RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Jokes : This isn't a joke—it's actually a puzzle

This isn't a joke—it's actually a puzzle

Good Thinking Many years ago in a small Indian village, a farmer had the misfortune of owing a large sum of money to a village moneylender. The moneylender, who was old and ugly, fancied the farmer's beautiful daughter. So he proposed a bargain. He said he would forgo the farmer's debt if he could marry his daughter. Both the farmer and his ... (Read More)

(Added by Sam Erica on 9/16/2004, 7:21pm)

Discuss this Riddle (19 messages)

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 1:58am

Unortunately Sam, the solution to some complex problems is a bit of deviousness, as in this one (and as seen in a couple of posts on another thread here recently!!). So, if by bad luck or whatever you just don't and can't "think deviously" - you don't get a quick answer back and are left, as the Aussies put it - "Straaaanded, luck a shag on a rock, mate!" (You have to imagine the "Strine accent!! :-) :-)}
Cass

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 7:41am

Cass: I have a different reaction to this puzzle than you do. Rather than having to think 'deviously' to solve it I regard it as, using that now well-worn expression, 'thinking out of the box', or creatively. One has to cut all constraints and preconceptions to solve it. That's what progress and heroes are made of, and to the victor goes the spoils.

Sam

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 12:30pm

Sam,

I loved the puzzle (and would welcome any more of such!). But I do feel Cass has a point in identifying her unique perspective on the matter. Looking through her lens, I see a disturbing "principle" forming:

---------------
When dealing with evil, adopt a lesser evil in order to thwart it (try to beat evil at its own game). You can retain self-esteem because you're merely utilizing dishonesty for a greater good. After all, you know what's best in the end, so the means are unimportant from a moral standpoint.
---------------

Sam, you know as well as I that this is pragmatism. My initial solution was for the girl to reach in the bag, but to grab both pebbles and expose the bastard. Even if the sucker weasles out of guilt for the "mishap," all is not lost.

A second trial would achieve justice: where pebbles are examined by both parties before put in the bag (much like my RDT rule of both sides signing off on both arguments before arguing is allowed to continue).

I also disagree with your seemingly mutually-exclusive distinction between lateral and logic thought.

I consider myself to be a multi-linear (multi-lateral) thinker opposed to a uni-lateral "single-train-of-thought" thinker. I often use several lines of lateral thinking simultaneously - in order to make what others may claim is an intuitive logical leap.

As an aside, I think "intuition" is entirely explainable without delving into mysticism - by the reciprocally-informing nature of several lines of lateral logic superimposed by a mind with inductive capacity (something computers can't do - even those with the new functionality: "parallel processing").

Ed

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 1:02pm

O.K., Ed. You want another puzzle — you got one.

You are driving along in your car on a [is there any other kind?] wild, stormy night. As you pass a bus stop, you see three people waiting for the bus:
1. An old lady who looks as if she is about to die.
2. An old friend who once saved your life.
3. The perfect man (or) woman you have been dreaming about.
Which one would you choose to offer a ride, knowing that there could only be one passenger in your car?

Answer to be posted tomorrow.

Sam

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 1:42pm

Sam, that's a great joke, and I am essentially in agreement with your point. I don't agree that it can't be solved with "traditional logical thinking," (if I understand what you mean by that,) but I do agree that it requires creativity or "thinking outside the box." Thanks for posting it.

Plug: In my course on "Efficient Thinking." available on tape from Laissez Faire Books, I have an entire lecture on what I called "thinking outside the square."

Barbara

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 3:50pm

Ok Sam...for your second puzzle, here is what I would do:

- Put the hot guy in my car immediately
- Call a taxi for my friend and pay for it to take him where he's going (or to a more popular bus stop)
- Call an ambulance for the lady

Reasons:

1) Under no circumstances would I walk away from my dream man, because he may be the rarest human being on earth.

2) By calling a cab for my friend (and hell, even offering to pay for it) I am rendering him a service in return for saving my life.

3) By calling an ambulance, the woman will have a much greater chance for survival. If she's about to die, there's not much I can do for her anyway.

Bottom line: My needs and desires are always the priority. ;)

Jennifer

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 6:15pm

Offer the car to the old friend, ask him to drive the sick lady to hospital, and sit and flirt (who knows, maybe cuddle) the hot man of my dreams in the bus stop!!
Cass

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 7:21pm

Damnit! Beaten to the punch by a couple of dames! I hope that doesn't get interpreted as a blatantly sexist remark. If only I had a larger corpus callosum - I could use more of my brain simultaneously. Caution: that last term can be easily misinterpreted by lay inquirers. Hint: It is not found in the jeans.

Ed

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 7:46pm

Well, I think Cass has the preferred answer. Congrats.

My analysis and comments:

This question reminds me of the story that I'm sure you must all recall that was going around quite a number of years ago. A man brings his son to the hospital in urgent need of surgery. As the boy is being wheeled into the operating room the surgeon says, "I can't operate on him. He's my son". Explain.

