I believe that you have assumed that the green house is to the immediate left of the white house. If you do not make this assumption then there is a solution where the green house is indeed to the left of the white house, but not its immediate left. This solution results in a different nationality person owning the fish.
Your argument is semantic, and given the loose language with the rest of the question, it is irrelevant. Sorry.
So? That doesn't make left and right meaningless. It just makes the problem a lot harder or maybe have an infinite number of solutions (because some of the clues may no longer be constraining). I don't know which because I don't want to make my head hurt thinking about it.
edit:
I've just realised that I may be talking bollocks (regarding the circle thing) due to tiredness.
your right, thats a good point about the circle making it harder and all..
now i must go to school:-\\ sucks b/c i dont have physics, oh well.. more time to ponder in the meaningless classes l8r
at the risk of being seen to be beating a dead horse:
I have no doubt that whoever originally set the riddle intended for the green house to be to the immediate left of the white house. However, I do not think that the clue does imply this. I think that the vast majority of people infer it. Implication is a non-subjective, rigourous application of mathematical logic. Inference, on the other hand, is in the eye of the beholder. In my view, the sentence "the green house is on the left of the white house" does not imply (in the strict mathematical sense) that the green house is on the immediate left.
Having said all that, it wasn't really my intention to debate English grammar and its relation to implication. You may think that I am wrong, but that doesn't really matter. The point I was originally trying to make is that if the clue is relaxed, it is still constraining, but not to the same degree, and an alternative solution to the problem can be found. Would you agree that relaxing the clue broadens the problem and makes it more challenging?
Same time here, if you use a pen and paper, see where to start (it's not that hard), and recognice the assumption that has to be made to roll it all upp, it's really quite easy.
98% of the population is capable of deciphering this test in logic. They know what a row of houses is. Riddles have solutions.
2% of the population is capable of questioning what they think they know.
at the risk of being seen to be beating a dead horse:
I have no doubt that whoever originally set the riddle intended for the green house to be to the immediate left of the white house. However, I do not think that the clue does imply this. I think that the vast majority of people infer it. Implication is a non-subjective, rigourous application of mathematical logic. Inference, on the other hand, is in the eye of the beholder. In my view, the sentence "the green house is on the left of the white house" does not imply (in the strict mathematical sense) that the green house is on the immediate left.
Having said all that, it wasn't really my intention to debate English grammar and its relation to implication. You may think that I am wrong, but that doesn't really matter. The point I was originally trying to make is that if the clue is relaxed, it is still constraining, but not to the same degree, and an alternative solution to the problem can be found. Would you agree that relaxing the clue broadens the problem and makes it more challenging?
yea, i would agree to that... if an immediate take to how its written is not taken, and the aspect of it being on left, could indeed make it more challenging
Here is my problem with the whole you must assume there is a fish-camp:
Where does the riddle begin? Would there need to be a clue that explicitly states 'Someone has a fish' in order for you to infer that there is a fish( that isn't an inference btw)...
The entire point here is that there are two answers. One is the result of logical deduction which assumes that there is an answer to the first question. And the second is that there is no answer.
It would be as if I asked a class of third graders to tell me the name of Earth's second moon. By rules of language I am implying there is a second moon, but depending upon my social status, the children will either not know the answer or tell me that there is no such thing.
It would be as if I asked a class of third graders to tell me the name of Earth's second moon. By rules of language I am implying there is a second moon, but depending upon my social status, the children will either not know the answer or tell me that there is no such thing.
That paragraph is more of a riddle than the Einstein riddle. Either you're trying to be really smart here, or you've picked a really bad example.
The entire point here is that there are two answers. One is the result of logical deduction which assumes that there is an answer to the first question. And the second is that there is no answer.
but if you work the problem out logically, youll get to a point where you piece the pieces to the puzzle together and come down to the 1 answer.... the second solution that there is no answer isnt true; i think.. because of the old saying that every question/riddle has an answer... and also, the riddle works itself out
That paragraph is more of a riddle than the Einstein riddle. Either you're trying to be really smart here, or you've picked a really bad example.
I am not trying to be anything.
I was going to continue on to say that we are trained to take riddles seriously, and thus the first post in this thread has a lot of social weight, but I decided that would be beyond the scope of my post.
That said:
What is the apropriately esoteric property of the appropriately esoteric entity?
(Note: Below I mask the identity of the person, I assume we still aren't spoiling it?)
You have to assume that one of the five types of pets (only 4 of which are explicitly named) includes fish. I can't. I wouldn't.
The "person" in question may or may not keep fish. We can't know.
He may keep Zebras or Aardvarks for all we know. There are 5 pet types, true.
It's a better "lesson" on avoiding presuppositions in life than it is an actual riddle.
I have no reason to believe that "person x" keeps fish as pets. I'm too resistant to presupposing things to blindly believe that, based on the wording (and it's not mere semantics).
My best, most self-honest answer is "If fish are indeed one of the five unique pet categories involved with these five people, then the type left over/unaccounted for is fish, so I have to assume "nationality x" keeps fish as pets.
