|
Post by Nalkarj on May 2, 2017 22:31:19 GMT
Okay, here I go ready to soar or crash and burn: I am a mirror. As the peacock stands in front of me admiring his reflection I see all the symbols and images on his tail feathers, which I describe in the earlier stanzas. Finally, I say that I saw the peacock that saw this wondrous sight. I see him because he's standing in front of me admiring his reflection. He "saw this wondrous sight" because he was looking at his reflection in a mirror and saw the same things I saw, albeit backward of course. Is that the answer you seek? Because I think it's pretty darn good. But I worry about it because it wasn't really in line with the clue you gave me. I think it's pretty darn good too, Brimfin. (And, yes, I've now flagrantly looked at all your spoilers, still wondering what a possible alternative solution could be. I'm still unable to see where my reasoning is falling short.)
|
|
Pete
Sophomore
@petermorris
Posts: 111
Likes: 30
|
Post by Pete on May 2, 2017 22:41:27 GMT
Oh, it's only a millimetre short. You're so nearly there.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 3, 2017 0:47:28 GMT
Sorry, Pete , I'll leave it to brimfin or jervistetch or tarathian123 to get that millimeter. I can't for the life of me see the answer. I switched around the sentence, as Yoda would. There's got to be something here I'm not seeing...
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on May 3, 2017 0:54:43 GMT
Okay, here goes nothing (literally): From what you are telling me with your clues, I get the bizarre impression that the answer is "I".
I, saw the man out in the midst of night I, saw the peacock who saw this wondrous sight.
It seems you are saying the rhyme is backward and everyone is seeing me.
Except that while a man and a peacock can see, a comet can't see, nor can a tree or a glass or a well or a house. If that is truly the answer, then this riddle was the most anti-climactic bit of nonsense I've run across in a while. I'd take my peacock or mirror answer over that answer any day of the week.
I know a mirror can't "see" either, but it's one thing to subscribe sight to an inanimate object when your rhyme makes sense, but another to just say that a bunch of unrelated things "saw" me.
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on May 3, 2017 1:53:38 GMT
I lost all of my pride and dignity and looked at all of brimfin's posts. I applaud his Herculean effort. I didn't come within 30 miles of this solution, let alone one millimeter.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 3, 2017 2:00:38 GMT
I lost all of my pride and dignity and looked at all of brimfin's posts. I applaud his Herculean effort. I didn't come within 30 miles of this solution, let alone one millimeter. I did that long ago, my friend, so no shame! brimfin, just want to let you know how much I admire your ingenuity! If you ever want to collaborate on a detective story, just shoot me a line! As for this puzzle... Ingenious solution, brimfin, even if, as you say, slightly anticlimactic, but how does it fit in with Pete's hints that I was close before? I'm still confused, in fact.
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on May 3, 2017 11:15:18 GMT
I lost all of my pride and dignity and looked at all of brimfin's posts. I applaud his Herculean effort. I didn't come within 30 miles of this solution, let alone one millimeter. I did that long ago, my friend, so no shame! brimfin , just want to let you know how much I admire your ingenuity! If you ever want to collaborate on a detective story, just shoot me a line! As for this puzzle... Ingenious solution, brimfin , even if, as you say, slightly anticlimactic, but how does it fit in with Pete 's hints that I was close before? I'm still confused, in fact. Probably because you mentioned comma placement and putting the words in different order. He was indicating that that logic put you on the right track.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 3, 2017 14:39:47 GMT
Ah, interesting, brimfin . Thanks for explaining, but I'm still having trouble understanding this solution. Pete , could you pop in to tell us if Brimfin's latest solution is indeed correct? I was working on re-writing the poem this way, based on Pete's hints.
I saw a peacock... with a fiery tail, I saw a comet drop down hail, I saw a cloud with ivy circled round, I saw a mighty oak tree creep along the ground, I saw a spider swallow up a whale, I saw the ocean full of ale, I saw a Venice glass sixteen foot deep, I saw a well full of their tears that weep, I saw their eyes all in a flame of fire, I saw a house as big as the Moon and higher, I saw the Sun out in the midst of night, I saw the man ...that saw this wondrous sight.
I've got no idea what any of that means, now, but that was my best effort based on Pete's hints. Still having a great deal of trouble with the grammar, though.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 3, 2017 17:00:19 GMT
While we're waiting for Pete to respond to my last question, if anyone (unlike Horace Littel) can take his mind off Pete's puzzle for a minute... Below is a puzzle in the mode of a detective story. I hope you'll humor the format and enjoy it. (The detective is indeed very annoying, on purpose, but then he's a parody of S.S. Van Dine's very annoying Philo Vance, updated to the modern world.) Some of the puzzle-fans on this thread-- tarathian123, jervistetch, brimfin, Pete--may appreciate one or two elements--I hope!
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 3, 2017 17:03:38 GMT
“The Puzzle Murder Case”
a Philip van der Lyine Mystery
The puzzle murder case, as some of the more imaginative members of our daily press called it, was something of a nine days’ wonder in New York. Philip van der Lyine, the amateur sleuth who eventually solved the mystery, thought it only one of his more middling efforts, however—a reaction that infuriated District Attorney Mattham and Sgt. O’Rourke, who had exhausted both of their considerable intellects in pursuit of the solution.
The case proper began when the District Attorney burst into Mr. van der Lyine’s study and started to rave about the murder of Horace Littel, the puzzle expert.
“Now, now,” drawled van der Lyine, puffing on one of those infinitesimal Persian cigarettes that he inexplicably fancies, “we’d best begin at the beginnin’. As one of the old Anglican divines—I’m engaged in a study of early Anglicanism at the moment—put it…”
“Shut up,” Mattham snapped.
“Well, yes,” van der Lyine responded, unperturbed. “I heard somethin’ about Littel’s death, yes, but how does that concern you, Mattham, old sport?”
“He’s been murdered, van der Lyine—shot through the head. And we’ve got nothing to go on—no clues, no fingerprints, no suspects!—except this.”
He thrust a slip of paper into van der Lyine's hand, with the most curious set of words on it—in order, then: fax headed the list, followed by Shops, Chips, Babbage (after which the ink was blotted—curious, thought Philip van der Lyine), and Rings, with the s trailing off—and a blood stain to the side.
“My, my, Mattham, old horse, this has left even me bemused, as well as amused,” van der Lyine chuckled. “You’re sure it’s not Littel’s to-do list?”
“Very funny,” snapped Mattham. “Littel did write it, though—while he was in the presence of his killer, we think.”
“From the evidence of the bloodstained s, I suppose.”
“Yes, and also the fact that, according to the three persons closest to him—his friend Mr. Smayle, his maid Mrs. Wesck, and his nephew, Tom Littel—he had something of a one-track mind and could not go on to another puzzle for days while he was working on one. Yet he must have started it while in his murderer’s presence, because (1) it was not the puzzle he’d been working on and (2) it was also not what he was supposed to write for that week. He wrote a puzzle column for the Tribune, as you know.”
“Indeed I do,” drawled the Great Man, smiling. “Always found those puzzles a bit too easy—eh, what? Too little from Littel?”
“Uh-huh,” muttered a sarcastic Mattham, who didn’t much value calling van der Lyine into his cases. “That’s why I came to you. Well, there’s a puzzle for you, probably: what to make of it? It’s either a puzzle or the most ordered piece of nonsense I’ve ever come across.”
“Well, m’dear Mattham, you go and search for physical evidence and all that sort of thing—or whatever it is you police chappies”—Mattham genuinely winced—“do with your time. I’ll set to work on this.”
