cards, so he was obviously killed for cheating at cards Yep, that's it! |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Jun 8, 2017 15:05:38 GMT
Another easy one:
A wealthy man lives alone in a small cottage. Being partially handicapped, he had everything delivered to his cottage. The mailman was delivering a letter one Thursday when he noticed that the front door was ajar. Through the opening he could see the man's body lying in a pool of dried blood. When a police officer arrived he surveyed the scene. On the porch were two bottles of warm milk, Monday's newspaper, a catalog, flyers, and unopened mail. The police officer suspects it was foul play. Who does he suspect and why?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 8, 2017 15:43:45 GMT
Another easy one: A wealthy man lives alone in a small cottage. Being partially handicapped, he had everything delivered to his cottage. The mailman was delivering a letter one Thursday when he noticed that the front door was ajar. Through the opening he could see the man's body lying in a pool of dried blood. When a police officer arrived he surveyed the scene. On the porch were two bottles of warm milk, Monday's newspaper, a catalog, flyers, and unopened mail. The police officer suspects it was foul play. Who does he suspect and why? I'm probably not seeing something obvious, but I'm trying to decide between the milkman and the newspaper boy.
If there are two bottles of warm milk on the porch, it seems to indicate that milk was not delivered that day (because, then, one bottle would not have been warm, unless the mailman were delivering the letter very late). Why would the milkman not bring milk that morning? Because he knew the handicapped man wouldn't need milk--therefore he killed him. (That's not all that logical--there are a myriad of other reasons why he might not have brought milk, for example--but bear with me.)
On the other hand, the newspaper boy could be the murderer, because--apparently--he hasn't brought a newspaper since Monday. (But, then, we don't know if our victim had daily delivery--in my household, for example, the newspaper is brought only on Thursdays and Sundays.)
In both cases the reasoning is the same--so-and-so didn't bring a certain item; therefore he knows that the victim was dead; therefore he killed him--which doesn't convince me all that much, but it is a riddle, and we are limited by the given information. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Jun 8, 2017 16:00:39 GMT
Correct. The usual answer is the newspaper boy as he hadn't delivered since Monday (obviously a daily paper). Your logic on the milkman is perfectly sound too. But then the question was who was suspected (presumably at first). A murderer is condemned to death. He has to choose between three rooms: the first is full of raging fires; the second, assassins with loaded guns; and the third, lions who haven't eaten in years. Which room is the safest? |
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on Jun 8, 2017 16:09:08 GMT
If the lions haven't eaten in years they are dead. I'd go in that room. |
|
