The worlds first riddle!

P.S. - and this excludes Relative with whom I have an agreement, but I have no such agreement with Try or Adrian so I can p-ss them off just as much as I choose!

Earlier, Try wrote of cannibals and missionaries crossing a river and said [quote}"the cannibals must never outnumber the missionaries left on one side".

In the context of crossing a river and within the terminology used, ?'crossing' can only mean ?'going from one side to the other'. Normal English usage permits ?'on this side', ?'on that side' or ?'somewhere in the middle'; no other possibilities fall within ?'crossing'.

So in both of the given ?'solutions' the first trip is one missionary and one cannibal, the cannibal is left and the missionary returns with the boat. He collects a second cannibal and takes him across.

Now could somebody explain to me in normal (or even abnormal) language how the boat - whether a neutral, partisan, double-agent, or whatever kind of boat - can be described as other than on the arrival side (as opposed to the departure side, or ?'somewhere in the middle') when dropping off the second cannibal (bearing in mind that ?'side' was the original wording)?

Or, alternatively could it be explained to me how a boat can be on the arrival side but its contents/passengers elsewhere, such as ?'on the other side' or ?'somewhere in the middle'?

Or, another alternative, how, with the original cannibal being on the arrival side and the ?'neutral/partisan/double-agent' boat with the missionary and second cannibal on board - the second cannibal in the process of disembarking - also on the arrival side, how come they are ?'not all on the one side', rather than ?'all on the one side' or ?'maybe somewhere in the middle'. (bearing in mind that ?'on the one side' was the original wording)?

Failing that, and given that there are now two cannibals on the arrival side and one missionary, how ?'two' does not outnumber ?'one'?

Four questions, and I would be most grateful if someone could give me an answer to at least one of them.

Well, here endeth my flying visit. Back to the salt mines and the nosing of grindstones. (Ooh, I do so love to raise hackles!)

Bravo.
















Will be back with hackles raised to "contend" one or two points.

Bravo.
















Will be back with hackles raised to "contend" one or two points.

Quote Adrian,

Q1. Foil, Oil.

Q2. Phone, Hone.

Q3. Turn, Urn.

Q4. Shard, Hard.

I know you probably found the question too easy. However, you were the only person in the world to provide the correct answer. 4/4.

I was now going to spend the next hour or so singing your praises, however, in view of what is written above by Iacomus I am too shocked to continue.

Quote Iacomus,"… and this excludes Relative with whom I have an agreement, but I have no such agreement with Try or Adrian so I can p-ss them off just as much as I choose!"

Adrian, what have you done to excite him to fever pitch? Why should he want to ?'pass' you off? Is this agreement he has with Relative legally binding, or is he being held prisoner?

Quote Iacomus, "(Ooh, I do so love to raise hackles!)

Hacker Site Raises GM's Hackles
The latest cease-and-desist letter came from General Motors, the world's largest auto maker, which objects to 2600's registration of "FuckGeneralMotors.com."
GM demands that the website be turned over within 14 days of the letter, or by Oct. 25.

Charles Ellerbrock, the General Motors attorney who sent 2600 the letter, said that in line with a lot of other companies, General Motors is protecting its trademarks.
"If every factory making General Motors burned down tomorrow and all our dealers were flooded out, the banks would be lining up to lend us money to start making vehicles again because the name General Motors is a very important asset," he said. "It's the same story for Coca Cola and the Ford Motor Company. In my estimation it is the most important asset a company has, and for that reason we need to protect it."
Ellerbrock said General Motors had sent out a handful of similar cease-and-desist letters to other website owners in recent weeks, but he couldn't remember which ones.

He said GM will not necessarily take 2600 to court, but will review the case when the two-week deadline expires.
Attorney Dave Dolkas, an expert in copyright law, said if GM and NBC took 2600 to court, they would likely sue under the Lanham Act, a federal statute protecting against trademark infringement and dilution.
During the MPAA court case, 2600 unsuccessfully mounted a free-speech defense, arguing that links on the Internet to the DeCSS software were protected by the First Amendment. The court disagreed.
"Yeah, you can make a free-speech argument but I don't think it's going to fly," said Dolkas, who is a partner with Gray, Cary, Ware and Freidenrich of Palo Alto, California. "You can't run roughshod over someone's trademark rights on the basis of free speech. Further, I think a judge would say, 'Why is this speech?'

"This is an issue of speech and we need to send a message that free speech is something we just cannot back down on," the editorial said.
"We find ourselves facing no fewer than five lawsuits at the moment in what can only be interpreted as a last-ditch attempt by corporate America to take us out of the picture once and for all," said another editorial on the site. "We will not and cannot back down on such an important matter."

Adrian, as you are a'big wheel' within the motor industry, I hope you will reply to the Hackles ?'slur'. On the other hand, if this is a referance to;

"Conranch produces a Premium dry fly hackle that is second to none. This is an old flock that has consistently produced top quality hackle and saddles. Well known "old Timers" contributed to the blood lines of these birds. They are still being produced in a scientific manner so as to continually improve the feather quality demanded by you the fly tier. We keep records on each and every bird we produce. We have 16 separate families, thereby being able to produce better quality hackle each year."

