|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 4, 2017 20:34:56 GMT
Oh wow! Ok. Thanks. Comes of reading Holmes and Wimsey I guess.  By the way, did you happen to see my other attempt at puzzle-writing, " The Puzzle Murder Case"? |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 4, 2017 20:38:48 GMT
No. Haven't seen it. I thought it had been solved so didn't bother. Will look now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 4, 2017 20:39:54 GMT
No. Haven't seen it. I thought it had been solved so didn't bother. Will look now. Oh, yes, it was solved, but you can still take a look if you're interested and don't yet know the answer. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 4, 2017 20:42:24 GMT
What page does it start on so I don't inadvertently see any solutions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 4, 2017 20:44:17 GMT
Oh, I thought I linked to it, Al. Page 6, about halfway through. And I think all answers are in spoilers. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 4, 2017 20:53:35 GMT
Oke. Can you clarify "in order, then: fax headed the list, followed by..."
I've never faxed in my life and know nothing about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 4, 2017 20:54:59 GMT
Oke. Can you clarify "in order, then: fax headed the list, followed by..." I've never faxed in my life and know nothing about it. It's not an actual piece of paper from a fax machine, just a handwritten list with that word ("fax") on it. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 4, 2017 20:55:38 GMT
OK thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 4, 2017 21:53:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 4, 2017 22:11:31 GMT
“The Puzzle Murder Case” My working notes... fax Shops Chips Babbage Rings Substitution code of some sort methinks. fax: lax, max, tax, wax fix, fox, fad, fag, far, fat, shops: shoes, shoos ships, chops, chips (chips no! already in), chaps slops, stops, swops baggage: cabbage * rings: dings, kings * Hold on here!!! kings, cabbages, Cabbages and Kings. Have to cheat here. Google it. Aha! "The Walrus and the Carpenter" From words above which fit the poem... shoes, ships, wax, cabbages, kings. shoes - S ships - S wax - W cabbages - C kings - K CHALLENGE TO THE READER: 1. Who is the murderer? 2. How did Philip van der Lyine know? 3. What is the solution to the riddle? #1 - I would guess Wesck, but where the E comes from, and why two S's I'm not sure. #2 - Not sure #3 - Presumably "The Walrus and the Carpenter" poem. That's as far as I've got. I think I'm probably near, but not quite near enough methinks. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 4, 2017 22:18:26 GMT
“The Puzzle Murder Case” My working notes... fax Shops Chips Babbage Rings Substitution code of some sort methinks. fax: lax, max, tax, wax fix, fox, fad, fag, far, fat, shops: shoes, shoos ships, chops, chips (chips no! already in), chaps slops, stops, swops baggage: cabbage * rings: dings, kings * Hold on here!!! kings, cabbages, Cabbages and Kings. Have to cheat here. Google it. Aha! "The Walrus and the Carpenter" From words above which fit the poem... shoes, ships, wax, cabbages, kings. shoes - S ships - S wax - W cabbages - C kings - K CHALLENGE TO THE READER: 1. Who is the murderer? 2. How did Philip van der Lyine know? 3. What is the solution to the riddle? #1 - I would guess Wesck, but where the E comes from, and why two S's I'm not sure. #2 - Not sure #3 - Presumably "The Walrus and the Carpenter" poem. That's as far as I've got. I think I'm probably near, but not quite near enough methinks. close, so much so that you'll probably think of it if you look at the words long enough! By the way, the way you did it is (1) very clever and (2) greatly appreciated, because it shows me the riddle can be worked by someone who doesn't know "The Walrus and the Carpenter." I was worried that it might not be fair. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 5, 2017 2:40:34 GMT
I feel like I'm getting a contact high from this riddle, it's so insane. I'm not sure how to even begin to approach it, but approach it I shall. Thanks for the fresh challenge, Salzmank. Any thoughts, Jervistetch? |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 5, 2017 6:58:49 GMT
I still haven't completely solved “The Puzzle Murder Case”, but here's one for all you budding Poirots.
There are five people. One of them shot and killed one of the other five.
1. Dan ran in the NY City marathon yesterday with one of the innocent men.
2. Mike considered being a farmer before he moved to the city.
3. Jeff is a topnotch computer consultant and wants to install Ben's new computer next week.
4. The murderer had his leg amputated last month.
5. Ben met Jack for the first time six months ago.
6. Jack has been in seclusion since the crime.
7. Dan used to drink heavily.
8. Ben and Jeff built their last computers together.
9. The murderer is Jack's brother. They grew up together in Seattle.
Who killed who? Explain the reasoning behind your solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by sostie on May 5, 2017 9:59:53 GMT
I still haven't completely solved “The Puzzle Murder Case”, but here's one for all you budding Poirots. There are five people. One of them shot and killed one of the other five. 1. Dan ran in the NY City marathon yesterday with one of the innocent men. 2. Mike considered being a farmer before he moved to the city. 3. Jeff is a topnotch computer consultant and wants to install Ben's new computer next week. 4. The murderer had his leg amputated last month. 5. Ben met Jack for the first time six months ago. 6. Jack has been in seclusion since the crime. 7. Dan used to drink heavily. 8. Ben and Jeff built their last computers together. 9. The murderer is Jack's brother. They grew up together in Seattle. Who killed who? Explain the reasoning behind your solution. Dan is innocent - he ran a marathon and murderer has one leg
Mike is innocent - the murderer grew up in Seattle (9), Mike moved to a City later in life
Jack is innocent - he is the murderer's brother
Ben is innocent - he has only just met Jack and therefore not his brother
Therefore Jeff is guilty !?
