[I] Lateral Thinking
MP
might appeal to AFPers...
http://rinkworks.com/brainfood/latreal.shtml
Not to metion that the name of the actual file sounds like an entry in
the toilet naming contest... :-}
MP
David Chapman
news:3c979879...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> Just discoved this link, and it seemed to be the sort of thing that
> might appeal to AFPers...
>
> http://rinkworks.com/brainfood/latreal.shtml
Nah. Half the puuzles are antique and easy to work out, and
the rest are utter crap and either impossible to work out, have a
solution that doesn't work or have a phenomenally obvious
solution that doesn't need lateral thinking.
--
"Do you just keep your newbies locked up in cages all alone?"
"Of course! That's what pets are for!"
Richard Bos
> Just discoved this link, and it seemed to be the sort of thing that
> might appeal to AFPers...
>
> http://rinkworks.com/brainfood/latreal.shtml
Is it just me, or do others agree that most of these either have several
other, sometimes rather superior, solutions, depend on unexpected or
unrealistic assumptions, or both?
For example, for #9, a much more likely solution is that there was a
train crash, and the smoking waggons, being in another part of the train
than the non-smoking waggons, are the only ones to survive the crash.
For another, #29 assumes no Merkin whatsoever knows all verses of his
own national anthem. As a last example, #23 is just too unbelievable on
several points to even take seriously.
Ok, so you're supposed to think laterally. Problem is, when they're
called "realistic" lateral-thinking problems, I'm inclined to think of a
realistic solution, not of some far-out possibility.
Richard
David Chapman
news:3c986415...@news.tiscali.nl...
Oh, the best one is the one with the dead guy wearing a backpack
lying face down in the desert. The purported answer is that he was
a parachutist whose chute failed to open. Isn't it a little more likely
and realistic that he was a backpacker who died of thirst?
Richard Bos
> "Richard Bos" <in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote in message
> news:3c986415...@news.tiscali.nl...
> > Ok, so you're supposed to think laterally. Problem is, when they're
> > called "realistic" lateral-thinking problems, I'm inclined to think of a
> > realistic solution, not of some far-out possibility.
>
> Oh, the best one is the one with the dead guy wearing a backpack
> lying face down in the desert. The purported answer is that he was
> a parachutist whose chute failed to open. Isn't it a little more likely
> and realistic that he was a backpacker who died of thirst?
Yeah, that was the first thing I thought of, as well: another bloody
back-to-basics turist finding out the hard way that basically, he's an
imbecile.
Richard
Michael Yoder
>ju...@bleurgh.net (MP) wrote:
>
>>Just discoved this link, and it seemed to be the sort of thing that
>>might appeal to AFPers...
>>
>>http://rinkworks.com/brainfood/latreal.shtml
>
>
>Is it just me, or do others agree that most of these either have several
>other, sometimes rather superior, solutions, depend on unexpected or
>unrealistic assumptions, or both?
>[snip]
>
I first encountered several of these in the 1970s in California, when
they were called "little mysteries" and presented as a parlor game. The
person who knew the answer would present the mystery, and everyone else
would ask questions (IIRC yes-or-no questions only) to try and deduce
what was going on. There wasn't any limit on the number of questions;
the game would continue until the mystery was solved or the questioners
gave up.
IMO asking people to solve them without the questions and answers is
subject to exactly the problems you complain of.
Franz
Attention, human! The world of computers has declared war on your race.
If you wish to surrender, press Y.
If you wish to resist, press N.
kylet
Sorry, but I just don't see any attraction in these 'puzzles' at all...
0/10 - Must Try HArder,.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.338 / Virus Database: 189 - Release Date: 14 Mar 02
Sherilyn
Michael Yoder <m...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Richard Bos wrote:
>
>>ju...@bleurgh.net (MP) wrote:
>>
>>>Just discoved this link, and it seemed to be the sort of thing that
>>>might appeal to AFPers...
>>>
>>>http://rinkworks.com/brainfood/latreal.shtml
>>
>>
>>Is it just me, or do others agree that most of these either have several
>>other, sometimes rather superior, solutions, depend on unexpected or
>>unrealistic assumptions, or both?
>>[snip]
>>
>I first encountered several of these in the 1970s in California, when
>they were called "little mysteries" and presented as a parlor game. The
>person who knew the answer would present the mystery, and everyone else
>would ask questions (IIRC yes-or-no questions only) to try and deduce
>what was going on. There wasn't any limit on the number of questions;
>the game would continue until the mystery was solved or the questioners
>gave up.
>
>IMO asking people to solve them without the questions and answers is
>subject to exactly the problems you complain of.
>
the website's answer and come up with something even more bizarre.
--
Sherilyn
M.S.R
"Michael Yoder" <m...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3C98905E...@mediaone.net...
> Franz
> Attention, human! The world of computers has declared > war on your race.
> If you wish to surrender, press Y.
> If you wish to resist, press N.
>
Nahhhh I can't be bothered. They'll crash soon anyway.....
Torak
> lying face down in the desert. The purported answer is that he was
> a parachutist whose chute failed to open. Isn't it a little more likely
> and realistic that he was a backpacker who died of thirst?
Besides, wouldn't recreational parachutists jump somewhere where they don't
need to footslog it hundreds of miles back home?
Torak
> they were called "little mysteries" and presented as a parlor game. The
> person who knew the answer would present the mystery, and everyone else
> would ask questions (IIRC yes-or-no questions only) to try and deduce
> what was going on. There wasn't any limit on the number of questions;
> the game would continue until the mystery was solved or the questioners
> gave up.
At least that sounds fun. These are just daft.
MP
Bos) wrote:
>ju...@bleurgh.net (MP) wrote:
>
>> Just discoved this link, and it seemed to be the sort of thing that
>> might appeal to AFPers...
>>
>> http://rinkworks.com/brainfood/latreal.shtml
>
>Is it just me, or do others agree that most of these either have several
>other, sometimes rather superior, solutions, depend on unexpected or
>unrealistic assumptions, or both?
Yep! I was amused by that too!
>For example, for #9, a much more likely solution is that there was a
>train crash, and the smoking waggons, being in another part of the train
>than the non-smoking waggons, are the only ones to survive the crash.
Most of them have much more realistic solutions. I mean, most people
could probably think of better solutions, and indeed, better questions
than these... [1]
<snip>
>Ok, so you're supposed to think laterally. Problem is, when they're
>called "realistic" lateral-thinking problems, I'm inclined to think of a
>realistic solution, not of some far-out possibility.
I mean, they are at least more realistic than the sort of puzzles
where a man is stuck in a room with a table and nothing else, not even
a door, window or useful little pocket survival kit.
But still not very realistic, I'll concede!
MP
[1] Hint, hint... :-}
Chris Ahchay
>
> >ju...@bleurgh.net (MP) wrote:
> >
> >>Just discoved this link, and it seemed to be the sort of thing that
> >>might appeal to AFPers...
> >>
> >>http://rinkworks.com/brainfood/latreal.shtml
> >
> >
> >Is it just me, or do others agree that most of these either have several
> >other, sometimes rather superior, solutions, depend on unexpected or
> >unrealistic assumptions, or both?
> >[snip]
> >
> I first encountered several of these in the 1970s in California, when
> they were called "little mysteries" and presented as a parlor game. The
> person who knew the answer would present the mystery, and everyone else
> would ask questions (IIRC yes-or-no questions only) to try and deduce
> what was going on. There wasn't any limit on the number of questions;
> the game would continue until the mystery was solved or the questioners
> gave up.
>
> IMO asking people to solve them without the questions and answers is
> subject to exactly the problems you complain of.
>
To be fair...
The webby site thing _does_ mention that this is the best way to
pose the "puzzles" - i.e. one all-knowing bod and a bunch of people
asking questions.
However, I do agree that these are basically a pile of steaming
brown stuff. These kind of lateral thinking questions can be done
really well, but this site is not one of the best examples.
Another question then? What's your favorite lateral thinking
puzzle? Mine to follow (an oldie, and pretty simple, but a goodie)
<Explanation>
An explorer is wandering through the arctic wasteland when he
discovers two corpses. He takes one look them and exclaims
"Aha, here lie Adam and Eve!".
</Explanation>
<Question>
How does he know?
</Question>
Cheers
Chris
John
"David Chapman" <evil...@madasafish.com> wrote in message
news:u9h1iih...@corp.supernews.com...
And of course, a backpack is a backpack, an unopened parachute
is not.
Torak
> puzzle? Mine to follow (an oldie, and pretty simple, but a goodie)
>
> <Explanation>
> An explorer is wandering through the arctic wasteland when he
> discovers two corpses. He takes one look them and exclaims
> "Aha, here lie Adam and Eve!".
> </Explanation>
> <Question>
> How does he know?
> </Question>
They're still still wearing their McDonalds-patented "Hi, I'm [Insert Name
Here]!" nametags?
Richard Bos
> Another question then? What's your favorite lateral thinking
> puzzle? Mine to follow (an oldie, and pretty simple, but a goodie)
>
> <Explanation>
> An explorer is wandering through the arctic wasteland when he
> discovers two corpses. He takes one look them and exclaims
> "Aha, here lie Adam and Eve!".
> </Explanation>
> <Question>
> How does he know?
> </Question>
Answer one:
They died in a previous expotition, and he went to look for them.
Answer two:
They are two of his team-mates who went to feed the dogs, tend to the
sleds, or whatever, and got surprised by a snow-storm while he was
still in the tent.
Answers three and four:
They are two dogs of his or a previous team, see answers one and two.
Answer five:
They're wearing team suits with name tags. Or they're dogs wearing
collars with their names written on them.
Answer six:
He doesn't know, he's just being morbidly silly.
Answer seven:
They're still wearing their fig-leaves.
Next?
Richard
Søren Noort Hansen
> <Explanation>
> An explorer is wandering through the arctic wasteland when he
> discovers two corpses. He takes one look them and exclaims
> "Aha, here lie Adam and Eve!".
> </Explanation>
> <Question>
> How does he know?
> </Question>
>
> Cheers
> Chris
No navels?
Sřren
--
WYGIWYGAINGW - What You Get Is What You're Given And It's No Good
Whining
- Terry Pratchett et al. (The Science of Discworld)
Mary Messall
> <Explanation>
> An explorer is wandering through the arctic wasteland when he
> discovers two corpses. He takes one look them and exclaims
> "Aha, here lie Adam and Eve!".
> </Explanation>
> <Question>
> How does he know?
> </Question>
I strongly suspect the expected answer is...
No belly buttons.
-Mary
Torak
> > puzzle? Mine to follow (an oldie, and pretty simple, but a goodie)
> >
> > <Explanation>
> > An explorer is wandering through the arctic wasteland when he
> > discovers two corpses. He takes one look them and exclaims
> > "Aha, here lie Adam and Eve!".
> > </Explanation>
> > <Question>
> > How does he know?
> > </Question>
> Answer seven:
> They're still wearing their fig-leaves.
No wonder they froze to death...
Sherilyn
I fear you must be right. The arctic conditions are required to account
for the intact survival of the bodies, which would be necessary for
identification.
--
Sherilyn
Chris Ahchay
Well... I _did_ say it was pretty easy.
Although I will admit to quite liking Richard's (various) answers.
Cheers
Chris
gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukdeletethis
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 21:24:02 GMT, ju...@bleurgh.net (MP) wrote:
>Most of them have much more realistic solutions. I mean, most people
>could probably think of better solutions, and indeed, better questions
>than these...
Erm, well this is going to be a bit irritating, but...
Many years ago (about 25, I think!) I heard a lateral thinking
problem, but never actually found out the answer! As far as I recall
it *does* have a reasonable and logical solution, it's just that I
can't figure out what it is!!
AFAIR it went like this:
* * * * *
There are two men in a desert, dying of thirst, when they find a
bottle full of water.
They want to divide the water fairly and evenly, but the bottle is a
completely irregular shape and all they have to mark it with is a
chinagraph (grease) pencil.
How do they do it?
* * * * *
Any suggestions would be welcomed.
Cheers,
Graham.
John
<gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukDELETETHIS> wrote in message
news:3c9a2daa...@news.ntlworld.com...
The first person drinks, and between sips turns the bottle
upside-down. When the level rightside-up equals upside-down,
the bottle is 1/2 empty.
Assuming they can stopper the bottle, and that it's completely
full.
Elliott Grasett
> ch...@arcadenirvana.com (Chris Ahchay) wrote:
>
<snip>
> >
> > <Explanation>
> > An explorer is wandering through the arctic wasteland when he
> > discovers two corpses. He takes one look them and exclaims
> > "Aha, here lie Adam and Eve!".
> > </Explanation>
> > <Question>
> > How does he know?
> > </Question>
>
> Answer seven:
> They're still wearing their fig-leaves.
>
> Next?
>
They have no navels.
Warning: members of the Plymouth Brethren
will NOT regard this answer as valid.
--
Cheers,
Elliott
Mary Messall
> The first person drinks, and between sips turns the bottle
> upside-down. When the level rightside-up equals upside-down,
> the bottle is 1/2 empty.
> Assuming they can stopper the bottle, and that it's completely
> full.
Surely not. If it has a long, narrow neck but a broad base, then the
upside down level for a given volume will be much higher than the right
side up level for the same volume...
-Mary
Sherilyn
Only when it isn't half full. The half-full level is that at which the
volume of air in the bottle is exactly equal to the volume of liquid in
the bottle. Invert the bottle and the liquid and air change positions
only. Each occupies exactly the same volume, so the liquid-air interface
line is in exactly the same place. For a conical bottle, that place will
be much closer to the base than for a cylindrical bottle, but when any
bottle, of whatever (reasonably convex, no air pockets) shape is half full
it doesn't matter whether you hold the bottle upside down or right way up,
the liquid level will still be in the same place.
--
Sherilyn
Peter Ellis
Not when exactly half full.
Think about it: When it's one way up, you have half-a-bottle's worth of
liquid in the broad end. When it's the other way up, you have
half-a-bottle's worth of air in the broad end.
Peter
Adrian Ogden
Yep, that works.
I'd've just turned the bottle on its side though. That shifts the
axis of symmetry so that top and bottom are visibly equal; it's only
left and right that are imbalanced.
--
<< Adrian Ogden -- "Sic Biscuitus Disintegrat" -- www.rdg.ac.uk/~sssogadr/ >>
"My grandmother always used to say that violence is the last refuge of the
green humpty people. Mind you, she was quite heavily on the Prozac."
Peter Ellis
>
>I'd've just turned the bottle on its side though. That shifts the
>axis of symmetry so that top and bottom are visibly equal; it's only
>left and right that are imbalanced.
Why do you assume it has any axes of symmetry?
Peter
Sherilyn
Edward de Bono's head.
--
Sherilyn
Mary Messall
> Peter Ellis <pj...@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> >On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Mary Messall wrote:
> >>John wrote:
> >>> The first person drinks, and between sips turns the bottle
> >>> upside-down. When the level rightside-up equals upside-down,
> >>> the bottle is 1/2 empty.
> >>> Assuming they can stopper the bottle, and that it's completely
> >>> full.
> >>Surely not. If it has a long, narrow neck but a broad base, then the
> >>upside down level for a given volume will be much higher than the right
> >>side up level for the same volume...
> >Not when exactly half full.
> >Think about it: When it's one way up, you have half-a-bottle's worth of
> >liquid in the broad end. When it's the other way up, you have
> >half-a-bottle's worth of air in the broad end.
All right, fair enough. When the air has exactly the same volume as the
liquid... Yes.
> Yep, that works.
> I'd've just turned the bottle on its side though. That shifts the
> axis of symmetry so that top and bottom are visibly equal; it's only
> left and right that are imbalanced.
Only works with rotationally symettric bottles, of course. Try with a
milk jug that has a hollow handle, and it won't be exactly half way up
when half full however you turn it.
-Mary
Torak
news:a7f6vm$bkb$1...@vins1.reading.ac.uk...
> Peter Ellis <pj...@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> >On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Mary Messall wrote:
> >>John wrote:
> >>> The first person drinks, and between sips turns the bottle
> >>> upside-down. When the level rightside-up equals upside-down,
> >>> the bottle is 1/2 empty.
> >>> Assuming they can stopper the bottle, and that it's completely
> >>> full.
> >>
> >>Surely not. If it has a long, narrow neck but a broad base, then the
> >>upside down level for a given volume will be much higher than the right
> >>side up level for the same volume...
>
> >Not when exactly half full.
>
> >Think about it: When it's one way up, you have half-a-bottle's worth of
> >liquid in the broad end. When it's the other way up, you have
> >half-a-bottle's worth of air in the broad end.
>
> Yep, that works.
>
> I'd've just turned the bottle on its side though. That shifts the
> axis of symmetry so that top and bottom are visibly equal; it's only
> left and right that are imbalanced.
But it's *completely* irregular; i e no axes of symmetry exist.
Paul Wilkins
> No navels?
Yep, since Adam and Eve are said to have been created by god, instead of
being given birth, they have no requirement or need for the umbilical cord
type of attachment and so it stands to reason that they have no navels nor
bellybuttons.
--
Paul Wilkins
| /\ Inform yourself | Paul Wilkins | When you ask a computer person to
| /__\ Project Mayhem | Christchurch | fix your machine, they will first
| http://tetrica.com/ | (03) 3433097 | spend hours downloading upgrades.
Sherilyn
Paul Wilkins <di...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>In article <3C99A616...@db.dk>, k99...@db.dk says...
>> No navels?
>
>Yep, since Adam and Eve are said to have been created by god, instead of
>being given birth, they have no requirement or need for the umbilical cord
>type of attachment and so it stands to reason that they have no navels nor
>bellybuttons.
Makes about as much sense as the rest of the story! :)
--
Sherilyn
David Chapman
news:MPG.1706212b8...@news.paradise.net.nz...
> In article <3C99A616...@db.dk>, k99...@db.dk says...
> > No navels?
>
> Yep, since Adam and Eve are said to have been created by god, instead of
> being given birth, they have no requirement or need for the umbilical cord
> type of attachment
I see no reason why this should be a given. (See: Matrix, The)
--
"Do you just keep your newbies locked up in cages all alone?"
"Of course! That's what pets are for!"
The Stainless Steel Cat
"Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote:
If they're dying of thirst, they shouldn't be gulping water at all. Taking
alternate palmfuls of water would be fair and better for gently easing
their thirst.
Cat.
--
La Rustimuna ^Stalkato
stee...@mac.comtrousers
Remove trousers to reply
gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukdeletethis
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:43:24 +1100, "John" <ju...@junk.com> wrote:
>> There are two men in a desert, dying of thirst, when they find a
>> bottle full of water.
>> They want to divide the water fairly and evenly, but the bottle is a
>> completely irregular shape and all they have to mark it with is a
>> chinagraph (grease) pencil. How do they do it?
>>
>The first person drinks, and between sips turns the bottle
>upside-down. When the level rightside-up equals upside-down,
>the bottle is 1/2 empty.
Having read this and the subsequent messages, YES!!!!!
Thank you!!!!!
(And, yes, I meant to use multiple exclamation marks, because it was
driving me *crazy*!!!!!)
As a matter of interest, did you know the answer, or was it just one
of those ones that is blindingly obvious to some people?
>Assuming they can stopper the bottle, and that it's completely
>full.
Well the "completely full" was, effectively, given, and because it's
in a desert and not evaporated away, it's presumably stoppered.
Cheers,
Graham.
Torak
> >> >>> upside-down. When the level rightside-up equals upside-down,
> >> >>> the bottle is 1/2 empty.
> >> >>> Assuming they can stopper the bottle, and that it's completely
> >> >>> full.
> >> I'd've just turned the bottle on its side though. That shifts the
> >> axis of symmetry so that top and bottom are visibly equal; it's only
> >> left and right that are imbalanced.
> >
> >But it's *completely* irregular; i e no axes of symmetry exist.
>
> If they're dying of thirst, they shouldn't be gulping water at all. Taking
> alternate palmfuls of water would be fair and better for gently easing
> their thirst.
Agreed - but let's not bring sense and logic into this... ;-)
Lee Ann Rucker
<in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
> For another, #29 assumes no Merkin whatsoever knows all verses of his
> own national anthem.
And if that's true, how'd the first guy know the second one had it
right?
Dragon Prince
ju...@junk.com says...
> And of course, a backpack is a backpack, an unopened parachute
> is not.
>
please return faulty goods in person..
dp
--
It is probably true to say that, with DW as well as HP, if
you look wide enough and far enough you'll find there are no
original themes. Paintings, after all, tend ultimately to be
mixes of the same old colours...
Terry Pratchett
Elliott Grasett
"David Chapman" <evil...@madasafish.com> wrote in message
news:u9msamq...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Paul Wilkins" <di...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1706212b8...@news.paradise.net.nz...
> > In article <3C99A616...@db.dk>, k99...@db.dk says...
> > > No navels?
> >
> > Yep, since Adam and Eve are said to have been created by god,
instead of
> > being given birth, they have no requirement or need for the
umbilical cord
> > type of attachment
>
> I see no reason why this should be a given. (See: Matrix, The)
>
In a book called _Omphalos_, Phillip Gosse, who was both a
first-class amateur naturalist and a rigid Plymouth Brother,
tried to reconcile what he observed with what he believed.
He decided that god had provided a navel to make it appear
as if Adam had been a normal placental mammal, even though
he had just been created. In a similar way god was supposed to have
provided all that "spurious" evidence which persuades us
that evolution occurred. His book was derided by all: even
clergymen laughed.
--
Cheers,
Elliott
John
<gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukDELETETHIS> wrote in message
news:3c9b8a3d...@news.ntlworld.com...
> Hi there,
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:43:24 +1100, "John" <ju...@junk.com> wrote:
>
> >> There are two men in a desert, dying of thirst, when they find a
> >> bottle full of water.
> >> They want to divide the water fairly and evenly, but the bottle is a
> >> completely irregular shape and all they have to mark it with is a
> >> chinagraph (grease) pencil. How do they do it?
> >>
> >The first person drinks, and between sips turns the bottle
> >upside-down. When the level rightside-up equals upside-down,
> >the bottle is 1/2 empty.
>
> Having read this and the subsequent messages, YES!!!!!
>
> Thank you!!!!!
>
> (And, yes, I meant to use multiple exclamation marks, because it was
> driving me *crazy*!!!!!)
>
> As a matter of interest, did you know the answer, or was it just one
> of those ones that is blindingly obvious to some people?
I'm sure I've been told somewhat similar ones in my distant
past, but I *think* I worked the solution out for myself, and
didn't just access an ancient and unattributed memory :)
gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukdeletethis
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 10:59:20 +1100, "John" <ju...@junk.com> wrote:
>> >The first person drinks, and between sips turns the bottle
>> >upside-down. When the level rightside-up equals upside-down,
>> >the bottle is 1/2 empty.
>>
>> As a matter of interest, did you know the answer, or was it just one
>> of those ones that is blindingly obvious to some people?
>
>I'm sure I've been told somewhat similar ones in my distant
>past, but I *think* I worked the solution out for myself, and
>didn't just access an ancient and unattributed memory :)
Fair enough, I have to admit that that solution never even *occurred*
to me in the *way* too many years I've been puzzling over that one (on
and off when I remembered it, at least)
But now I've got the answer it may help in other such problems if I
get told them in the future.
Cheers,
Graham.
mrtn
<gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukDELETETHIS> wrote in message
news:3c9f74a2...@news.ntlworld.com...
<snip>
> But now I've got the answer it may help in other such problems if I
> get told them in the future.
>
> Cheers,
> Graham.
Or if you and a friend just have a bottle of water and a pen,
whilst alone and starving in the desert. You never know :-)
mrtn
--
Fingers are like onions,
if you cut them, you cry.
Chris Ahchay
> news:MPG.1706212b8...@news.paradise.net.nz...
> > In article <3C99A616...@db.dk>, k99...@db.dk says...
> > > No navels?
> >
> > Yep, since Adam and Eve are said to have been created by god, instead of
> > being given birth, they have no requirement or need for the umbilical cord
> > type of attachment
>
> I see no reason why this should be a given. (See: Matrix, The)
It was only _after_ I posted this question that I noticed that the
number 2 best selling "science" book that week was "Did Adam &
Eve have navels" - which, AFAICT, is a series of essay's examining
this and other such ideas.
Rather than repeating it here, check out the amazon review at
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393049639/026-0142952-9973274
Cheers
Chris
Speaker-to-Customers
"David Chapman" wrote ...
> "Paul Wilkins" wrote ...
> > k99...@db.dk says...
> > > No navels?
> >
> > Yep, since Adam and Eve are said to have been created by god, instead of
> > being given birth, they have no requirement or need for the umbilical
cord
> > type of attachment
>
> I see no reason why this should be a given. (See: Matrix, The)
And in Inuit legend, as recounted in Larry Niven's "Dream Park" novel "The
Barsoom Project", the children of the Raven do not have navels either.
Considering that the explorer in the original situation was wandering
through the Arctic wasteland when he found the two bodies, people from Inuit
legend would be far more likely than Adam and Eve.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukdeletethis
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 10:26:17 GMT, "mrtn" <use.reply@instead> wrote:
>> But now I've got the answer it may help in other such problems if I
>> get told them in the future.
>
>Or if you and a friend just have a bottle of water and a pen,
>whilst alone and starving in the desert. You never know :-)
Or I stab him with the pencil and keep all the water mysefl!
Cheers,
Graham.
Torak
news:3ca0bece...@news.ntlworld.com...
> >> But now I've got the answer it may help in other such problems if I
> >> get told them in the future.
> >
> >Or if you and a friend just have a bottle of water and a pen,
> >whilst alone and starving in the desert. You never know :-)
>
> Or I stab him with the pencil and keep all the water mysefl!
Now *that's* lateral thinking!
Like Dilbert, the PHB, the donut, the pencil, and the sundial.
Jonathan Ellis
Torak wrote in message ...
><gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukDELETETHIS> wrote in message
>news:3ca0bece...@news.ntlworld.com...
>> >> But now I've got the answer it may help in other such problems if
I
>> >> get told them in the future.
>> >
>> >Or if you and a friend just have a bottle of water and a pen,
>> >whilst alone and starving in the desert. You never know :-)
>>
>> Or I stab him with the pencil and keep all the water mysefl!
>
>Now *that's* lateral thinking!
"Erm, what's a lateral?"
"Dunno. Think it's some kind of muscle..."
"Thinking with your muscles. Ah, yes... I *see*."
(to paraphrase PterryOBE, "Interesting Times")
Jonathan.
Terry Pratchett
<jona...@franz-liszt.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> all the water mysefl!
>>
>>Now *that's* lateral thinking!
>
> "Erm, what's a lateral?"
> "Dunno. Think it's some kind of muscle..."
> "Thinking with your muscles. Ah, yes... I *see*."
>
>(to paraphrase PterryOBE, "Interesting Times")
>
>Jonathan.
No slight intended to people here, but I hate *lateral thinking.* It
means
a) setting up an artificial situation
b) arbitrarily added constraints if people seem to be finding a 'wrong'
answer that works
c) ditto ruling out any real world considerations
As in the classic: There's two men dead in a cabin on top of a mountain,
how did they die? The 'right' answer is that's it's an aircraft cabin,
but that are loads of wrong answers that work.
I recall with fury the intelligence tests we did at school, back in the
11+ days when your educational future depended on them. I did them very
well, but only because I learned the language; you could see full well
that there were several legitimate answers to the problem as given, but
one of them was 'right'. 'Lateral thinking' puzzles, however useful
they may have been to prove a point, now seem the same to me. I'll be
more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when
there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it.
--
Terry Pratchett
C. Cooke
<Te...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> No slight intended to people here, but I hate *lateral thinking.* It
> means
> a) setting up an artificial situation
> b) arbitrarily added constraints if people seem to be finding a 'wrong'
> answer that works
> c) ditto ruling out any real world considerations
>
> As in the classic: There's two men dead in a cabin on top of a mountain,
> how did they die? The 'right' answer is that's it's an aircraft cabin,
> but that are loads of wrong answers that work.
>
> I recall with fury the intelligence tests we did at school, back in the
> 11+ days when your educational future depended on them. I did them very
> well, but only because I learned the language; you could see full well
> that there were several legitimate answers to the problem as given, but
> one of them was 'right'. 'Lateral thinking' puzzles, however useful
> they may have been to prove a point, now seem the same to me. I'll be
> more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when
> there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it.
Isn't it nice to know that nothing changes?
When the SAT tests were introduced, my mother was the sole teacher for
science in a middle school in Bradford (ages 9 to 13). While I don't
recall her mentioning any lateral thinking style puzzles, I'm sure there
were some... But I *do* recall her complaining about the answers.
Essentially, the answers to some of the questions were incorrect or, in
places, only one of a set of corret answers. And the marking scheme
specifically stated that correct answers not on the scheme should be
marked as incorrect.
It's so reassuring to know that the next generation are being encouraged
not to be interested in their subjects outside of their working time...
--
Charles Cooke, Sysadmin
Say it with flowers, send a triffid.
Cathy Young
>
> No slight intended to people here, but I hate *lateral thinking.* It
> means
> a) setting up an artificial situation
> b) arbitrarily added constraints if people seem to be finding a 'wrong'
> answer that works
> c) ditto ruling out any real world considerations
>
> As in the classic: There's two men dead in a cabin on top of a mountain,
> how did they die? The 'right' answer is that's it's an aircraft cabin,
> but that are loads of wrong answers that work.
>
> I recall with fury the intelligence tests we did at school, back in the
> 11+ days when your educational future depended on them. I did them very
> well, but only because I learned the language; you could see full well
> that there were several legitimate answers to the problem as given, but
> one of them was 'right'. 'Lateral thinking' puzzles, however useful
> they may have been to prove a point, now seem the same to me. I'll be
> more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when
> there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it.
I won't even mention the story about the physics student and the
barometer question on his exam paper....[1]
Cathy
Torak
> <jona...@franz-liszt.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> > all the water mysefl!
> >>
> >>Now *that's* lateral thinking!
>
> 11+ days when your educational future depended on them. I did them very
> well, but only because I learned the language; you could see full well
> that there were several legitimate answers to the problem as given, but
> one of them was 'right'. 'Lateral thinking' puzzles, however useful
> they may have been to prove a point, now seem the same to me. I'll be
> more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when
> there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it.
Very much agreed. Why ask questions where multiple answers are correct, when
only one is accepted?
This lost me quite a few points on my end-of-year exams, on a few
occasions...
Torak
news:43193229.02032...@posting.google.com...
> Terry Pratchett <Te...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<ZLJ7iVAj...@unseen.demon.co.uk>...
> > 11+ days when your educational future depended on them. I did them very
> > well, but only because I learned the language; you could see full well
> > that there were several legitimate answers to the problem as given, but
> > one of them was 'right'. 'Lateral thinking' puzzles, however useful
> > they may have been to prove a point, now seem the same to me. I'll be
> > more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when
> > there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it.
>
> I won't even mention the story about the physics student and the
> barometer question on his exam paper...
My philosophy teacher told the class about a test consisting of a single
essay. The question included the classic phrase: "In your own words, [insert
question here]..." One student made up a load of nonsensical words and
jumbled them together, thus literally using "his own words". He got a zero.
Flesh-eating dragon
> No slight intended to people here, but I hate *lateral thinking.* It
> means
> a) setting up an artificial situation
> b) arbitrarily added constraints if people seem to be finding a 'wrong'
> answer that works
> c) ditto ruling out any real world considerations
I think it's unfair to say "I hate lateral thinking" in reference to
a construct that is *very* unrepresentative of what people mean by the
phrase "lateral thinking". Very much like saying "I hate grammar" to
mean, "I hate excruciatingly badly written grammar textbooks", which
I'm sure we all do. The phrase as generally used refers far more to
what you must do each time you write a book that isn't utterly
predictable than it does to solving preconstructed puzzles.
I still recall with some admiration my cousin's explanation that she
should be allowed to stay in bed because she was a lateral thinker.
Adrian.
(who has a copy of _The Chicken from Minsk_ at home, and they got the
bit about scissors in conjunction with relativity wrong.)
Peter Ellis
>cyou...@hotmail.com (Cathy Young) writes:
>
>> I won't even mention the story about the physics student and the
>> barometer question on his exam paper....[1]
>
>asked on a physics exam the first year it was open. The question was
>along the lines of, if you drop a watermelon from the top of Urey Hall,
>how far will the furthest seed fly.
The height of Urey Hall, to a good first approximation - the sideways
splatter will be minimal in comparison to the height dropped. So give
the height of the hall to 1 significant figure and state your accuracy.
Peter
Simon Waldman
> On a graduate exam, I once answered a question with "I don't know the
> answer to this, so I won't waste your time making up something stupid".
> I got 2 points out of 10 for it.
My favourite was a mock GCSE Biology which was asking about respiration.
It asked me to
consider a load of snails in test tubes, and say what would happen in
each case. One of them was in lime water. I said that the snail would
drown...
--
Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the
same side.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Waldman, England email: swal...@firecloud.org.uk
http://www.firecloud.org.uk/simon
---------------------------------------------------------------
Torak
news:slrnaaa29f.bl...@knossos.bruce...
> Torak <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote:
> > Very much agreed. Why ask questions where multiple answers are correct,
when
> > only one is accepted?
>
> school test was "Name the greatest composer in history". The answer was
> Beethoven.
I'd say Duke Ellington.
Terry Pratchett
<to...@andrew-perry.com> writes
>My philosophy teacher told the class about a test consisting of a single
>essay. The question included the classic phrase: "In your own words, [insert
>question here]..." One student made up a load of nonsensical words and
>jumbled them together, thus literally using "his own words". He got a zero.
Good. He was clearly a berk.
--
Terry Pratchett
Terry Pratchett
<morgan...@netyp.com.au> writes
>I think it's unfair to say "I hate lateral thinking" in reference to
>a construct that is *very* unrepresentative of what people mean by the
>phrase "lateral thinking".
The trouble is, though, that 'lateral thinking' has come to mean
'stupid, highly artificial puzzles, put together so that the creator can
feel damn smug.' In real life, lateral thinking is just thinking --
really *thinking*, instead or relying on lazy mental habits.
--
Terry Pratchett
Paul Wilkins
says...
I'd say Shakespeare.
--
Paul Wilkins
| /\ Inform yourself | Paul Wilkins | When you ask a computer person to
| /__\ Project Mayhem | Christchurch | fix your machine, they will first
| http://tetrica.com/ | (03) 3433097 | spend hours downloading upgrades.
Phil Davison
>Torak <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote:
>> Very much agreed. Why ask questions where multiple answers are correct, when
>> only one is accepted?
>
>Peter Ustinov claimed that at his prep school one of the questions in a
>school test was "Name the greatest composer in history". The answer was
>Beethoven.
>
Well nobody in their right mind is going to say Netscape!
--
Cyclops
Evil Heretic Infiltrator
Phil Davison
>I recall with fury the intelligence tests we did at school, back in the
>11+ days when your educational future depended on them. I did them very
>well, but only because I learned the language; you could see full well
>that there were several legitimate answers to the problem as given, but
>one of them was 'right'. 'Lateral thinking' puzzles, however useful
>they may have been to prove a point, now seem the same to me. I'll be
>more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when
>there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it.
It's not just at school. Knowing the system is the key to getting on
in the Civil Service. The average Civil Servant's IQ increased
significantly when a certain person I know retired and yet she was so
high up she'd even been sent abroad as a diplomat even though she is
actually as thick as two short planks. Personally I know enough of
the system [1] to have decided some time ago that I would rather sail
through life without having to work very hard so I only used the
system when I got annoyed enough to get myself promoted.
[1] <fx: stands up in meeting>
"My name is Cyclops and I am a Civil Servant..."
Phil Davison
>IQ tests are extremely culturally weighted. A common question in IQ
>tests for children is "Spot the odd one out". A typical selection would
>be
>
>Pig
>Horse
>Cow
>Duck
>
>The answer is supposed to be Duck but to a Jewish or Hindu child Pig or
>Cow might stand out more.
>
It could also, in the UK, be horse because that is the one you least
likely to eat (unless your name is J Peasemold-Gruntfuttock).
Torak
> >essay. The question included the classic phrase: "In your own words,
[insert
> >question here]..." One student made up a load of nonsensical words and
> >jumbled them together, thus literally using "his own words". He got a
zero.
>
> Good. He was clearly a berk.
I agree. Amusing stunt, but for heaven's sake, *not on a test*!
Torak
> > > > Very much agreed. Why ask questions where multiple answers are
correct, when
> > > > only one is accepted?
> > >
> > > Peter Ustinov claimed that at his prep school one of the questions in
a
> > > school test was "Name the greatest composer in history". The answer
was
> > > Beethoven.
> >
> > I'd say Duke Ellington.
>
> I'd say Shakespeare.
Who famously composed a number of stirring marches, boogies and symphonies.
Keith Ray
"Flesh-eating dragon" <morgan...@netyp.com.au> wrote:
> "Terry Pratchett" wrote:
>
> > No slight intended to people here, but I hate *lateral thinking.* It
> > means
[...]
> I still recall with some admiration my cousin's explanation that she
> should be allowed to stay in bed because she was a lateral thinker.
[...]
Recently read somewhere (probably in Jerry Weinberg's "The Pyschology of
Programming"(25th anniversary edition) that "thinking outside the box"
comes from that question on drawing a certain minimum number of
connected, straight lines through nine dots arranged in a 3x3 grid.
There is only one "right answer" for that question, but bunches of
creative people have found over 26 ways to successfully solve that
puzzle. The real problem, according to Jerry, is that the test-makers
are not as smart as the test-takers.
What are the fewest connected, straight lines to connect these dots?
o o o
o o o
o o o
--
C. Keith Ray
Torak
news:a85ean$3fm$1...@library.lspace.org...
Smoked duck fillets, fried and served with rice, are delicious. Tastes like
a slightly chewier type of bacon, absolutely gorgeous.
Danny
wrote the following stuff about Re: [I] Lateral Thinking:
<snip>
>What are the fewest connected, straight lines to connect these dots?
>
> o o o
> o o o
> o o o
Well, if we're allowed to use extended Euclidean geometry, then it's
three straight lines, all parallel in the normal Euclidean plane, and
meeting at the point at infinity.
Or, if you do it from the perspective that the 9 dots lay "flat" on
earth, then a single straight line which runs around the earth could
get all nine dots, the problem being that from a different perspective,
the line isn't straight at all.
It's all a matter of what restrictions are placed on the playing field,
naturally :)
Seeya. Danny.
--
E-Mail: Danny (at) scoutnet dot net dot au
Mary Messall
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:54:25 GMT, Keith Ray <k1e2i3t...@1m2a3c4.5c6o7m>,
> wrote the following stuff about Re: [I] Lateral Thinking:
> <snip>
> >What are the fewest connected, straight lines to connect these dots?
> > o o o
> > o o o
> > o o o
> Well, if we're allowed to use extended Euclidean geometry, then it's
> three straight lines, all parallel in the normal Euclidean plane, and
> meeting at the point at infinity.
> Or, if you do it from the perspective that the 9 dots lay "flat" on
> earth, then a single straight line which runs around the earth could
> get all nine dots, the problem being that from a different perspective,
> the line isn't straight at all.
I've always hated that puzzle. As far as I'm concerned, the correct
answer is 'You can't do it.' Because unless you are being deliberately
stupid, you assume that those 'dots' are meant to represent points, just
as you assume the page is supposed to be flat. I hate puzzles that
require you to be deliberately stupid... Which is exactly what 'lateral
thinking' puzzles generally do.
-Mary
The Stainless Steel Cat
Paul Wilkins <di...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>In article <20ip8.23$3w2....@news.chello.be>, to...@andrew-perry.com
>says...
>> "Bruce Richardson" <ten.x...@ecurbtsi.REVERSE> wrote in message
>> news:slrnaaa29f.bl...@knossos.bruce...
>> > Torak <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote:
>> > > Very much agreed. Why ask questions where multiple answers are correct,
>> when
>> > > only one is accepted?
>> >
>> > Peter Ustinov claimed that at his prep school one of the questions in a
>> > school test was "Name the greatest composer in history". The answer was
>> > Beethoven.
>>
>> I'd say Duke Ellington.
>
>I'd say Shakespeare.
I'd say Percy Thrower.
No wait... he was the geatest *composter* in history.
I'll get me wellies...
Cat.
--
La Rustimuna ^Stalkato
stee...@mac.comtrousers
Remove trousers to reply
Flesh-eating dragon
> I've always hated that puzzle. As far as I'm concerned, the correct
> answer is 'You can't do it.' Because unless you are being deliberately
> stupid, you assume that those 'dots' are meant to represent points, just
> as you assume the page is supposed to be flat. I hate puzzles that
> require you to be deliberately stupid... Which is exactly what 'lateral
> thinking' puzzles generally do.
I agree, except that I don't associate the phrase "lateral thinking"
with bad puzzles. Er, I mean I agree with respect to the nine dots
thing.
Heck, if the dots are on a piece of paper, cut them out, glue them
back in a straight line, and draw a single line through them all. It
doesn't quite work the same on Usenet, though. You can copy and paste,
but they're not the same lines anymore.
Mary, have you read "The Chicken from Minsk"? I'm very suspicious
about the one about relativity and scissors. If you have two extremely
long scissor blades, and the scissors are closing, then it's claimed
to be perfectly legitimate for the intersection where the two blades
meet to travel faster than light, on the basis that the intersection
of the edges of two moving plane segments is not a material object and
thus not subject to physical laws governing material objects. However,
my memory is that relativity is somewhat stronger than this and
precluded *any* kind of signal crossing the light barrier: in this
case, a body immediately in front of the closing blades would perceive
the intersection travelling toward them at super-light speed.
Of course, the movement of the blades would have to have been
pre-established via Newton's First, and the experiment performed in a
frictionless universe, because a torque applied at one end would be
transmitted along a blade at sub-light speed, which is a complication
the book doesn't point out.
Adrian.
Torak
news:a86ls1$lp9$1...@library.lspace.org...
> Mary, have you read "The Chicken from Minsk"? I'm very suspicious
> about the one about relativity and scissors. If you have two extremely
> long scissor blades, and the scissors are closing, then it's claimed
> to be perfectly legitimate for the intersection where the two blades
> meet to travel faster than light, on the basis that the intersection
> of the edges of two moving plane segments is not a material object and
> thus not subject to physical laws governing material objects. However,
I had an idea similar to this in secondary school physics classes. If you've
got two rods a couple of lightyears long (hey, bear with me, OK?), and a
person at either end... One holds the end 10 cm apart, the other holds them
together. Like |/
If you then hook a ring onto the connected end, and both parties move one
end 10 cm to the left (so you get /|), that wold force the ring to travel to
the other end in the time it takes for the ends to move 10 cm.
Of course, in theory it should work. But it wouldn't.
> my memory is that relativity is somewhat stronger than this and
> precluded *any* kind of signal crossing the light barrier: in this
> case, a body immediately in front of the closing blades would perceive
> the intersection travelling toward them at super-light speed.
If the blades are travelling at near-light speed, they'll have a lot of
kinetic energy, which means whoever's stuck in front of them has better
stuff to worry about! ;-)
> Of course, the movement of the blades would have to have been
> pre-established via Newton's First, and the experiment performed in a
> frictionless universe, because a torque applied at one end would be
> transmitted along a blade at sub-light speed, which is a complication
> the book doesn't point out.
Minor technicality...
Speaker-to-Customers
"Torak" wrote ...
> I had an idea similar to this in secondary school physics classes. If
you've
> got two rods a couple of lightyears long (hey, bear with me, OK?), and a
> person at either end... One holds the end 10 cm apart, the other holds
them
> together. Like |/
> If you then hook a ring onto the connected end, and both parties move one
> end 10 cm to the left (so you get /|), that wold force the ring to travel
to
> the other end in the time it takes for the ends to move 10 cm.
>
> Of course, in theory it should work. But it wouldn't.
Not even in theory. As the ring accelerated its mass would increase, to
near-infinite as it neared lightspeed, and the amount of force you would
have to exert on the rods to move the ring would increase correspondingly.
To move the rods through those 10cm would take more than 2 years, unless an
infinite force was exerted on them. And if you have a way of exerting
infinite force there are simpler ways of getting past light-speed than by
pulling apart rods to force a ring to slide.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Torak
news:a86r0j$pusnu$1...@ID-138064.news.dfncis.de...
> "Torak" wrote ...
> > I had an idea similar to this in secondary school physics classes. If
you've
> > got two rods a couple of lightyears long (hey, bear with me, OK?), and a
> > person at either end... One holds the end 10 cm apart, the other holds
them
> > together. Like |/
> > If you then hook a ring onto the connected end, and both parties move
one
> > end 10 cm to the left (so you get /|), that wold force the ring to
travel to
> > the other end in the time it takes for the ends to move 10 cm.
> >
> > Of course, in theory it should work. But it wouldn't.
>
> Not even in theory. As the ring accelerated its mass would increase, to
> near-infinite as it neared lightspeed, and the amount of force you would
> have to exert on the rods to move the ring would increase correspondingly.
I know, that was the slight difficulty. However, I solved that quite easily.
All you need is a bit of poetic licence.
> To move the rods through those 10cm would take more than 2 years, unless
an
> infinite force was exerted on them. And if you have a way of exerting
> infinite force there are simpler ways of getting past light-speed than by
> pulling apart rods to force a ring to slide.
Well... Minor technical niggles. I'll iron them out in the beta version...
;-)
Simon Waldman
> Danny wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:54:25 GMT, Keith Ray <k1e2i3t...@1m2a3c4.5c6o7m>,
>>wrote the following stuff about Re: [I] Lateral Thinking:
>><snip>
>>
>>>What are the fewest connected, straight lines to connect these dots?
>>> o o o
>>> o o o
>>> o o o
>>
>>Well, if we're allowed to use extended Euclidean geometry, then it's
>>three straight lines, all parallel in the normal Euclidean plane, and
>>meeting at the point at infinity.
>>Or, if you do it from the perspective that the 9 dots lay "flat" on
>>earth, then a single straight line which runs around the earth could
>>get all nine dots, the problem being that from a different perspective,
>>the line isn't straight at all.
>
>
> I've always hated that puzzle. As far as I'm concerned, the correct
> answer is 'You can't do it.'
am I being very thick here? cos AFAICS, assuming we don't allow anything
weird like three lines connected at infinity, there is a simple answer
of five... please tell me what I'm missing!
--
"Too bad the only people who know how to run the country are busy
driving cabs and cutting hair." -- George Burns
Torak
news:3CA73FF7...@firecloud.org.uk...
> Mary Messall wrote:
> > Danny wrote:
> >>On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:54:25 GMT, Keith Ray
<k1e2i3t...@1m2a3c4.5c6o7m>,
> >>wrote the following stuff about Re: [I] Lateral Thinking:
> >><snip>
> >>>What are the fewest connected, straight lines to connect these dots?