So, Iacomus is a good old chicken farmer. I think his remarks may be seen as (egg)adurated'

Ps. Nice to see you back. I hope that in the not to distant future they will indeed find a cure for what ails you. :wink:

Busters.
Adrian is 14 inches taller than Relative. The difference between Adrian and Iacomus is two inches less than between Iacomus and Relative. Adrian at 6'6" is the tallest. How tall are Iacomus and Relative

A jar has 4 amoebas in it to start. Amoebas split their cells in two ( therefore doubling in size) once every minute. The jar will be completely filled in 10 minutes. How long would it take to fill the same sized jar if had 8 amoebas in it to start

There are 100 golfers in the local match play contest. If a player loses a match, he is immediately eliminated from the contest. How many matches will be played to determine the winner

Try

PM sent concerning the amoebas, the matches, and the heights (I would have sworn Relative was taller!)

BUT . . .

Who told you I'm a chicken farmer? You been reading my mail again huh?

Anyway, to return to those aliens; I kind of skipped over it before.

If our set of rules of physics applies where they are, then current and magnet should do it. Actually, the magnet part is almost redundant because you would need to know how the magnet aligns with the flow of current to establish which pole is which, so the crucial bit is current flow.

The ?'anti-matter' case is a bit trickier. It seems to me that too little is known about anti-matter to really take a strong stand one way or another. You said that the means of transport can be regarded as ?'magic'. Fair enough, but it will be - a physical transportation (warp drive and worm holes and such) or - ?'transformed into information and transmitted, then re-assembled' (?'Beam me up, Scotty' and all that sort of thing) - or something as yet unimagined. If it is physical then their ship will go pear-shaped as soon as it makes an appearance and you will never even get started on your way there. If it is ?'sent as information' then you will be rebuilt according to their rules and you won't even know you've been rebuilt bass-ackwards. And if it is some other means of getting from here to there that we can't imagine then I say we obviously would not know enough about it so let them worry about it. If they haven't figured it out then it will be a large chunk of their space-time that ceases to exist and they are smart enough to have known better!! And of course when you disappear in a shower of neutrinos in some other eldritch dimension, we will all buy a beer and say, "I warned him. I told him it was too dangerous. Didn't I say that, mate? I did. Too iffy, I said to him . . ."

BTW, who says there will be a terrific explosion when ?'normal' and ?'anti' matter mutually self-annihilate? It can't be matter converted to energy because the matter will either be unaffected or will disappear. No fission or fusion, just fade-away. Any run-away neutrons will be swallowed by antineutrons, likewise beta-particles and just about everything else. It would be a cancellation, so what is left to go ?'bang'?

I'd guess - just to keep the sound effects guys happy - that there would be a B-movie sound similar to an industrial-size vacuum cleaner sucking up a hundred pounds of liver in a huge echoing cavern. That kind of sound, y'know? (And so much cheaper to arrange than a galactic-scale explosion on the kind of budget a film like "Buck ?'Try-it-on' Rogers goes anti" would have)

"A cure for what ails me"? Nothing ails me. I'm fine. It is all lies about the Cheerleader-girls, the five pounds of marshmallow, and the ostrich, I assure you. I'm fine. I'M JUST FINE YOU HEAR! ITS ALL LIES AND CONSPIRACY! I'M INNOCENT. YOU WILL ALL PAY FOR THIS! MWUHAHAHAHAAAA!


P.S. A big thank you to whoever provided the gift-pic of a gopher. Thanks, but could I have a sober one next time? Mine looks a bit - erm - Adrians to me.

Original riddle.

How can three missionaries and three cannibals cross a river two at a time in a canoe. If the cannibals must never outnumber the missionaries left on one side, and two cannibals cannot paddle across together?

Answer.
Bank ?'A'… Boat Bank…… ?'B'

MMM
CCC

MM >>>>>>>>M
CC >>>>>>>>C>>>>>>>>C

MM<<<<<<<<M
CC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>C

MM>>>>>>>>M
C>>>>>>>>>C>>>>>>>>>C

MM>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>M
C<<<<<<<<<C>>>>>>>>>C

M>>>>>>>>>M>>>>>>>>>M
C>>>>>>>>>C>>>>>>>>>C

M>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MM
C<<<<<<<<<C>>>>>>>>>C

>>>>>>>>>>M>>>>>>>>>MM
C>>>>>>>>>C>>>>>>>>>C

M<<<<<<<<<MM
C>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>CC

M>>>>>>>>>MM
C>>>>>>>>>CC

MMM
CCC


Quote Iacomus, "The point I was making - and still make - is that it is not possible for the boat to ferry folks across the river without it at some time being on one shore or the other.

< It moored at the end of the pier>

In your solution, from the moment the boat lands the second cannibal until it departs again there are two cannibals and one missionary on that shore. This has been expressly forbidden."

<The cannibal gets into the boat before the missionary gets out>

Quote Relative, "To 'be on shore' is a state, known to any sailor, as standing, two feet on the ground, ON the mentioned surface, and not floating in a canoe/boat in a river."

Quote Iacomus, "Missouri mules come to me for lessons!" "From 'Missouri Mule' to 'Philadelphia Shyster' in one easy move!)"

"FOR some, complaining is more than a hobby: it is a way of life. The !!! of this world suffer from a condition best described as "querulous paranoia", a group of Australian psychiatrists say.

They become so obsessed with a perceived injustice that nothing can be done to satisfy them. Complaints' officers quail at their appearance, journalists groan when another letter in green ink arrives, and ombudsmen everywhere are rendered powerless in the face of grievances so deeply felt that they are beyond all resolution.

In the British Journal of Psychiatry, Grant Lester and colleagues from the Institute for Forensic Mental Health at Monash University in Victoria provide some tips on recognising these complainers before they become a burden.

They are more often men than women; they use coloured inks, highlighters, or repeated underlining in their lengthy letters; they attach huge volumes of supporting material; they issue threats; they invade offices without appointments; they use wild language; and they insist that their complaints raise issues of principle, demanding to be given a hearing in court.

The researchers gathered material from six ombudsmen's offices in Australia, covering complaints about private and public organisations."

Times 1st April 2004 - Nigel Hawkes, Health Editor


After consulting the worlds greatest medical minds, and Joe down at the bar. It would appear you have a ?'pets' problem. That is to say, not only are you Dogmatic, but you Duck the realty of the situation. That is to say, nothing of the Cataclysmic results of your statements.

Quote Iacomus, "A cure for what ails me"? Nothing ails me. I'm fine. It is all lies about the Cheerleader-girls, the five pounds of marshmallow, and the ostrich, I assure you. I'm fine. I'M JUST FINE YOU HEAR! ITS ALL LIES AND CONSPIRACY! I'M INNOCENT. YOU WILL ALL PAY FOR THIS! MWUHAHAHAHAAAA!

My point is; care in the community may not be working for you. :wink:

Try

I am sure you are right in so many ways that it seems just a tad churlish of me to point out that I asked four questions and you have not answered any one of them.

But even that pales in comparison to my next comment, which is that if you are going to quote me;

[Your quote - and may I say word for word accurate and above all current]

Quote Iacomus, "The point I was making - and still make - is that it is not possible for the boat to ferry folks across the river without it at some time being on one shore or the other"

do please try to make the quotes current ones. May I recommend

Quote Iacomus, "Now could somebody explain to me in normal … language how the boat …. can be described as other than on the arrival side … when dropping off the second cannibal, bearing in mind that ?'side' was the original wording?"

?'Tied up at the pier' is kind of cute but I think you will find that piers are generally to be found on one side of the stretch of water or on the other side, so any boat moored to one is still 'on one side' of the water in any English usage that I know of (But - I hasten to add - what do I know?)

The original posting said that cannibals must not outnumber missionaries ?'one the one side'. It did not say, nor did it imply, that outnumbering was OK on the condition that:

1) The missionary was in the boat
2) The boat was moored to a pier
3) The missionary kept the cannibals amused with his animal impressions.
4) Cannibals can't count so good anyway so he'll be gone before they can work out that ?'two' is bigger than ?'one'
5) The Seventh Cavalry would ride to the rescue in the nick of time.

It merely said that the cannibals could not outnumber the missionaries ?'on the one side'.

Or, to employ some dinky graphics:

Answer.
Let M = missionary, C = cannibal = boat, [s] = stew pot. [t] = thighbone club
Side ?'A'………… …Boat …………….Side ?'B'


MMM
CCC

MM >>>>>>>>MC>>>>>> Zilch
CC

MM
CC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MC

MM
CC<<<<<<<<<M<<<<<<<C

MMM
CC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>C

MMC>>>>>>>>MC>>>>>>C

MMC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MCC M>>>[s]


MMC<<<<<<<C[t]C[t]<<<<<Zilch

MM
CC[t]C[t]


MM>>>[s]

C[2t] C[2t] C[2t]


Might I take this opportunity to express my admiration for the adroit way in which you compensated for the absence of logic in your reply with thinly veiled ad hominems - your "FOR some, complaining is more than a hobby: it is a way of life. The !!! of this world suffer from a condition best described as "querulous paranoia" is a classic of the genre.

To whom it may concern.

Press Release

Persistant complaints damage their own lives and frighten those dealing with their rhetoric.
Embargoed until Thursday 1st April 2004


Central to a modern society is the capacity to seek compensation for injuries or redress for injustice through complaints procedures. The vast majority of complainants are reasonable people but a tiny minority become very preoccupied with their grievances. These unusually persistent complainants not only seriously disrupt the financial and social aspects of their own lives, but also, by threatening and intrusive behaviour, frighten those trying to help them.

A new study from Australia, published in the April issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry, observes that ?'querulous paranoia' used to be classified as a psychiatric disorder. Although it has disappeared from the psychiatric literature, it may still be flourishing in modern complaints organisations and in the courts.

In this study, experienced complaints professionals were recruited from six ombudsmen's offices. These agencies receive secondary referrals following failure to resolve initial complaints, and deal with many thousands every year, covering a range of governmental, business and professional activities.

Complaints officers completed questionnaires on both unusually persistent complainants and matched controls.
It was found that persistent complainants pursued their complaints for longer; supplied more written material; telephoned more often and for longer; intruded more frequently without an appointment; and ultimately were still complaining when the case was closed or transferred.
They differed from the control group in being motivated at least in part by desires for vindication and retribution; in the curious and dramatic forms in which they presented their claims; in how they behaved whilst pursuing their claims, particularly with regard to threats; and in how high a price personally and socially they paid for that pursuit.

The authors of the study comment that focusing on issues of personal vindication and retribution fits badly with the functions of complaints organisations, and even court-based litigation, which are geared to provide conciliation through reparation and compensation. Persistent complainants are searching for outcomes that a modern complaints resolution service cannot deliver.

Persistent complainants used unusual methods of emphasis, such as multiple underlinings, putting words in capital letters, and using exclamation marks and inverted commas, as well as extensive marginal notes. (Interestingly, exactly these types of emphasis are reported in descriptions of ?'querulants' in the 19th and early 20th centuries).
Over half the persistent complainants made some form of threat of violence directed at professionals. Suicide threats were also frequent.

This finding underlines the importance of complaints organisations not only making efforts to protect and support their staff who deal with such cases, but also doing all they can to prevent persistent complainants damaging their own lives.

The next phase of research needs to include properly controlled trials of methods of complaint management aimed at preventing these destructive forms of persistent complaining. Better induction of clients into the complaints process is one possibility. Another is actively identifying, and attempting to counter, unrealistic goals on the part of the complainant.
Conventional wisdom is that difficult clients should be managed by a single experienced professional, to avoid splitting and confusion. In the case of the unusually persistent complainant, however, it may be more effective to have a team of professionals, who could share the load and help protect each other from becoming the specific focus of the client's anger.

The authors of the study conclude that approaches developed in the mental health field may offer help to organisations and individuals in avoiding the damaging and distressing effects of unusually persistent complaining. Perhaps it is time to restore querulousness to a legitimate place among the problem behaviours that mental health professionals study and manage.

For further information or a press copy of the full article, contact Deborah Hart or Thomas Kennedy in the External Affairs Department. Tel: 020 7235 2351 exts. 127 or 154. E-mail: [email protected].

© 2004 Royal College of Psychiatrists
Comments to [email protected]

Please, seek a second opinion, and increase the level of medication.

Late news.

Kiitos Kerttulille keskustelun aloittamisesta! Eihän moderaattorilta tai keltään muulta tarvitse pyytää lupaa keskustelun aloittamiseen! Minä aikanakin olen vain iloinen aktiivisesta keskustelusta.

Olisi kiva kuulla helmiläisten näkemyksiä ja kokemuksia politiikan ja politikoinnin suhteesta mielenterveysasioihin.

Niissä on monta eri tasoa. Yksi on aivan päivänpolitiikan vaikutus mielenterveyspalveluihin. Siinä asiassa ajat ovat huonot. Määrärahoja leikataan, vaikka palvelujen tarve vain kasvaa kilpailuyhteiskunnan kovenemisen johdosta.

Toinen poliittinen ulottuvuus, jonka ruotiminen on minulle sydämen asia, on mielenterveysongelmien ideologinen tulkitseminen ja leimaaminen poliittisten dogmien kautta.

Näistä saattaa pahimmillaan tulla pirullisia pakkopaitoja, joita on vaikea huomata ja niitä vastaan taistella, koska on on läpikotaisin upotettu ideologisten selitysten sisään.

Olenkin tuotannossani käyttänyt näistä nimitystä "mielipidesairaudet", vastakohtana "mielisairauksille" (jota termiä myös kritisoin).


Aloin jo 1978 kritisoida tieteellisissä julkaisuissa toisinajattelevien hiljentämistä psykiatrisin leimoin. Näistä silloin tunnetuin oli Neuvostoliitosta löydetty "hiipivä skitsofrenia", jolla ei ollut muita oireita kuin neuvostojärjestelmän arvostelu.

Itse osallistuin Mielenterveysseuran järjestämään Itsemurhien ehkäisykonferenssiin 1978, jossa kauhukseni sain huomata, miten äärioikeistolainen johtava suomalainen psykoanalyytikko julkisesti puolustaa äärivasemmistolaisen diktatuurin käytäntöjä protestien hiljentämiseksi.

Kirjoitin ensimmäisen kritiikkini vastaavasta, Suomesta löydetystä, mielipidesairaudesta vuonna 1980. Raportoin siinä ns. Salora-skandaalin psykiatrisia ulottuvuuksi. Vähän aikaisemmin oli tullut lehtien etusivuille juttu siitä, miten Salora-osakeyhtiötä veronkierrosta syyttänyt henkilö oli kolme kertaa suljettu pakkohoitoon hänen väitettyään julkisuuudessa Saloran syyllistyneen laajamittaiseen televisioiden verottomaan myyntiin ja että tähän salakauppaan olisi syyllistynyt korkeita poliitikkoja
aina maan johtoa myöten.

Pakkohoitoon passitettu oli sitkeä ihminen ja aina vapauduttuaan pakkohoidosta vaati poliisia ja viranomaisia selvittämään veronkierto.

Vihdoin muuan poliisi päätti tutustua syytöksiin ja tutkia asiaan. Paljastuikin Suomen historian suurin veronkiertoskandaali, johon oli sotkeutunut huippupoliitikkoja maan korkeinta johtoa myöten.

Käytin tapausta esimerkkinä siitä, miten kriittistä ajatettelua ja epäkohtien kritisointia voidaan yrittää hiljentää myös muodollisesti länsimaisessa demokratiassa.

Toin kansainväliseen julkisuuteen suomalaisen psykiatrisen diagnoosin nimeltä "kverulatorinen paranoia" eli valitteluvainoharha. Tästä mieli(pide)taudista kärsivät kokevat voimakasta tarvetta esittää kritiikkiä todellisia tai kuviteltuja epäkohtia kohtaan.

Vanhan psykoanalyysin mukaan valitteluvainoharhasta kärsivät mm. naiset, jotka kuvittelevat yhteiskunnan olevan epäoikeuden mukainen ja seksuaaliset vähemmistöt, jotka kuvittelevat yhteiskunnan olevan epäoikeudenmukainen.

Kummatkaan ryhmät eivät tajua jo suuren Freudin löytämää luonnonlakia, jonka mukaan luonto on antanut naiselle ulkoisen viehätysvoiman, jotta tämä ymmärtäisi olla miehen palvelijana kotona.

Tunnetusti tätä Freudin lausumaa on kritisoitu nyt toista sataa vuotta ja jonkinverran edistyttykin - jos kohta taistelua on tarvittu.

Minusta on karmaisevaa se, miten poliittiset äärilaidat löytävät toisensa kun hakkaavat naisia ja homoja ja lesboja - tai mielenterveysongelmaisia.

Millaisia näkemyksiä ja kokemuksia muilla on poliittisista mielipidesairauksista?

Artikkelini viite:
Stålström, Olli (1980) Querulous paranoia -diagnosis and dissent. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry.

In other words, go easy on the 'coffee'.

Adrian, do me a favour, put that dingo down and lend a hand. It would appear that my lack of logic and structured argument is causing me to suffer under the fine wit and perspicacity of the one who, like the ?'Scottish Play' the name can not be spoken. :wink:

Iacomus : The side of the river, and the boat , is , eh.-.-.
We have an agreement with Iacomus, not to discuss the sides of the river, and whether we're on the same, or opposite

Nevetheless, there are points concerning the antimatter that need some light :

Iacomus:


A lot is known about antimatter; in fact anti-matter is the same as matter, just has opposite properties, except energy and mass. So in theory, everything is known about antimatter. Some little amounts of it are being produced experimentally. They even made antihydrogen.



Matter and antimatter annihilate, leaving just the sum of properties; every property except mass(=energy) is cancelled, so what is left are the photons. This is a proven fact, experimentally. All of the energy is released in form of photons, which means a big explosion, (again) creating particles/antiparticles flying in all directions along the way, besides X-rays, gamma rays, etc.

It is still a mistery if distant regions of space are made from matter or antimatter. Some think amounts of matter and antimatter should be equal, and in this case ..


Some also think the amounts of wisdom and stupidity sum to zero. Basically thinking is separating pearls from sand.

Let us not quarrel about riddles; let us not fight (un)holy wars just because English is such an imprecise language. If it doesn't ring the bells for you, then the riddle is wasted for you anyway; I think the creative part of riddle making and solving is finding the 'catch' that is transferred via the spirit, not formalism of it.

Bring on the good stuff

The words of wisdom and sanity.

Quote Relative, "It is still a mystery if distant regions of space are made from matter or antimatter. Some think amounts of matter and antimatter should be equal, and in this case .."
Tryagain, "I don't mind if he doesn't matter." :wink:


"Some also think the amounts of wisdom and stupidity sum to zero. Basically thinking is separating pearls from sand."

As a pearl collector, I fully agree with those sediments. :wink:

Let us not quarrel about riddles; let us not fight (un)holy wars just because English is such an imprecise language. If it doesn't ring the bells for you, then the riddle is wasted for you anyway; I think the creative part of riddle making and solving is finding the 'catch' that is transferred via the spirit, not formalism of it.

Bring on the good stuff

* Quote Iamloco, "I am very sorry for any inconvenience caused to Trying, very.

There are three houses (A, B, and C) and three utilities (gas (G), water (W), and electricity (E)). Each house must be connected to each utility, but the various connections should not cross each other.

The Question: How must the connections be made

This riddle has been posted before, and the conclusion was; The problem can not be solved. This is now incorrect, there is a solution.

Old, but still testing.

A man wanted to enter an exclusive club but did not know the password that was required. He waited by the door and listened. A club member knocked on the door and the doorman said, "twelve." The member replied, "six " and was let in. A second member came to the door and the doorman said, "six." The member replied, "three" and was let in. The man thought he had heard enough and walked up to the door. The doorman said ,"ten" and the man replied, "five." But he was not let in.

What should have he said

A certain large animal lives happily and thrives here on Earth. One day, every single one of these critters is wiped out by a mysterious disease which affects only this particular animal.

There are none left anywhere on earth -- they are all gone. About a year or so later, they begin to reappear on Earth again. How can this be



* = This exchange started on 1st April. April fool's day. Ha, ha.

Relative

I think you took my comments about antimatter more literally than I intended them, but that was my fault for not making it clear that I was not entirely serious. (I hope you didn't take my thoughts on the sound that such annihilation would make equally literally; I'd hate to go down in history as the founder of the ?'liver into a vacuum cleaner' school of astrophysics!)

You wrote, "I think the creative part of riddle making and solving is finding the 'catch'". It seems to me that each will have an individual view on that. My own view is that puzzles are merely mind-sharpening exercises for when a ?'real world' puzzle crops up. (Those seem to be nothing but ?'catch') Also, I would rate ?'within the rules' as more important than finding the catch. Without those it would be like playing tennis with no net and no court marking. I'd also rate the method higher than the result. IHMO of course.

As for whether ?' the puzzle we have agreed not to discuss' rang any bells for me - it rang a lot of bells for me; I always find more interest in the chance puzzle stumbled upon than in the carefully formulated one.

Try

Somebody once said (it was me a few minutes ago to be accurate!) that there are two very good reasons for terminating a discussion. One is that you have changed your view and the second is that no one is going to change his or her view. I figure that our discussion clearly falls into the second category so as far as I am concerned my agreement with Relative now extends to everyone - until the next time, that is!

(A pity however that my comments on ?'Is "no" the answer to this question?' didn't rate any comments. A subject far more worthy of discussion than any number of missionaries IMHO. . . Naaah; forget the ?'humble. I don't do ?'humble' very good)

And both said, "Some also think the amounts of wisdom and stupidity sum to zero". No way! The number of truly wise folks who have lived might make a football team or two but there would never be enough of them to make a decent size league. Someone else said (not me this time) that he had a reputation for being a genius because he ?'thought' as much as half-an-hour every day whereas most people do not manage five minutes a week.

PM sent on the latest puzzles.

Iacomus wrote, (some words may have been lost during transmission. However, I can assure the reader none have been added) :wink:

I intend to go down in history as the founder of the ?'liver into a vacuum cleaner' school of astrophysics!

i would like playing tennis with no net and no court marking. I always stumbled on one.


"Somebody once said (it was me a few minutes ago to be accurate!) that there are two very good reasons for terminating a discussion. One is that you have changed your view and the second is that no one is going to change his or her view. I figure that our discussion clearly falls into the second category so as far as I am concerned my agreement with Relative now extends to everyone - until the next time, that is!"

My Dear Iacomus, with many continents between us, and with no one within 1000 nautical miles able to speak the Queens English. May I extend the hand of friendship and choose the former.

It is quite clear to me now, that if you were to read the original question through a series of mirrors, whilst travelling through hyper space you could well read, quote." The missionary kept the cannibals amused with his animal impressions, and The Seventh Cavalry would ride to the rescue in the nick of time."

It was churlish of me not to have spotted that fact at an early stage, and for that I can only offer Adrian as a suitable sacrifice. As regards your ?'agreement' I am pleased to see you have allowed others the privilege. I can confirm the open contract on you has now been revoked. :wink:

"A pity however that my comments on ?'Is "no" the answer to this question?' didn't rate any comments."

As much as I would relish the opportunity to demolish your hypotenuses, I am now bound by agreement to refrain from doing so.

Turning to another topic.
Quote, "It was Ted Egan who introduced Rolf Harris to the song Two Little Boys. Reason enough to send a note of thanks."

Rolf's rare art prints stolen.
Burglars stole artworks worth £50,000 including 23 prints of paintings by Australian entertainer Rolf Harris.

About 40 prints were taken from a gallery on the Manor Farm Industrial Estate at Peppard Common, Oxfordshire, on March 26.

Two rare prints of Harris's The Boxer were among the stolen works - one with an estimated value of more than £8,000.

At about 2am, thieves broke in through a side door to the Warehouse Gallery where the works were on show. They were later disturbed by police patrolling the estate.

The suspects escaped in K-registration Subaru and were followed by police along the B461 towards Sonning Common, but eventually gave officers the slip.

The car was later recovered in Ascot. One of the men travelling in it was described as bearing a strong resemblance to Iacomus, carrying a small chicken and wearing a black woolly hat.

7.40pm Friday 2 April 2004
Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd 2004, All Rights Reserved.

Adrian, where were you at the relevant time?

Riddle me this.
You have a 12 liter jug, an 8 liter jug, and a 5 liter jug. None of the jugs have any markings on them. The 12 liter jug is full, and the other two are empty. How can you divide the 12 liters of water equally.

(i.e., so two of the jugs have exactly 6 liters of water in them, and the third is empty)

If that is a tad difficult, try.

You talk to six people, and they each give you five statements. Your job is to figure out which statements are true and which are false.

Alan says:
1. David's final statement is true.
2. Frank told more lies than David.
3. Bob always tells the truth.
4. My second statement is false.
5. Eric told more truths than lies.

Bob says:
1. Eric lied at least once.
2. Alan told more lies than David.
3. Frank's second statement is true.
4. I always tell the truth.
5. Chuck told more lies than truths.

Chuck says:
1. Bob told more lies than I did.
2. Alan told more truths than lies.
3. Eric always lies.
4. David's third statement is true.
5. Frank lied exactly once.

David says:
1. Alan lied at least twice.
2. Eric told more lies than Alan.
3. Bob told more lies than truths.
4. Chuck always lies.
5. Frank's third statement is true.

Eric says:
1. Chuck always lies.
2. My fourth statement is true.
3. Frank told more lies than Bob.
4. I tell more truths than lies.
5. Frank lied exactly twice.

Frank says:
1. Alan told more lies than Bob.
2. Eric's first statement is false.
3. Alan told more lies than truths.
4. Bob only lied once.
5. Eric always lies.

Given that no two people told the truth the same number of times, which statements were true and which were false

PM sent on WATER and Lies.

And talking of lies, you were right about the woolly hat but wrong about the chicken. It was in fact an inflatable, rubber, Tryagain look-alike. I do not for one minute suggest the original Try is inflatable, merely that the facsimile is full of wind sometimes.

P.S. Anyone who introduced Rolf to 'Two Little Boys' can't be all good.

These answers are subject to the approval of the Spanish Inquisition. Whose decision will be final.

Three houses: How must the connections be made?

Think in 3D - Tunnel for the last connection.

Old, but still testing. (I totality refute allegations that this statement in any way refers to a forum member)

Password. A man wanted to enter an exclusive club. However, he was not let in. What should have he said?

Three. The doorman lets in those who answer with the number of letters in the word the doorman says.

Large animal. There are none left anywhere on earth -- they are all gone. About a year or so later, they begin to reappear on Earth again. How can this be?

The animal is the Mule. Since all Mules are born sterile, you can only get a Mule by crossing a donkey with a horse. That is how the species is able to repopulate itself.

Quote Iacomus, "…you were right about the woolly hat but wrong about the chicken. It was in fact an inflatable, rubber, Tryagain look-alike. I do not for one minute suggest the original Try is inflatable, merely that the facsimile is full of wind sometimes."

You seem to know rather a lot of details that were withheld from the press report for my liking. Although I must say the ?'look-alikes' are a best seller, but not guaranteed waterproof. The Rolf Harris matter is best left to his fellow fellow citizen. As for your reference to my recent medical condition, I blame excessive sax practice.

Baseball team

Andy dislikes the catcher.
Ed's sister is engaged to the second baseman.
The center fielder is taller than the right fielder.
Harry and the third baseman live in the same building.
Paul and Allen each won $20 from the pitcher at pinochle.
Ed and the outfielders play poker during their free time.
The pitcher's wife is the third baseman's sister.
The pitcher, catcher, and infielders except Allen, Harry, and Andy, are shorter than Sam.
Paul, Andy, and the shortstop lost $50 each at the racetrack.
Paul, Harry, Bill, and the catcher took a trouncing from the second baseman at pool.
Sam is involved in a divorce suit.
The catcher and the third baseman each have two children.
Ed, Paul, Jerry, the right fielder, and the center fielder are bachelors.
The others are married.
The shortstop, the third baseman, and Bill each cleaned up
$100 betting on the fight.
One of the outfielders is either Mike or Andy.
Jerry is taller than Bill.
Mike is shorter than Bill.
Each of them is heavier than the third baseman.

Using these facts, determine the names of the men playing the various positions on the baseball team

A riddle for animal lovers.

Four people competed in different classes of dog agility at a recent competition. The competitions all required the dogs to run over jumps, through tunnels and various other obstacles in as quicker time as possible. Each had a different result - one came first, one third, one fourth and one ninth. All four dogs were each of a different breed.

1. If Tiff finished first then Terry finished fourth.
2. If Terry finished fourth then Jago is a collie.
3. If Jane competed in the Senior class then she finished third.
4. If Jane competed in Novice then she finished fourth.
5. The dog that finished ninth was an Alsatian. This was either Jago, in which case Jago competed in the Elementary class, or this was Kelly, in which case Terry handled Kelly.
6. Mark won Starters.
7. If Mark's dog is called Patti then Patti is a Labrador otherwise Patti is a collie.
8. Ruth's dog is called Jago.
9. If Jago finished fourth then she competed in the Novice class otherwise she competed in the Senior class.
10. If Patti finished first then Terry's dog is an Alsatian otherwise Terry's dog is a collie.
11. If Jane's dog is a Doberman then Jane finished fourth otherwise Jane finished third.


Handler's Names: Jane, Mark, Ruth and Terry
Dog's Names: Tiff, Patti, Jago and Kelly
Breed: Alsatian, Collie, Labrador and Doberman
Class: Starters, Elementary, Novice or Senior

Can you work out who handled which dog, at what level each competed, the place each finished in and the breed of each dog

Pick and mix. More unsolvable problems.

Three working women have different careers. If only one of statements 1, 2 and 3 are true, can you tell if Mary is a nurse

1. This statement is only true if statement 5 is false.
2. This statement is true if statements 4 or 5, or both 4 and 5 are true.
3. This statement is false only if both statements 6 and 1 are true.
4. Mary is a nurse
5. Karen is an artist.
6. Sarah is a photographer.

As a whole, I am both safe and secure.
Behead me, and I become a place of meeting.
Behead me again, and I am the partner of ready.
Restore me, and I become the domain of beasts.

What am I

Which of the following statements are true, and which are false?

1. Only one of the statements is false
2. Exactly two of the statements are false.
3. Only three of the statements are false.
4. Exactly four of the statements are false.
5. All five of these statements are false.

What can be driven, but has no wheels,
and can be sliced and remain whole

Two boxers are in a boxing match (regular boxing, not kick boxing). The fight is scheduled for eight rounds but ends after three rounds, after one boxer knocks out the other boxer. Yet no man throws a punch.

How is this possible

This is not intended as the opening of a discussion, dispute, or whatever. It is intended as a question that might help me understand how riddle-forums operate.

In the puzzle concerning the three working women:

If I say that I eat only bananas, the statement can be falsified either by my eating no bananas or by my eating bananas but not solely bananas. So the falsifacation of the statement allows no conclusion as to whether I do or do not eat bananas And the same reasoning applies in questions 1 and 3 of the puzzle.