Ben & Jeff still alive - Jeff is insalling Ben's computer next week
Jack is alive - he is murderers brother
Dan is alive - he ran a marathon yesterday
Nothing to say Mike is alive!
Jeff killed Mike. Assuming the murder took place before the marathon and the murderer didn't commit fratricide |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 5, 2017 10:20:09 GMT
Correct on all points sostie. Bravo! |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 5, 2017 15:35:01 GMT
I still haven't completely solved “The Puzzle Murder Case”, but here's one for all you budding Poirots. There are five people. One of them shot and killed one of the other five. 1. Dan ran in the NY City marathon yesterday with one of the innocent men. 2. Mike considered being a farmer before he moved to the city. 3. Jeff is a topnotch computer consultant and wants to install Ben's new computer next week. 4. The murderer had his leg amputated last month. 5. Ben met Jack for the first time six months ago. 6. Jack has been in seclusion since the crime. 7. Dan used to drink heavily. 8. Ben and Jeff built their last computers together. 9. The murderer is Jack's brother. They grew up together in Seattle. Who killed who? Explain the reasoning behind your solution. This is terrible. I think I've got the murderer's identity, but I'm drawing a blank on the victim's!
My logic so far:
We have five suspects--Ben, Dan, Jack, Jeff, and Mike.
We know off-the-bat that Jack cannot be the murderer because he is the murderer's brother (or, to be pedantic, the murderer is his brother). Therefore, we have four: Ben, Dan, Jeff, and Mike.
Point 9 also states that the brothers, Jack and the murderer, grew up together in Seattle, a large city. Point 2 states that Mike considered being a farmer before he moved to the city. The phraseology, "the city," indicates that he had never lived in a big city before. Therefore: Mike cannot be Jack's brother or, therefore, the murderer.
Ben, Dan, and Jeff.
Point 5 states that Ben only met Jack for the first time six months ago. However, Point 9 states that Jack grew up with his brother in Seattle. Therefore: Ben also cannot be Jack's brother, the murderer.
Dan and Jeff.
Here is where my reasoning is the shakiest, but I think it still holds. (Heavens! I feel like Ellery Queen, saying that.) Point 4 states that the murderer had his leg amputated last month, yet Point 1 states that Dan ran in the NY marathon yesterday. It would be easy, now, to jump to the conclusion that therefore Dan cannot be the murderer, which I think is true, but let's shore up the point a little more. I know (and have interviewed) a man who ran the Boston Marathon after both his legs had been amputated--he ran with prostheses--so I suppose it's possible. Be that as it may, if the murderer's leg were amputated last month, it is highly unlikely that he would have gotten a prosthetic leg in the time between the amputation and the race (and his doctors would not have recommended that he run the race so soon after the amputation). Therefore, I think we may confidently, albeit not definitely, state that Dan is also not the murderer.
Therefore, Jeff is the murderer. QED.
But give me a little while on the victim's identity--still working on that! |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 5, 2017 15:59:08 GMT
Oy! How am I not seeing this? I know, first, that neither Jack nor Jeff is the victim because Point 6 establishes that Jack is alive, in seclusion, since the crime (I will assume--dangerous thing to do--that the crime is the murder in question, as there's no hint of any other crime), and I established at least to my own satisfaction that Jeff is the murderer.
That leaves us with Ben, Dan, and Mike.
A first thought may be that Ben is the victim because the murderer, Jeff, obviously knew him well (Points 3 and 8), but that's not based on any logic.
I can't see any reason for Point 7, which is still tripping me up. Working notes thus far! |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 5, 2017 16:18:33 GMT
Arguably, one can suppose that the phraseology "...wants to install Ben's new computer next week" implies that Ben is still alive, but I think that's particularly weak reasoning. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 5, 2017 16:23:14 GMT
Arguably, one can suppose that the phraseology "...wants to install Ben's new computer next week" implies that Ben is still alive, but I think that's particularly weak reasoning. Or one can argue the opposite, because Ben built his own computer alongside Jeff the last time, which suggests that he [Ben] understands computers--all of which suggests that Ben won't be around to install his own computer, as Jeff, the murderer, well knows. I think that argument is a little better. |
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on May 5, 2017 16:38:42 GMT
You're almost there. |
|
