The riddle thread
- Thread starter Hamish Durie
- Start date
Recommended Videos
However:Liudeius said:
As they see other people with brown eyes, they can necessarily substitute the idea of 'blue eyes' with 'brown eyes'. However, they need everyone with blue eyes to leave since they are as yet unaware of the potential presence of a third eye colour, the Guru aside.
Therefore, on the morning of the 101st day, everyone reappears, only 100 brown eyed people with individuals only seeing brown eyes but unaware of their own. Thus, they can think to themselves 'the Guru has effectively told us that she observes at least one person with brown eyes, because I observe no other colour'. Same principle as per 'blue eyes' deduction, then, one hundred days later...
*shrug* perhaps?
Therefore, on the morning of the 101st day, everyone reappears, only 100 brown eyed people with individuals only seeing brown eyes but unaware of their own. Thus, they can think to themselves 'the Guru has effectively told us that she observes at least one person with brown eyes, because I observe no other colour'. Same principle as per 'blue eyes' deduction, then, one hundred days later...
*shrug* perhaps?
It's kind of hard to think for 100 people, but still I'm quite sure, no.SckizoBoy said:
It only works because the seed of "one person with blue eyes" was planted, so each consecutive day they know that there must be another person with blue eyes.
Without being told that there is at least one person with brown eyes, the reasoning that the blue eyed people used to get off the island can't be communicated.
The official answer is the blue eye people in 100 days. I too have tried to think around this answer, but I just leave it as is when telling people the solution.
Here is XKCD's solution by the way [link]http://xkcd.com/solution.html[/link].
Without being told that there is at least one person with brown eyes, the reasoning that the blue eyed people used to get off the island can't be communicated.
The official answer is the blue eye people in 100 days. I too have tried to think around this answer, but I just leave it as is when telling people the solution.
Here is XKCD's solution by the way [link]http://xkcd.com/solution.html[/link].
Hmm I remember a certain Sphinx object in Heroes of Might and Magic 3, it had TONS and TONS of riddles, better post a few:
"When one does not know what it is,
then it is something;
but when one knows what it is,
then it is nothing.
What is it?"
"What is neither inside the house,
nor outside the house,
but lets you see both?"
"There was a green round house.
Inside the green round house was a smaller white house.
In the white house was a red house.
And living in the red house were lots of little black babies."
Should be enough to start myself off for now
"When one does not know what it is,
then it is something;
but when one knows what it is,
then it is nothing.
What is it?"
"What is neither inside the house,
nor outside the house,
but lets you see both?"
"There was a green round house.
Inside the green round house was a smaller white house.
In the white house was a red house.
And living in the red house were lots of little black babies."
Should be enough to start myself off for now
I guess so... 'there is no more potent a virus as an idea', though my answer was based on the below being literal.Liudeius said:
Liudeius said:
That there are only two observed colours... therefore, day 101: there are no blue-eyed people left upon this island, hence there are but those with brown eyes, and myself etc. In any case, the reasoning to get off the island wasn't discretely communicated, only inferred and logic thusly provided the reasoning to get off the island. It's just one extra level of (re)interpretation of that statement to get the brown eyed lot off. Probably the best way to remove any ambiguity in the riddle is to have three colours (Guru aside).
Still - philosophical: define logic. Question - is it so influenced by suggestion?
I think that is a discussion best kept for later...
paynexkiller said:
This is one of the random things I was thinking about when trying to go to sleep yesterday...
Anyway, that answer is Poe wrote on both.
SckizoBoy said:
The explanation for the blue eyed people starts with the idea that if there is only 1 blue eyed person, he can leave on the first day. If there are 2 blue-eyed people and the other person didn't leave on day 1, they both know they have blue eyes. It builds on the idea that the rest is rational as well.
But for the brown-eyed people, who very well know that there is at least 1 brown-eyed person (because they see 99), this doesn't work. Again, imagine if there was only 1. For one thing, he doesn't know that there is at least 1 brown-eyed person, because he can't see anyone else (since he's alone), so all he knows is that he has no blue eyes (after all of those people left).
If there were two people left, they can see there is at least one brown-eyed person, but now they can't assume that the other person would leave after 1 day if he is the only one with brown eyes.
But for the brown-eyed people, who very well know that there is at least 1 brown-eyed person (because they see 99), this doesn't work. Again, imagine if there was only 1. For one thing, he doesn't know that there is at least 1 brown-eyed person, because he can't see anyone else (since he's alone), so all he knows is that he has no blue eyes (after all of those people left).
If there were two people left, they can see there is at least one brown-eyed person, but now they can't assume that the other person would leave after 1 day if he is the only one with brown eyes.
Mortier said:Hmm I remember a certain Sphinx object in Heroes of Might and Magic 3, it had TONS and TONS of riddles, better post a few:
"When one does not know what it is,
then it is something;
but when one knows what it is,
then it is nothing.
What is it?"
"What is neither inside the house,
nor outside the house,
but lets you see both?"
"There was a green round house.
Inside the green round house was a smaller white house.
In the white house was a red house.
And living in the red house were lots of little black babies."
Should be enough to start myself off for now
Secret, window, watermelon
ThanksMortier said:Say, you're good
Anyway, ur almost there with the second one yeah. Nothing on the first one?
I like trying to figure out the "trick" and how you're supposed to think for these kind of little riddles.About the first one, I don't really know.
I was thinking something like doubt or uncertainty, but I'm trying to find what fits perfectly with the "something"/"nothing" thing.
And I think I figured out the third one
a watermelon?
DasDestroyer said:
Ur both right on the second and third one now ^^Avistew said:Thanks
About the first one, I don't really know.
I was thinking something like doubt or uncertainty, but I'm trying to find what fits perfectly with the "something"/"nothing" thing.
And I think I figured out the third onea watermelon?
Keep trying for the first one, though
(Das is close, in a way.)In the mean time, I could post more riddles if you want to.
Obligatory Monty Hall problem:
Also:
Sorry if the latter is written crappily, I haven't had any sleep so as to prevent jet lag after my upcoming flight
I know it's been answered, but I had this answer before reading the post so I'm posting it anyways.DasDestroyer said:
At the time you picked a door, you had one chance in three to be right. But because no matter what door you choose, the guy eliminates one wrong possibility, there is a chance in two that the other door has the prize, while only a chance in three that the door you originally picked has it. Therefore the probability is higher that the prize is under the other door, and you should switch.
Explained a different way: it's only a bad idea to switch if the door you picked at the beginning was the right one. Since there is only one in three chances of that, that means two times out of three changing your pick is better.
Explained a different way: it's only a bad idea to switch if the door you picked at the beginning was the right one. Since there is only one in three chances of that, that means two times out of three changing your pick is better.
DasDestroyer said:
Does the guy in the back, the one who guessed what colour his hat was (easily, since he could see the other three) tell everyone else? I'm assuming no, but if yes, the answer is that the third person would get the right answer.
However, if he does NOT, then the second person gets the colour right. The second person thinks "if both my hat and the hat of the guy right in front of me were the same colour, the third guy would have known what colour his hat was. Since he doesn't, my hat isn't the same colour as the guy in front of me", and therefore guesses his hat colour.
However, if he does NOT, then the second person gets the colour right. The second person thinks "if both my hat and the hat of the guy right in front of me were the same colour, the third guy would have known what colour his hat was. Since he doesn't, my hat isn't the same colour as the guy in front of me", and therefore guesses his hat colour.