Loved the hidden people question harald Also... you have formal training... in riddles.... WANTWANTWANT
Here's a nice easy by-the-book puzzle:
You're walking through a rocky landscape (yay I set the scene) when you arrive at a toll bridge. You need to pay 201 gold pieces in order to cross it. There is also a magical monkey king to the side, with 2 boxes in front of him, who offers to play a game with you. He says "give a true statement and you shall be rewarded with the context of box A. Give a false statement and you shall be rewarded with the context of box B. The first, and only the first, thing you say from now on will count. Box A contains....200 gold pieces!!!" You look at box B hoping for something slightly better as the monkey king goes over to it. "Box B contains..." he whips off the lid. "Another 200 gold pieces!!!."
Paradoxical statement... I didn't really specify what happens in that case, but likely the king would go into some sort of monkey rage and run away with the moneys.
You should say "You will not give me the contents of box A.". If he indeed does not, then the statement was true and he ends up breaking his promise. Therefore he must give you the contents of box A. But since that makes your statement false, he must then also give you the contents of box B.
The puzzle never says you don't have any gold pieces yourself, so you just take the money from one of the boxes, which, added to what you already had, is enough to cross the bridge. Yay loopholes!
Well done Harald. Blast your qualifications from riddle school
And slowpoke, tisn't a loophole. The riddle also doesn't say that there isn't a pile of gold randomly lying about, or that the bridge can be walked around. In riddles, you should assume that all essential information has been given. If it hasn't, then the riddle is dud.
The mother is 18 years older than the child, in 3 years, she will be 9 times the age of the child. They live in the US. Where is the father
A) now? soon?
Doing the math shows that the child is a negative nine months old. So the father has just had sex with the mother, and will presumably soon be in jail for statutory rape.
An invisible pink red unicorn? If you're going for a pun on red, then maybe a message written in disappearing ink after it's disappeared, or braille (though braille's hardly invisible). You can't exactly do that in writing though.
Doing the math shows that the child is a negative nine months old. So the father has just had sex with the mother, and will presumably soon be in jail for statutory rape.
I'm not questioning your math at all, as it's incredibly easy to believe mine was faulty.
However, I don't think the age of the father was stated. If he's younger than the mother, he's not going to end up in prison, is he? And what if he's older but also under 18?
EDIT: still, maybe you can explain. My results were:
mother now: 18
baby now: 0
mother in 3 years: 21
baby in 3 years: 3
mother in 3 years divided by baby in 3 years: 9
Still, the "soon" might be "in prison" if he's older than she is, but I say the "now" is "in the hospital", no? How do you end up with negative 9 months? What did I do wrong?
With your results I get:
baby in 3 years: 2 years and 3 months
mother in 3 years: 20 and 3 months
m = c + 18
m + 3 = 9 (c + 3)
c + 21 = 9c + 27
-6 = 8c
c = -3/4
And I admit the puzzle doesn't really give enough information for the soon question; I'm mostly just guessing at the maker's intent there.
Also, your mistake was in thinking that 21 / 3 = 9.
m = c + 18
m + 3 = 9 (c + 3)
c + 21 = 9c + 27
-6 = 8c
c = -3/4
And I admit the puzzle doesn't really give enough information for the soon question; I'm mostly just guessing at the maker's intent there.
Also, your mistake was in thinking that 21 / 3 = 9.
Aaah, it's 7 time 3 that's 21. Well, I remembered 3 times something was 21, and 9 times something started with something -1, so I thought it worked out
What, I never said I was good at math >.>
I'm pretty sure I stated several times that I was horrible at it, actually.
So yeah. I don't know my multiplications.
Intended answer was father now is pretty close to the mother, as the child is -0.75 years old (will be born in 9 months time). Also the father soon will be in front of a jury, as it was in the US and the mother is 17.25 years old.
Both rely on pretty rigid ideas of the amount of time it takes for a human to go from conception to birth, and whether the US would bother in most cases of almost-18 pregnancies, but I thought it was quite a nice puzzle.
As for 1+1, it = 0. You flick a lightswitch 1 time, and 1 bulb turns on. You flick it 1 more time, and 0 bulbs are turned on. 1+1=0.
Here's a curious little one. Not really a logic puzzle, but a question that surprisingly few people get right:
A man drives up to a petrol (gas) station and tells the owner to fill up his car. The owner does so, and starts talking. "Not seen you round here before, you travelling?" "Yeah," the man replies. "Seeing my brother for the first time in ages." "He's not from that town over there is he?" asks the owner, pointing to a small collection of houses just ahead and off the main road. "Nope." "Good!" exclaims the owner, finishing off filling the car. "I'd rather serve two cars from anywhere else than have to serve one from that place." The man thinks about it for a second. "Makes sense."
Insert the numbers 1 through 8 on the drawing. The numbers on the squares adjacent to the square where you inserted the number can't be the numbers after or before the number you insert. For example, if have the 4 on the centre, you can't have either 6 or 3 on the squares adjacent to it. Attachment not found. Attachment not found.
EDIT: and I don't get the gas one. I'd think it was better filling up two cars than one anyways. But apparently it isn't. So I'm just confused. Maybe he's lazy?