Questions:
"1. This statement is only true if statement 5 is false."
Assuming this statement is true it can be concluded that Karen is not an artist. If false then, because of the use of the word 'only', no conclusion can be drawn.

"3. This statement is false only if both statements 6 and 1 are true."
We are told that if 1 is true so the first part of this is tautologous and can be disregarded, so it simplifies to 'Only if 6 is true is this statement false', which is a contradiction in terms - it cannot truly state that it is false. But it does not follow that 6 must be true. It is also false in that it must be false if 2 is true as only one of these is allowed to be true, which makes the word 'only' fallacious.

"2. This statement is true if statements 4 or 5, or both 4 and 5 are true."
If this is true no definitive conclusions can be drawn as it mentions statements 4 and 5, but by virtue of that 'or' any one of these can be false and the statement still true.
If this statement is false then no conclusions can be drawn.

So according to formal logic all we can safely conclude is that, assuming statement 2 is true, then Karen is not an artist. The entire question reduces to
'A Xor B'
'A implies Not C'
'B implies D or E'
And beyond that there is nothing can be said with certainty.


Now for my question, and it is not aimed at this thread any more than any other:

Is there a variation of logic peculiar to puzzles and riddles? For example, is it permissable to 'fudge' the rules of logic if the question requires it, even in what are referred to as 'logic puzzles'? Can a statement be regarded toy be false only in certain ways and not others? It would solve something that has been troubling me for a while. I am, fairly new to the genre and there could well be unwritten rules I have yet to learn.

My other and related question regards 'official answers'. How does it work that everyone seems to be agreed on one answer over another even when both seem equally valid. Not only to agree but are ready to defend it over counter claims? (and two equally valid answers, which seems to contradict the idea of a 'well-formed puzzle' having a unique solution, do occur and far from infrequently) What makes one answer the 'officially accepted one'?

I really would like to know.

IMHO two very good questions, although I am in no way qualified to give the definitive answer, I am sure some of us have thought the same at one time or another. The logic must come from the person who sets the question, and therefore has the ?'official' answer. That does not mean there are no other possible answers and there have been several such acknowledgements on this forum in the past.

Is there such a thing as a puzzle having a unique solution? Even in math or science there are any number of ways to reach a conclusion. E.g. what is 1+1? 2 or 11. If it were a sum then I am sure the majority would say 2. However if there were two 1's on a table would you have 2 or 11? The clue must be in the question.

"What makes one answer the 'officially accepted one"?

This forum is not a democracy, we do not all vote on the answer, and I am sure not all agree on any given answer, but, what the hell, it's only a bit of brain fodder. After all this is not the place to find a cure for cancer.

Three working women.

See if this answer makes matters clearer for you.
Mary is not a nurse.

The way to solve this riddle, is to consider statements 4, 5, and
6 and create a chart of all possible true and false answers. Next,
fill in the chart according to statements 1 through 3. You will
discover that there is only one line where only one of statements
one, two and three are true. Thus, it is determined that:
Statement 4 and 5 are false and statement 6 is true.

New week, new problems. Easy peasey - I think not.

a) Five former classmates sat together at a round table at their ten-year college reunion. Each woman had an entrée and a dessert and in front of her was a flower in a vase. Erin and Ms. Gaynes ordered seafood fettuccini. Michelle and Miss. Browne had salmon. One woman had halibut. Erin and Mrs. Daniels had chocolate mousse. Melissa and Ms. Smythe ordered a sundae. Miss. Browne had a bread pudding. Michelle and Mrs. Andrews each had a rose.
Sandy and Miss. Browne each had a carnation. Only one woman had an orchid. No two women sitting next to each other had the same entrée, dessert or flower. What did Lila eat


b) An old parchment describes the location of buried treasure:

"On the island there are only two trees, A and B, and the remains of a gallows. Start at the gallows and count the steps required to walk in a straight line to tree A. At the tree turn 90 degrees to the left and then walk forward the same number of steps. At the point where you top drive a spike into the ground. Now return to the gallows and walk in a straight line, counting your steps, to tree B. When you reach the tree, turn 90 degrees to the right and take the same number of steps forward, placing another spike at the point where you stop. Dig at the point exactly halfway between the spikes and you will find the treasure."

However, our hero when he gets to the island finds the gallows missing. Is there any way he can still get to the treasure

c) What is the number that is double one-half of one-fourth of one-tenth of 80,000

d) The title of this book has been put into very fancy language. Can you name the book

"The objects, or people, have been removed from their previous localities through the power of a naturally moving phenomenon."

e) A wealthy wise old woman feared that her daughter was lazy and as a result rather stupid. When the old woman died, her will stipulated that her assets were to be liquidated and a check was to be written for the full amount. The check was to be placed in one of three envelopes. The other two envelopes would contain a blank piece of paper. If the daughter could determine from the writing on the envelope which envelope contained the check, she would inherit her mother's fortune. Otherwise, the fortune would go to the old woman's favorite charity for animals. The daughter was not allowed to touch the envelopes. Her decision had to be made based on the writing on the envelopes. The daughter was toldthat only one envelope had a true statement and that the other two statements were false.

The envelopes had the following writing:

1. This envelope does not have the check
2. This envelope has the check
3. The second envelope does not have the check

Which envelope should the daughter pick

PS. Congrats to Iacomus for 100% on the last set.

PM sent covering the latest batch.