You'd need to tell me that it's not a trick riddle, that fish are indeed owned by one of the listed nationalities. But the way it is left out implies to me that my supposition is Einstein's secret joke. 98% of the people want to/have to presuppose one of the people does indeed own fish. They are incapable of not presupposing that. (Which is why juries such as we have in the U.S. terrify me more than any fascist ideology out there)
I mean, it's circumstantial evidence at best. Would that hold up in court for example?
The real question is does the ability to formulate a question mean anything.
Clearly no.
But semantically that is the way in which we are taught language. I propose a question, it must have an answer even if it were completely non-sensical.
I realized the riddle made no declaritive reference to fish; at the same time, I followed my training to the T and worked out a solution (it is always the G-man, ain't it?).
I avoided this like the plague because riddles are evil. Eventually, the incessant wanking on from you lot wore me down and I gave in to it. But it turned out to be an easy one. I'm feeling a little disappointed in Albert right now. I expected more from him.
Still at least it's better than my experience with Petals Around the Rose which I gave up on and googled the answer to - thereby denying myself the opportunity to ever become a Potentate of the Rose. Oh how that answer hurt. Woe, the pain! Oh woe, woe I say!
I'm still struggling to come to terms with that whole experience.
I avoided this like the plague because riddles are evil. Eventually, the incessant wanking on from you lot wore me down and I gave in to it. But it turned out to be an easy one. I'm feeling a little disappointed in Albert right now. I expected more from him.
Still at least it's better than my experience with Petals Around the Rose which I gave up on and googled the answer to - thereby denying myself the opportunity to ever become a Potentate of the Rose. Oh how that answer hurt. Woe, the pain! Oh woe, woe I say!
I'm still struggling to come to terms with that whole experience.
im sorry bout your experience, and yes, this riddle wasnt terribly difficult, though must keep in mind, back in the day, it might have been a challenge then... but who knows.. bett luck on riddles
I avoided this like the plague because riddles are evil. Eventually, the incessant wanking on from you lot wore me down and I gave in to it. But it turned out to be an easy one. I'm feeling a little disappointed in Albert right now. I expected more from him.
Still at least it's better than my experience with Petals Around the Rose which I gave up on and googled the answer to - thereby denying myself the opportunity to ever become a Potentate of the Rose. Oh how that answer hurt. Woe, the pain! Oh woe, woe I say!
I'm still struggling to come to terms with that whole experience.
chester.
damn potentate of the rose...
(it took me only 4 rolls to figure it out.... [/ducks])
Comments
Originally posted by Mr. H
I believe that you have assumed that the green house is to the immediate left of the white house. If you do not make this assumption then there is a solution where the green house is indeed to the left of the white house, but not its immediate left. This solution results in a different nationality person owning the fish.
Your argument is semantic, and given the loose language with the rest of the question, it is irrelevant. Sorry.
On the left implies immediately to the left.
To the left implies anywhere left of X.
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Your argument is semantic, and given the loose language with the rest of the question, it is irrelevant. Sorry.
On the left implies immediately to the left.
To the left implies anywhere left of X.
thats true. the wording of clues is also important
Originally posted by Mr. H
So? That doesn't make left and right meaningless. It just makes the problem a lot harder or maybe have an infinite number of solutions (because some of the clues may no longer be constraining). I don't know which because I don't want to make my head hurt thinking about it.
edit:
I've just realised that I may be talking bollocks (regarding the circle thing) due to tiredness.
your right, thats a good point
now i must go to school:-\\ sucks b/c i dont have physics, oh well.. more time to ponder in the meaningless classes
I have no doubt that whoever originally set the riddle intended for the green house to be to the immediate left of the white house. However, I do not think that the clue does imply this. I think that the vast majority of people infer it. Implication is a non-subjective, rigourous application of mathematical logic. Inference, on the other hand, is in the eye of the beholder. In my view, the sentence "the green house is on the left of the white house" does not imply (in the strict mathematical sense) that the green house is on the immediate left.
Having said all that, it wasn't really my intention to debate English grammar and its relation to implication. You may think that I am wrong, but that doesn't really matter. The point I was originally trying to make is that if the clue is relaxed, it is still constraining, but not to the same degree, and an alternative solution to the problem can be found. Would you agree that relaxing the clue broadens the problem and makes it more challenging?
Originally posted by Eric_Z
Same time here, if you use a pen and paper, see where to start (it's not that hard), and recognice the assumption that has to be made to roll it all upp, it's really quite easy.
98% of the population is capable of deciphering this test in logic. They know what a row of houses is. Riddles have solutions.
2% of the population is capable of questioning what they think they know.
--B
Originally posted by Mr. H
at the risk of being seen to be beating a dead horse:
I have no doubt that whoever originally set the riddle intended for the green house to be to the immediate left of the white house. However, I do not think that the clue does imply this. I think that the vast majority of people infer it. Implication is a non-subjective, rigourous application of mathematical logic. Inference, on the other hand, is in the eye of the beholder. In my view, the sentence "the green house is on the left of the white house" does not imply (in the strict mathematical sense) that the green house is on the immediate left.
