Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Riddles

Options
12346

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Tarakiwa
    Registered Users Posts: 633 ✭✭✭Tarakiwa


    MathsManiac wrote: »
    3. Just to be clear, let's make the reasonable definition that "going into the wood" means moving farther from the edge and "going out of the wood" means going closer to the edge. Now, can you think of how you might start walking into the wood, reach a point where you can't go any further in any direction without coming out of the wood and still not be as far into the wood as someone else is?

    Are you seeing the wood in some sort of 3D shape - so although you are in the middle of the wood (at ground level) if you were to climb half way up a tree in the middle of the wood you would be in the centre of the 3D shape?? Is that it?


  • Options
    #153
    gabigeist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 121 ✭✭gabigeist


    MathsManiac wrote: »

    2. Present a reasonable scenario in a short paragraph that results in the last sentence in the paragraph using the word "and" five times in a row.
    I just wrote a letter to Brian and Brian. I'll have to reprint it though as I forgot to put a space between Brian and and and and and Brian.


  • Options
    #154
    gabigeist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 121 ✭✭gabigeist


    MathsManiac wrote: »
    Two languagey ones:

    1. Punctuate this so that it makes sense:

    THAT THAT IS IS THAT THAT IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT IT SO IT IS
    "That that is" is "that". "That" is not "is not it". So it is.
    or
    "That that is" = "that"
    "that" =/= "is not it"
    Therefore "that"= "is it"
    "that that is" = "is it"
    So it is
    Just chancing my arm with that one really :confused:


  • Options
    #155
    MathsManiac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭MathsManiac


    Tarakiwa wrote: »
    Are you seeing the wood in some sort of 3D shape - so although you are in the middle of the wood (at ground level) if you were to climb half way up a tree in the middle of the wood you would be in the centre of the 3D shape?? Is that it?

    No. I could equally well have called it a field. You can assume we're talking about a flat region of land.


  • Options
    #156
    MathsManiac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭MathsManiac


    gabigeist wrote: »
    I just wrote a letter to Brian and Brian. I'll have to reprint it though as I forgot to put a space between Brian and and and and and Brian.

    Same idea as the way I heard it, so I guess we can call that a right answer. Here's more or less how I heard it:
    Mario ordered a sign for his chip-shop. The signwriter sent him a mock-up before starting it, but Mario wasn't quite happy with the spacing of the words, so he rang the guy and said: "I'd like a bit more space between Fish and and and and and Chips."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    gabigeist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 121 ✭✭gabigeist


    MathsManiac wrote: »
    Same idea as the way I heard it [/spoiler]
    Yeah it seems to have happened to a lot of us. Fair play to Mario for picking up on it so early.

    Is the walk-into-woods-question
    a case of a misshapen woods? e.g. circular woods with a large off-centre oval missing from the middle. Lots of other shapes would do I think


  • Options
    #158
    MathsManiac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭MathsManiac


    gabigeist wrote: »
    Is the walk-into-woods-question
    a case of a misshapen woods? e.g. circular woods with a large off-centre oval missing from the middle. Lots of other shapes would do I think
    Not the particular shape I had in mind, but yes, lots of shapes would do. Simplest, I think, is a large circle and a small circle joined at a narrow neck. When you're in the middle of the small circle, any direction brings you closer to the edge, yet someone in the middle of the large circle is farther in than you.


  • Options
    #159
    MathsManiac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭MathsManiac


    Any more takers on number 1? None of the guesses so far are especially close. (BTW, I got it from an English teacher when I was in school years ago; he was pointing out the importance of punctuation!)


  • Options
    #160
    HoldStady
    Registered Users Posts: 51 ✭✭HoldStady


    Sorry I don't know how to do spoilers or anything. The first bit seems okay but lost it at the end!


    THAT THAT IS IS THAT THAT IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT IT SO IT IS

    That, that is, is. That that is not, is not. is not it so it is.


  • Options
    #161
    MathsManiac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭MathsManiac


    HoldStady wrote: »
    Sorry I don't know how to do spoilers or anything. The first bit seems okay but lost it at the end!


    THAT THAT IS IS THAT THAT IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT IT SO IT IS

    That, that is, is. That that is not, is not. is not it so it is.

    Well, I'd drop the first comma, but you might get away with it! As for the last bit:
    Is not it so? It is.
    Or you might prefer to put in quotation marks to make it a dialogue:
    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is not it so?"
    "It is."
    A really deep philosophical observation, as I'm sure you'll agree!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    KnifeWRENCH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    A maths lecturer gave us this one today:

    A rich woman died and left her entire fortune of $10,000,000 to be divided equally between a number of lion tamers.
    How much did each lion tamer receive?


  • Options
    #163
    molly_dolly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13 ✭molly_dolly


    I am used to bat with, yet I never get a
    hit. I am near a ball, yet it is never
    thrown. What am I?


  • Options
    #164
    elmolesto
    Registered Users Posts: 5,721 ✭✭✭elmolesto


    I'd say eyelashes


  • Options
    #165
    me-skywalker
    Registered Users Posts: 3,339 ✭✭✭me-skywalker


    MB74 wrote: »
    Okay, it's an old one but there is an actual answer to this one....

    Which came first, the chicken of the egg?:confused:

    well the egg came first... here's how... aprehistoric birdlike creature cross-bred with some other prehistoric birdlike creature and created the egg from which the first chicken was hatched.

    simple!


  • Options
    #166
    elly21
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8 ✭elly21


    Cathy has six pairs of black gloves and six pairs of brown gloves in her drawer. In complete darkness, how many gloves must she take from the drawer in order to be sure to get a pair that match? Think carefully!!


  • Options
    #167
    patrickc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,891 ✭✭✭patrickc


    elly21 wrote: »
    Cathy has six pairs of black gloves and six pairs of brown gloves in her drawer. In complete darkness, how many gloves must she take from the drawer in order to be sure to get a pair that match? Think carefully!!

    2


  • Options
    #168
    elmolesto
    Registered Users Posts: 5,721 ✭✭✭elmolesto


    13


  • Options
    #169
    elly21
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8 ✭elly21


    your right


  • Options
    #170
    dos30
    Registered Users Posts: 376 ✭✭dos30


    patrickc wrote: »
    2

    3????


  • Options
    #171
    errlloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 12,611 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    Sorry for bumping a 5 year old thread, but I have a riddle I came up with I wanted you guys to solve - just to gauge if it's too hard or too easy.

    I have a job, it's never ending but has two ends, it's paid in dollars, but worked in gold and no matter what the weather I always have my coat ready.

    What do I do?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Quality
    Registered Users Posts: 6,900 ✭✭✭Quality


    errlloyd wrote: »
    Sorry for bumping a 5 year old thread, but I have a riddle I came up with I wanted you guys to solve - just to gauge if it's too hard or too easy.

    I have a job, it's never ending but has two ends, it's paid in dollars, but worked in gold and no matter what the weather I always have my coat ready.

    What do I do?

    Painting? Golden Gate Bridge?


  • Options
    #173
    errlloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 12,611 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    Quality wrote: »
    Painting? Golden Gate Bridge?

    Nice. Too easy? Or did you have to think about it?


  • Options
    #174
    Quality
    Registered Users Posts: 6,900 ✭✭✭Quality


    errlloyd wrote: »
    Nice. Too easy? Or did you have to think about it?


    easy enough,, but i had my weetabix this morning.:cool:


  • Options
    #175
    errlloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 12,611 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    Quality wrote: »
    easy enough,, but i had my weetabix this morning.:cool:

    Last question, promise.

    Did you know that random piece of trivia about people constantly painting the golden gate bridge beforehand? Obviously whether you do or not has a bearing on how easy you find it.


  • Options
    #176
    Quality
    Registered Users Posts: 6,900 ✭✭✭Quality


    errlloyd wrote: »
    Last question, promise.

    Did you know that random piece of trivia about people constantly painting the golden gate bridge beforehand? Obviously whether you do or not has a bearing on how easy you find it.

    Yes I was on the Golden Gate Bridge before.

    However it isn't painted golden!


  • Options
    #177
    JoeB-
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭JoeB-


    MathsManiac wrote: »
    Not the particular shape I had in mind, but yes, lots of shapes would do. Simplest, I think, is a large circle and a small circle joined at a narrow neck. When you're in the middle of the small circle, any direction brings you closer to the edge, yet someone in the middle of the large circle is farther in than you.

    I had come up with that solution myself but I'm not sure if it's correct. Well, I know for certain the described shape doesn't work, but a modified one might.

    The reason the given solution doesn't work is that if you were in the middle of the small circle then you could move directly through the neck towards the center of the large circle... that would be bringing you further into the center of the wood, and that's not allowed.


  • Options
    #178
    MathsManiac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭MathsManiac


    JoeBallantine wrote: »
    I had come up with that solution myself but I'm not sure if it's correct. Well, I know for certain the described shape doesn't work, but a modified one might.

    The reason the given solution doesn't work is that if you were in the middle of the small circle then you could move directly through the neck towards the center of the large circle... that would be bringing you further into the center of the wood, and that's not allowed.

    That's incorrect. If you walk in the direction you specify, you are getting closer to the edge of the wood, which was the definition given for going out of the wood. (When you are close to the neck, you are very close to the edge of the wood, no matter what direction you are moving, so you are farther out of the wood than you were previously.)


  • Options
    #179
    JoeB-
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭JoeB-


    I know what you're saying but I still don't agree.

    The whole system of 'going in' and 'going out' doesn't work is all cases.

    If there are two separated circular woods and they are connected by a long, narrow, winding neck then the whole concept of 'in', 'out' and moving closer to the center or further away doesn't really work, .. due to the long, narrow, winding neck connecting two otherwise separate circular woods.

    So, .. when a person moves from the small circle, along the neck, .. they are neither moving in or out.. as they remain equidistant from the edges of the wood. But yes, .. when moving along the narrow neck they are closer to the edge then they would have been when in the center of the small circle, so it is correct I suppose to say that they must have moved 'outwards' in order to get closer to the edge.
    (But in another valid sense they haven't moved outwards at all,.. in that they've remained in the center of the wood at all times, and it's only that the center of the wood itself has moved 'outwards')



    If there are two circles, a small and a big, and these intersect with no neck then what I said originally is correct.. you can move from the center of the little circle and only move inwards if you head directly towards the center of the large circle. However, once the circles do not intersect and instead they must be connected by a neck, then all bets are off, and the definitions start to fail, .. especially if the neck is winding.



    Edit. Now I'm not sure at all (even with two intersecting circles with no neck), .. but I don't think the definitions of 'in' and 'out' etc are robust enough to handle long winding necks.


  • Options
    #180
    MathsManiac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭MathsManiac


    But it was precisely in order to remove any such ambiguity that a definition of "into" and "out of" was given in the first place. The system of 'going in' and 'going out' is precise and well defined in all cases.

    That definition was that if you move in such a way that your distance to the closest point of the edge of the wood is increasing, then you are going into the wood, while if that distance is decreasing, you are going out of the wood. You might not like that definition, but it was given as part of the puzzle.

    Another way of thinking about it is to imagine you have a circular "bubble", centred on you, and constantly as large as it can be, within the confines of the wood. If you move in such a way that your bubble can get bigger, you're going into the wood, while if you're moving in such a way that your bubble is forced to get smaller, you are moving out of the wood. (Of couse, if your bubble stays the same, you are neither moving into or out of the wood.)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,302 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    JoeBallantine wrote: »
    I had come up with that solution myself but I'm not sure if it's correct. Well, I know for certain the described shape doesn't work, but a modified one might.
    The reason the given solution doesn't work is that if you were in the middle of the small circle then you could move directly through the neck towards the center of the large circle... that would be bringing you further into the center of the wood, and that's not allowed.
    That's incorrect.

    When you leave the centre of the small circle, you are getting closer to the edge, when you reach the "neck" you could very well stop getting closer to the edge, but the fact remains that you closer then the opoint you started.
    JoeBallantine wrote: »
    If there are two separated circular woods and they are connected by a long, narrow, winding neck then the whole concept of 'in', 'out' and moving closer to the center or further away doesn't really work, .. due to the long, narrow, winding neck connecting two otherwise separate circular woods.
    It does work.
    You are confusing the centre of the woods with the centre of the neck
    So, .. when a person moves from the small circle, along the neck, .. they are neither moving in or out.. as they remain equidistant from the edges of the wood.

    No they dont????
    The edge might the same distance in both directions at any point along this path (from centre to centre along neck), but its not the same distance the entire time.
    But yes, .. when moving along the narrow neck they are closer to the edge then they would have been when in the center of the small circle, so it is correct I suppose to say that they must have moved 'outwards' in order to get closer to the edge.

    Exactly, therefore its wrong.

    (But in another valid sense they haven't moved outwards at all,.. in that they've remained in the center of the wood at all times, and it's only that the center of the wood itself has moved 'outwards')
    Thats not valid at all. The centre hasn't moved, the centre of the neck isn't in the centre of the woods.

    If there are two circles, a small and a big, and these intersect with no neck then what I said originally is correct.. you can move from the center of the little circle and only move inwards if you head directly towards the center of the large circle.

    Thats not true either.

    Firstly, when you leave the centre of the smaller circle, you are getting closer to the edge you reach the area when the circles "overlap".

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcpfl25IT_i-4Zc_s_z_Nl6TA3tYySKX3qdIZC6xNdRPHb1Yoj6Q

    Even if the centre of the small circle is right on the bigger circle, and there is no travel before you get to the overlap it. It still isn't true. You'll initially get closer to the edge until you get to the point halfway between where the two circles intersect.

    Also, the centre of the small circle isn't the centre of the woods either.
    However, once the circles do not intersect and instead they must be connected by a neck, then all bets are off, and the definitions start to fail, .. especially if the neck is winding.
    Not true.
    For the same reasons as above.


Advertisement