> >>> o o o
> >>> o o o
> >>> o o o
> >>
> >>Well, if we're allowed to use extended Euclidean geometry, then it's
> >>three straight lines, all parallel in the normal Euclidean plane, and
> >>meeting at the point at infinity.
> >>Or, if you do it from the perspective that the 9 dots lay "flat" on
> >>earth, then a single straight line which runs around the earth could
> >>get all nine dots, the problem being that from a different perspective,
> >>the line isn't straight at all.
> > I've always hated that puzzle. As far as I'm concerned, the correct
> > answer is 'You can't do it.'
>
> am I being very thick here? cos AFAICS, assuming we don't allow anything
> weird like three lines connected at infinity, there is a simple answer
> of five... please tell me what I'm missing!
Five? I can see a minimum of four, as in
| | |
|_|_|
or
\ | /
--|--
/ | \
David Roy
news:rfHp8.125$Q24....@news.chello.be:
Right number, wrong solution... The "connected" bit's supposed to
mean that the end-point of one line is the starting-point of the next.
David
Jonathan Ellis
Simon Waldman wrote in message <3CA73FF7...@firecloud.org.uk>...
>Mary Messall wrote:
>> Danny wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:54:25 GMT, Keith Ray
<k1e2i3t...@1m2a3c4.5c6o7m>,
>>>wrote the following stuff about Re: [I] Lateral Thinking:
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>What are the fewest connected, straight lines to connect these dots?
>>>> o o o
>>>> o o o
>>>> o o o
>>>
>>>Well, if we're allowed to use extended Euclidean geometry, then it's
>>>three straight lines, all parallel in the normal Euclidean plane, and
>>>meeting at the point at infinity.
>>>Or, if you do it from the perspective that the 9 dots lay "flat" on
>>>earth, then a single straight line which runs around the earth could
>>>get all nine dots, the problem being that from a different
perspective,
>>>the line isn't straight at all.
>>
>>
>> I've always hated that puzzle. As far as I'm concerned, the correct
>> answer is 'You can't do it.'
>
>am I being very thick here? cos AFAICS, assuming we don't allow
anything
>weird like three lines connected at infinity, there is a simple answer
>of five... please tell me what I'm missing!
Four, as far as I can see. Three vertical, one horizontal, or vice
versa, each going through three dots... this way they are all
*connected* (inasmuch as they cross each other), and they are all
*straight*.
Jonathan.
Len Oil
> IQ tests are extremely culturally weighted. A common question in IQ
> tests for children is "Spot the odd one out". A typical selection would
> be
>
> Pig
> Horse
> Cow
> Duck
>
> The answer is supposed to be Duck but to a Jewish or Hindu child Pig or
> Cow might stand out more.
I got myself a page-a-day calendar for this year with "365 Brain Puzzlers
(sanctioned by MENSA)". I was going to do each one on the appropriate day,
but I really got fed up with it the puzzles were of the following types:
Cryptographic: Number substitution (but being smart could be replaced by
the "knowing how to solve substitution ciphers" which I found was my forte)
Find the Hidden Words: Sentences with other words crossing normal
word/sentence boundaries (easier to do without a great fluency in the
language/typescript, like the classic "count the 'f's" example).
Anagrams/Missing Letter problems/Wordplay: Does what it says on the tin
(needs "wordiness"/memory, not IQ-like smarts)
Maths problems: Probably the most common of all IQ tests, there are faults
with this, but compared with the others...
Matchsticks problems: like "turn three triangles into fifty-nine
dodecahedrons" or somesuch...
The occasional "lateral thinking" problem (like the one where someone finds
a coin dated 3BC.)
A problem where I got the wrong right answer is "Supply the missing number:
(2 | 5) (7 | 3) (5 | 10) (15 | 9) (17 | ??)"
My answer: **Gjraglsbie, orpnhfr sbe rnpu (N | O) N gb O vf cyhf guerr,
zvahf sbie, cyif svir, zvahf fvk, cyif frira.**
Their answer: **Gra, fhogenpgvat fznyyre ahzore sebz ynetre bar tvirf
qvssrerabrf bs guerr, sbie, svir, fvk, frira. (Ohg gura fb qbrf zl
nafjre.)**
(Excuse any Rot-13 mistakes, I couldn't find any method for encoding in OE
and so did it manually, take the bits between the "**" pairs.)
Another problem asks which of the following groups of letters is the odd
one out: "TTEN", "EVCA", "SEOUH", "KNLNEE".
As already mentioned, every single one of these has a potentially to be the
odd one out (as being **grzcbenel, angheny, zhygv-ebbzrq naq abg sbe
crbcyr) gur ynggre orvat pbeerpg nafjre, ohg jrnxrfg VZUB.**
/Anyway/, the whole point is that I just do the pages as whenever I feel
like it, these days.,
--
Outgoing mail is certified Common-sense Free.
Checked by ASD (Anti-Sense DNA) version: 0.0.001 (beta)
Release Date: 27 Jul 1874 (Y2K-certification withheld)
Len Oil
If you have no answer, leave a blank page, so at least the examiner can
write "In a hole in the ground, there lived a Hobbit" or something... :)
Torak
news:Xns91E2C30A0923Bda...@193.252.19.141...
> "Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote in
> >> > Danny wrote:
> >> >>On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:54:25 GMT, Keith Ray
> > Five? I can see a minimum of four, as in
> >
> >| | |
> >|_|_|
> >
> > or
> >
> > \ | /
> > --|--
> > / | \
>
> Right number, wrong solution... The "connected" bit's supposed to
> mean that the end-point of one line is the starting-point of the next.
That's the old "Wrong right answer" bit again. Technically those lines are
connected, and no mention was made of the ends.
David Roy
news:1RHp8.128$Q24....@news.chello.be:
So that should have been covered in the statement of the problem - not
my fault...
David
Simon Waldman
>>am I being very thick here? cos AFAICS, assuming we don't allow anything
>>weird like three lines connected at infinity, there is a simple answer
>>of five... please tell me what I'm missing!
>
>
> Five? I can see a minimum of four, as in
ah, I had assumed that each line (except the ends) had another line
connected to *each* end. There is, of course, no reason to assume this
from the question.
--
Enter any 11 digit prime number to continue.
Torak
> "Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com> wrote in
> >> > "Simon Waldman" <swal...@firecloud.org.uk> wrote in message
> >> >> Mary Messall wrote:
> >> >> > Danny wrote:
> >> >> >>On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:54:25 GMT, Keith Ray
> >> >> >><snip>
> >> > Five? I can see a minimum of four, as in
> >> >
> >> >| | |
> >> >|_|_|
> >> >
> >> > or
> >> >
> >> > \ | /
> >> > --|--
> >> > / | \
> >>
> >> Right number, wrong solution... The "connected" bit's supposed
> >> to
> >> mean that the end-point of one line is the starting-point of the
> >> next.
> >
> > That's the old "Wrong right answer" bit again. Technically those lines
> > are connected, and no mention was made of the ends.
>
> So that should have been covered in the statement of the problem - not
my fault...
Of course - no blame was being allocated.
David Chapman
news:k1e2i3t4h5r6a7y-AF...@news.attbi.com...
> What are the fewest connected, straight lines to connect these dots?
>
> o o o
> o o o
> o o o
Given that the dots are not of zero thickness, you can do it
with three lines in a \/\ pattern which are only very slightly
non-parallel.
--
"Do you just keep your newbies locked up in cages all alone?"
"Of course! That's what pets are for!"
Simon Waldman
>>What are the fewest connected, straight lines to connect these dots?
>>
>> o o o
>> o o o
>> o o o
>
>
> Given that the dots are not of zero thickness, you can do it
> with three lines in a \/\ pattern which are only very slightly
> non-parallel.
ooh, true :-)
--
Todays Computer Science lecture will be conducted entirely through
the medium of interpretive dance.