(If you haven't heard this one before, try to solve it before moving on)

Back then there weren't nearly as many women in the professions and in positions of power and authority. An inability to solve this question reveals a hidden reticence to consider that a woman could occupy the position of surgeon, i.e. the surgeon was his mother. For those who couldn't find the solution the preconception blocked their minds with respect to this very, very simple conundrum.

The puzzle in question is insidious because it is posed in terms of an ~ethical dilemma~ instead of a ~problem to be solved~. I put it to you that if it had been posed in the latter terms many, many more people would find the answer. In this case the blockage is the wide spread conception that self interest and morals are mutually inimical and that self sacrifice is the highest form of morality.

Sam

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 9:43pm

More! More! I like these, though I'm bad at them (despite the voluptuous nature of the connections between my brain cleavage).

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 12:43am

There's a "riddle" category under jokes now, if anyone is interested. Not an obvious place for it, but why not?

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 7:17am

Julia: "Brain cleavage" ROTFL — is that the same as the mammary callosum?

I googled "riddles" and came up with this:

http://www.riddlenut.com/c1n1.html

which is a challenge (i.e. I didn't get it). But I'm more interested in riddles/puzzles that have some morals to them or demonstrate how easily we are constricted in our thinking because of blockages. More? You've bled me dry.

Sam

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 12:00pm

Oh, I forgot. Here's one that was floating about in cyberspace a couple of years ago but was so good I saved the link. It's medium hard but I expect that someone will get it soon — but if not I'll post the solution tomorrow.

http://www.dslextreme.com/users/exstatica/psychic.swf

Sam

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 3:02pm

From Post 12 - Okay that's wild. Whenever you add two numbers together and then substract by the sum it's ALWAYS a number divisible by nine. Cool.

Sam - I had are MRI once (they thought I might be an alien) and when I saw the inside of my head for the first time I actually cried - it looked somehow familiar, and the ultimate preciousness of my self really hit home. I recognize that rift! Then, because I was amateur acting and thinking of auditioning at a comedy show, I thought I would submit the plastic sheet as my "head shot" (har).

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 6:36pm

Julia: really good. That's precisely the answer, however in my experience, some others of lesser ability stiill won't get it. Here's an expanded explanation:

If you choose any of the numbers from:
10 to 19 the result is 9
If you choose any of the numbers from:
20 to 29 the result is 18
If you choose any of the numbers from:
30 to 39 the result is 27
.
.
.If you choose any of the numbers from:
90 to 99 the result is 81
i.e. no matter what number you choose, the result is a multiple of 9. Notice in the table that all the multiples of 9 have the same symbol and that symbol will appear in the "crystal ball". Of course, the symbols are changed with every trial but the multiples of 9 always have the same symbol.

Re the MRI — I'd be afraid to look. I've heard of some cases where people have led virtually normal lives when in fact, it was discovered that they literally had most of their brain matter missing. I can't seem to find a reference to the report but it may have been in "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684853949/qid=1095643679/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-7586628-2338207?v=glance&s=books

Sam

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 10:25pm

Sam, I did figure out the multiple of 9 issue, but hadn't realized the symbols changed with each retrial. That was my stumbling block.

Pretty neat. Thanks for the entertainment!

Jennifer

Monday, September 20, 2004 - 9:31am

haha, that story is fun...from being a Trekkie I think that there would be a fourth possibility: that the girl change the rules, as Captain Kerk did to graduate from the space academy: "If I pick the black pebble I and my father go debt free!" Then she wouldn't have to be skilled in her fumbling on the ground!

Moral: beware of a con's rules or for that matter beware of a philosopher's framing of a context.

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 9/20, 9:41am)

(Edited by Newberry on 9/20, 10:54am)

(Edited by Newberry on 9/20, 10:55am)

Monday, October 18, 2004 - 1:58pm

The "Rule of Nine" (from Post 12) actually holds for all positive integers.

*****
For two-digit numbers:
let y be the ones numeral
let x be the tens numeral

The mathematical restatement is
10x + y - (x + y) = 9x

Obviously, '9x' is always divisible by 9.
*****

*****
For any [i] digit numbers:
let n0 be the ones numeral
let n1 be the tens numeral
let n2 be the hundreds numeral
... so on and on ...
let n[i] be the 'any' numeral

The mathematical restatement is
10^i(n[i]) + (10^(i-1))(n[i-1]) + ... + 100n2 + 10n1 + n0 - (Sum of all n's from n0 to n[i]) = ((10^i)-1)(n[i]) + ((10^(i-1))-1)(n[i-1]) + ... + 99n2 +9n1

The coefficients will be 9, 99, 999, 9999, and so on. Again, obviously divisible by 9.
*****

The "Rule of Nine" can be generalized further for any base, such that it will be the...
... "Rule of One" for bin (quite interesting)
... "Rule of Seven" for oct
... "Rule of Nine" for dec (as in the above)
... "Rule of F" for hex
(I leave the demonstrations of the other "Rules" to the reader)

So the entire riddle can be maximally generalized as the "Rule of Base Minus One" (no pun for music lovers intended).

And yes, I have a life :-)

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 12:23am

My answer for the girl was for her to remove both pebbles from the bag at once.

What she did was brilliant. The real dummy here is the father for getting into so much debt. :-)