Having said all that, it wasn't really my intention to debate English grammar and its relation to implication. You may think that I am wrong, but that doesn't really matter. The point I was originally trying to make is that if the clue is relaxed, it is still constraining, but not to the same degree, and an alternative solution to the problem can be found. Would you agree that relaxing the clue broadens the problem and makes it more challenging?
yea, i would agree to that... if an immediate take to how its written is not taken, and the aspect of it being on left, could indeed make it more challenging
Where does the riddle begin? Would there need to be a clue that explicitly states 'Someone has a fish' in order for you to infer that there is a fish( that isn't an inference btw)...
The entire point here is that there are two answers. One is the result of logical deduction which assumes that there is an answer to the first question. And the second is that there is no answer.
It would be as if I asked a class of third graders to tell me the name of Earth's second moon. By rules of language I am implying there is a second moon, but depending upon my social status, the children will either not know the answer or tell me that there is no such thing.
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
It would be as if I asked a class of third graders to tell me the name of Earth's second moon. By rules of language I am implying there is a second moon, but depending upon my social status, the children will either not know the answer or tell me that there is no such thing.
That paragraph is more of a riddle than the Einstein riddle. Either you're trying to be really smart here, or you've picked a really bad example.
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
The entire point here is that there are two answers. One is the result of logical deduction which assumes that there is an answer to the first question. And the second is that there is no answer.
but if you work the problem out logically, youll get to a point where you piece the pieces to the puzzle together and come down to the 1 answer.... the second solution that there is no answer isnt true; i think.. because of the old saying that every question/riddle has an answer... and also, the riddle works itself out
Originally posted by Uncharted
That paragraph is more of a riddle than the Einstein riddle. Either you're trying to be really smart here, or you've picked a really bad example.
I am not trying to be anything.
I was going to continue on to say that we are trained to take riddles seriously, and thus the first post in this thread has a lot of social weight, but I decided that would be beyond the scope of my post.
That said:
What is the apropriately esoteric property of the appropriately esoteric entity?
You have to assume that one of the five types of pets (only 4 of which are explicitly named) includes fish. I can't. I wouldn't.
The "person" in question may or may not keep fish. We can't know.
He may keep Zebras or Aardvarks for all we know. There are 5 pet types, true.
It's a better "lesson" on avoiding presuppositions in life than it is an actual riddle.
I have no reason to believe that "person x" keeps fish as pets. I'm too resistant to presupposing things to blindly believe that, based on the wording (and it's not mere semantics).
My best, most self-honest answer is "If fish are indeed one of the five unique pet categories involved with these five people, then the type left over/unaccounted for is fish, so I have to assume "nationality x" keeps fish as pets.
You'd need to tell me that it's not a trick riddle, that fish are indeed owned by one of the listed nationalities. But the way it is left out implies to me that my supposition is Einstein's secret joke. 98% of the people want to/have to presuppose one of the people does indeed own fish. They are incapable of not presupposing that. (Which is why juries such as we have in the U.S. terrify me more than any fascist ideology out there)
I mean, it's circumstantial evidence at best. Would that hold up in court for example?
Clearly no.
But semantically that is the way in which we are taught language. I propose a question, it must have an answer even if it were completely non-sensical.
I realized the riddle made no declaritive reference to fish; at the same time, I followed my training to the T and worked out a solution (it is always the G-man, ain't it?).
Ah well... so life goes...
Still at least it's better than my experience with Petals Around the Rose which I gave up on and googled the answer to - thereby denying myself the opportunity to ever become a Potentate of the Rose. Oh how that answer hurt. Woe, the pain! Oh woe, woe I say!
I'm still struggling to come to terms with that whole experience.
Originally posted by crazychester
I avoided this like the plague because riddles are evil. Eventually, the incessant wanking on from you lot wore me down and I gave in to it. But it turned out to be an easy one. I'm feeling a little disappointed in Albert right now. I expected more from him.
Still at least it's better than my experience with Petals Around the Rose which I gave up on and googled the answer to - thereby denying myself the opportunity to ever become a Potentate of the Rose. Oh how that answer hurt. Woe, the pain! Oh woe, woe I say!
I'm still struggling to come to terms with that whole experience.
im sorry bout your experience, and yes, this riddle wasnt terribly difficult, though must keep in mind, back in the day, it might have been a challenge then... but who knows.. bett luck on riddles
Originally posted by crazychester
I avoided this like the plague because riddles are evil. Eventually, the incessant wanking on from you lot wore me down and I gave in to it. But it turned out to be an easy one. I'm feeling a little disappointed in Albert right now. I expected more from him.
Still at least it's better than my experience with Petals Around the Rose which I gave up on and googled the answer to - thereby denying myself the opportunity to ever become a Potentate of the Rose. Oh how that answer hurt. Woe, the pain! Oh woe, woe I say!
I'm still struggling to come to terms with that whole experience.
chester.
damn potentate of the rose...
(it took me only 4 rolls to figure it out.... [/ducks])
Originally posted by New
err... I got that rose thing right on the first try... but I guess I was just lucky...
I have realized that there was a game that I played as a child that had the same, um, punchline...
Repressed memories and all...