Peter Ellis
>David Chapman wrote:
>
>>>What are the fewest connected, straight lines to connect these dots?
>>>
>>> o o o
>>> o o o
>>> o o o
>>
>>
>> Given that the dots are not of zero thickness, you can do it
>> with three lines in a \/\ pattern which are only very slightly
>> non-parallel.
>
>ooh, true :-)
One. It's a *thick* line.
Peter
gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukdeletethis
On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:43:47 +0200, "Torak" <to...@andrew-perry.com>
wrote:
>> > Five? I can see a minimum of four, as in
>> >
>> >| | |
>> >|_|_|
>> >
>> > or
>> >
>> > \ | /
>> > --|--
>> > / | \
>>
>> Right number, wrong solution... The "connected" bit's supposed to
>> mean that the end-point of one line is the starting-point of the next.
>
>That's the old "Wrong right answer" bit again. Technically those lines are
>connected, and no mention was made of the ends.
The problem was not stated correctly, the requirement should be (AIR)
"minimum number of straight lines, drawn continuously without removing
the pen from the paper"
The answer is...
... still four (in a fixed pitch font)
o-o-o-
|\ /
o o o
| X
o o o
|/ \ <- start here
The "outside the box" expression allegedly comes from the fact that
the lines do go "outside" the box shape.
Cheers,
Graham.
Keith Ray
gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukDELETETHIS wrote:
I wonder if anyone can figure out any of the other 26 solutions
(excluding rotations and mirror-images of this solution)?
flesh_eating_dragon
> am I being very thick here? cos AFAICS, assuming we don't allow anything
> weird like three lines connected at infinity, there is a simple answer
> of five... please tell me what I'm missing!
I interpreted it as:
|
--o--o--o--+--
|
--o--o--o--+--
|
--o--o--o--+--
|
That's four lines. Three lines pass through the dots, and the fourth
line connects the other three. Of course, there's other ways to do
it with four lines, but to me this is the most obvious.
Adrian.
Marco Villalta
> Mary, have you read "The Chicken from Minsk"? I'm very suspicious
> about the one about relativity and scissors. If you have two extremely
> long scissor blades, and the scissors are closing, then it's claimed
> to be perfectly legitimate for the intersection where the two blades
> meet to travel faster than light, on the basis that the intersection
> of the edges of two moving plane segments is not a material object and
> thus not subject to physical laws governing material objects. However,
> my memory is that relativity is somewhat stronger than this and
> precluded *any* kind of signal crossing the light barrier: in this
> case, a body immediately in front of the closing blades would perceive
> the intersection travelling toward them at super-light speed.
Well, *patterns* *can* travel faster than light.
Picture yourself floating in space, at the center of a spherical
station with one light-second's radius. It's a big station. You
have with you a flashlight. As you light it, you sweep it one
radian in exactly one second. The lightblot on the wall will
move one lightsecond in one second -- i.e. at light speed.
Still with me?
Now you're at the center of a larger station, r = 2 light-secs.
Now the blot will move *two* lightseconds in one second -- twice
lightspeed.
According to my old physics teacher, only information carriers
have a speed limit. Patterns can move as fast as they like, if
they promise not to go infinitely fast.
So the question is whether or not the blade intersection of the
scissors is carrying information, but to me it does look like a
pattern.
I think.
--
Marco Villalta
lawrence mitchell
[...] Very long scissors and relativity.
> Well, *patterns* *can* travel faster than light.
> Picture yourself floating in space, at the center of a spherical
> station with one light-second's radius. It's a big station. You
> have with you a flashlight. As you light it, you sweep it one
> radian in exactly one second. The lightblot on the wall will
> move one lightsecond in one second -- i.e. at light speed.
> Still with me?
> Now you're at the center of a larger station, r = 2 light-secs.
> Now the blot will move *two* lightseconds in one second -- twice
> lightspeed.
I don't think so, you see, you start with your light beam pointing
outwards, now, as you move it, obviously, the change in position of
the light beam can only happen at light speed (its definately
information). Sooo, if my mental picture is at all working, the end
tip of the light beam would _not_ move instantaeneously, hence it
wouldn't trace out a path at a speed of 2*c. [1]
[...]
Of course, don't start on the whole quantum pairs thing.
[1] Look, this argument makes perfect sense in my head, ok![2]
[2] This is a lie.
--
lawrence mitchell <we...@gmx.li>
Where's the Coke machine? Tell me a joke!!
Rocky Frisco
(FX: scissors intersection moving toward me at lightspeed plus)
"snip"
AAAAaaaarrggh! Ouch!! OWWWWWW wowowow
(FX: in a very high voice) Anybody got a bandaid?
-Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
--
Red Dirt Rangers (Rocky on piano): http://www.reddirtrangers.com
JJ Cale Live (w/Rocky): http://www.rocky-frisco.com/calelive.htm
The Luggage Fan Club: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/luggage-fans
Graycat
wrote:
>I won't even mention the story about the physics student and the
>barometer question on his exam paper....[1]
>
>Cathy
Is this a joke I'm not getting or is everyone else actually getting a
footnot with that [1] that I just can't see? Ant it en't the first
time either....curses...
Elin
Graycat
gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukDELETETHIS wrote:
>The problem was not stated correctly, the requirement should be (AIR)
>"minimum number of straight lines, drawn continuously without removing
>the pen from the paper"
Yeah, we had it at school, stated like that. And came up with the
below shape.
Peter Ellis
>
>I don't think that's valid. The pattern is the ring formed by the
>succession of light reflections and that doesn't move at all. Parts of
>it are illuminated in sequence: it isn't moving..
Depends what you see as a pattern. The human mind's *good* at finding
patterns, and I'd say I can quite legitimately say that "the illuminated
patch of wall" is a pattern.
>And by the time the
>light has reached that far it will be so diffuse that most of the
>surface will not be illuminated at all.
True but irrelevant in a gedankenexperiment.
Consider the shadow of a flying bird, cast by the Sun directly overhead.
As it flies over level ground at 10 mph, the shadow moves at 10 mph.
Now, suppose there's a hill under it at exactly 60 degrees slope.
The bird moves horizontally at 10 mph, but the shadow moves on the slope
at 20 mph - draw your own diagram to verify that it you want.
Now, let's make the hill get steeper and steeper, terminating in a
vertical wall.
The bird stays at 10 mph, but the shadow speeds up without limit, and
*can* indeed move infinitely fast up the vertical wall. It's irrelevant
what inertial frame you consider, you can always create a situation in
which the shadow can appear to move faster than light.
However, the FTL pattern (the shadow) is not carrying information, and
it can't be used to send signals. Nothing is physically starting at the
bottom of the wall and moving to the top of it.
Peter
Sylvain Chambon
says...
Well, there ain't no footnote here either; but methinks Cathy was
mentioning the famous Neils Bohr anecdote, which goes more or less like
this:
Neils Bohr, when he was a student, handed in a physics paper, the
question being, 'how do you measure a building using a barometer?'
In his paper, he put in a number of answers, such as: you drop the
barometer from the building and measure the time it takes to reach the
ground; walk away from the building until you've reached the point when
the barometer's tip, when the thing is on the ground, is exactly aligned
with your eye (supposedly on the ground) and the building's tip; etc,
etc.
Of course the physics professor didn't really like this, so he asked
Bohr about it. The student answered something like, 'of course I know
the answer you wish for; but the question wasn't asked accurately
enough'.
Bohr having given a number of correct answers, the professor had to let
him pass.
Sylvain.
Danny
the following stuff about Re: [I] Lateral Thinking:
>In article <3ca8b17e...@news1.telia.com>, grayca...@hotmail.com
I remember something about another answer is that he should go to
the caretaker of the building and say "If you tell me the height of
this building, I'll give you this lovely barometer" or something
like that.
Seeya. Danny.
--
E-Mail: Danny (at) scoutnet dot net dot au
Maaike
wrote:
I'm not seeing the footnote either, if it helps any.