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 3, 2017 17:04:28 GMT
And set to work he did. He looked through every puzzle book he could find, he used deductive, inductive, abductive, and every other -ductive logic in existence, he immersed himself in Greek and Roman texts (in the original Greek or Latin, of course) to see what the Classics had to say on codes—and nothing. Absolutely nothing. Two days after Mattham had called, van der Lyine was burning the midnight oil—and despondent. He needed something to take his mind off the riddle—the Anglican divines again? Anglican divines… That was interesting. No, but the thought vanished from his mind. Perhaps, he considered, he needed a key word—and, without that word, it was all hopeless. Or another mathematical equation, perhaps? A… Wait a moment. Mathematical? Babbage. Babbage was a mathematician. Yes, indeed—and there was another mathematician…
The telephone rang.
“Van der Lyine!” It was Mattham, and he was screaming. “You awake? I’m sorry, but…”
“Yes, yes, I’m here,” drawled the Great Man. “Well?”
“Well! The murderer’s confessed, van der Lyine. Forget about the puzzle. The murderer is…”
“Ah,” van der Lyine sighed. “One ought never to forget about the puzzle. Adds spice to life, I say. My dear Mattham, I know who the murderer is.”
“What! But…”
“Of course, m’D.A. The murderer is…”
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 3, 2017 17:05:39 GMT
CHALLENGE TO THE READER:
Who is the murderer?
How did Philip van der Lyine know?
What is the solution to the riddle?
|
|
Pete
Sophomore
@petermorris
Posts: 111
Likes: 30
|
Post by Pete on May 3, 2017 17:23:51 GMT
Salzmark's post is essentially the correct answer. You just need to insert Capital letters and periods.
With this hint, I think you should get it.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 3, 2017 19:01:32 GMT
Salzmank's post is essentially the correct answer. You just need to insert Capital letters and periods.
With this hint, I think you should get it. I saw a peacock... With a fiery tail, I saw a comet. Drop down hail, I saw a cloud. With ivy circled round, I saw a mighty oak tree. Creep along the ground, I saw a spider. Swallow up a whale, I saw the ocean. Full of ale, I saw a Venice glass. Sixteen foot deep, I saw a well. Full of their tears that weep, I saw their eyes. All in a flame of fire, I saw a house. As big as the Moon and higher, I saw the Sun. Out in the midst of night, I saw the man. ...that saw this wondrous sight.
Capital letters and periods added, and I still can't see it. I'm probably a fool, but...
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on May 3, 2017 21:50:24 GMT
Intriguing as hell. I'm on the Horace Littel case, Salzmank. I'll give it my all. With my deductive skills I should have it wrapped up some time around mid-August.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 3, 2017 21:52:37 GMT
Intriguing as hell. I'm on the Horace Littel case, Salzmank. I'll give it my all. With my deductive skills I should have it wrapped up some time around mid-August. Hah! I believe your powers of deduction are far abler than that, though. It does center around the riddle/puzzle, I hasten to add.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 3, 2017 22:13:01 GMT
By the way, I'm more than willing to answer any questions about it you may have!
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on May 3, 2017 22:32:00 GMT
Okay. I already have a theory but I'm on my phone and you can't do spoilers. Can I PM you my idea? If it holds any water I'll put it in spoiler form on this thread when I get home.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 3, 2017 22:34:24 GMT
Sure, go right ahead, jervistetch. Oh, Lord, is it that obvious?
|
|
|
Post by brimfin on May 3, 2017 22:42:24 GMT
The Puzzle Murder Case Now this is a puzzle I can understand, unlike the peacock poem: When I first saw babbages, it made me think of cabbages. I wondered if maybe the puzzle was to shift each by one letter. When I tried shifting it around, it didn't work but the sounds reminded me of the Lewis Carroll poem, "The time has come, the walrus said, to think of many things. Of shoes and ships and ceiling wax, of cabbages and kings." And then I realized it was the words of the poem with one letter changed. If I replace the letters in the order of the words I get Wesck, the name of one of the suspects. But of course, he did it in a way that the killer would not know what he was doing. And he was addicted to puzzles, of course.
So Mrs. Wesck was the murderer, which Phil knew because it was the answer to the riddle, which he had solved.
Nice puzzle, salzmank. Glad I read Alice in Wonderland as a child.
|
|