Here's a curious little one. Not really a logic puzzle, but a question that surprisingly few people get right:
A man drives up to a petrol (gas) station and tells the owner to fill up his car. The owner does so, and starts talking. "Not seen you round here before, you travelling?" "Yeah," the man replies. "Seeing my brother for the first time in ages." "He's not from that town over there is he?" asks the owner, pointing to a small collection of houses just ahead and off the main road. "Nope." "Good!" exclaims the owner, finishing off filling the car. "I'd rather serve two cars from anywhere else than have to serve one from that place." The man thinks about it for a second. "Makes sense."
Why did the owner feel that way?
Well, of course the man would rather serve 2 cars than 1! It doesn't matter where they're from, they're still 2 customers instead of 1! He gets twice the money!
Well, of course the man would rather serve 2 cars than 1! It doesn't matter where they're from, they're still 2 customers instead of 1! He gets twice the money!
Yeah, I thought that too, but why specifically from that town? Why is he glad the cousin isn't from there due to that? It doesn't make sense.
Comments
Here's a nice easy by-the-book puzzle:
You're walking through a rocky landscape (yay I set the scene) when you arrive at a toll bridge. You need to pay 201 gold pieces in order to cross it. There is also a magical monkey king to the side, with 2 boxes in front of him, who offers to play a game with you. He says "give a true statement and you shall be rewarded with the context of box A. Give a false statement and you shall be rewarded with the context of box B. The first, and only the first, thing you say from now on will count. Box A contains....200 gold pieces!!!" You look at box B hoping for something slightly better as the monkey king goes over to it. "Box B contains..." he whips off the lid. "Another 200 gold pieces!!!."
What do?
Neat gif! I wish I could do that.
And slowpoke, tisn't a loophole. The riddle also doesn't say that there isn't a pile of gold randomly lying about, or that the bridge can be walked around. In riddles, you should assume that all essential information has been given. If it hasn't, then the riddle is dud.
The mother is 18 years older than the child, in 3 years, she will be 9 times the age of the child. They live in the US. Where is the father
A) now?
EDIT: since you asked two questions, I guess he's not allowed it, so he's in the waiting room and will soon be by her side?
A) At a bar
An invisible pink red unicorn? If you're going for a pun on red, then maybe a message written in disappearing ink after it's disappeared, or braille (though braille's hardly invisible). You can't exactly do that in writing though.
to make it less creepy. In 24 hours. Time starts NOW!
YOU WIN!
Correct.
I'm not questioning your math at all, as it's incredibly easy to believe mine was faulty.
However, I don't think the age of the father was stated. If he's younger than the mother, he's not going to end up in prison, is he? And what if he's older but also under 18?
EDIT: still, maybe you can explain. My results were:
mother now: 18
baby now: 0
mother in 3 years: 21
baby in 3 years: 3
mother in 3 years divided by baby in 3 years: 9
Still, the "soon" might be "in prison" if he's older than she is, but I say the "now" is "in the hospital", no? How do you end up with negative 9 months? What did I do wrong?
With your results I get:
baby in 3 years: 2 years and 3 months
mother in 3 years: 20 and 3 months
Also, your mistake was in thinking that 21 / 3 = 9.
Aaah, it's 7 time 3 that's 21. Well, I remembered 3 times something was 21, and 9 times something started with something -1, so I thought it worked out
Thanks ^_^
3! Remember my riddle?
What, I never said I was good at math >.>
I'm pretty sure I stated several times that I was horrible at it, actually.
So yeah. I don't know my multiplications.
There's 3 other answers, though...
Both rely on pretty rigid ideas of the amount of time it takes for a human to go from conception to birth, and whether the US would bother in most cases of almost-18 pregnancies, but I thought it was quite a nice puzzle.
As for 1+1, it = 0. You flick a lightswitch 1 time, and 1 bulb turns on. You flick it 1 more time, and 0 bulbs are turned on. 1+1=0.
You give that answer, and 0 Avistew is turned on.
A man drives up to a petrol (gas) station and tells the owner to fill up his car. The owner does so, and starts talking. "Not seen you round here before, you travelling?" "Yeah," the man replies. "Seeing my brother for the first time in ages." "He's not from that town over there is he?" asks the owner, pointing to a small collection of houses just ahead and off the main road. "Nope." "Good!" exclaims the owner, finishing off filling the car. "I'd rather serve two cars from anywhere else than have to serve one from that place." The man thinks about it for a second. "Makes sense."
Why did the owner feel that way?
Insert the numbers 1 through 8 on the drawing. The numbers on the squares adjacent to the square where you inserted the number can't be the numbers after or before the number you insert. For example, if have the 4 on the centre, you can't have either 6 or 3 on the squares adjacent to it.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
|2486
| 75
?
EDIT: and I don't get the gas one. I'd think it was better filling up two cars than one anyways. But apparently it isn't. So I'm just confused. Maybe he's lazy?
Well, of course the man would rather serve 2 cars than 1! It doesn't matter where they're from, they're still 2 customers instead of 1! He gets twice the money!
_64
2817
_53
Yeah, I thought that too, but why specifically from that town? Why is he glad the cousin isn't from there due to that? It doesn't make sense.
A) How do you make 4 equilateral triangles with 6 matches?
EDIT: