One to get you thinking
Roy
Here is the question:
There are 7 girls on a bus.
Each girl has 7 backpacks.
In each backpack, there are 7 big cats.
For every big cat there are 7 little cats.
Question: How many legs are there in the bus?
Richard Heathfield
Hmmm. Am I missing something obvious?
My answer follows qwertybetical spoiler space:
Q
W
E
R
T
Y
U
I
O
P
A
S
D
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
Z
X
C
V
B
N
M
10990.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Merskeen Durkin
news:rcmdnVnPqO9akyna...@bt.com...
>
> Hmmm. Am I missing something obvious?
>
'In' truth or 'on' my oath, I dunno. 8^p
Willem
) One to get you thinking!!!!
)
)
) Here is the question:
)
) There are 7 girls on a bus.
Normal girls with 2 legs, I assume ?
And 'on' a bus is the same as 'in' a bus ?
) Each girl has 7 backpacks.
Did they bring all 7 of them on the bus ?
) In each backpack, there are 7 big cats.
Do cats have legs, or are they paws ?
) For every big cat there are 7 little cats.
In the backpack with the big cats ? On the bus ?
) Question: How many legs are there in the bus?
Not counting any other bus passengers ?
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
Kevin Stone
> ) There are 7 girls on a bus.
>
'On' is the usual (only) way in the UK...
--
Kev
Ed Murphy
> Roy wrote:
> ) One to get you thinking!!!!
> )
> )
> ) Here is the question:
> )
> ) There are 7 girls on a bus.
>
> Normal girls with 2 legs, I assume ?
> And 'on' a bus is the same as 'in' a bus ?
>
> ) Each girl has 7 backpacks.
>
> Did they bring all 7 of them on the bus ?
>
> ) In each backpack, there are 7 big cats.
>
> Do cats have legs, or are they paws ?
>
> ) For every big cat there are 7 little cats.
>
> In the backpack with the big cats ? On the bus ?
>
> ) Question: How many legs are there in the bus?
>
> Not counting any other bus passengers ?
Is there a separate bus driver?
If none of the dirty tricks are invoked, then the straightforward
answer is 7*2 + 7*7*7*4 + 7*7*7*7*4 = 10990, yes.
Topi Linkala
In the bus there are two if there is a driver and zero if there isn't.
On the bus is 10990 legs.
Topi
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
"How come he didn't put 'I think' at the end of it?" - Anonymous
Bill
Should I count the bus driver's legs?
Bill J
mensa...@aol.com
Only if there is a driver. The girls could be sitting
around waiting for the driver to arrive.
>
> Bill J
Rich Grise
> One to get you thinking!!!!
>
You got it all wrong:
"As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives.
Each wife had seven sacks, each sack had seven cats,
Each cat had seven kits.
How many were going to St. Ives?"
Cheers!
Rich
mensa...@aol.com
I used to think this was funny.
Until my job required me to make sampling labels for
groundwater monitoring at a client's chemical plant.
- the plant has 9 sites
- each site has a different number of wells
- each well has a different analysis group
- each analysis group has a different number of analyses
- each analysis has a different number of jars
- each jar requires a label
It breaks down like this:
site Wells HERB INORG METALS PCB PHENOL SVOC VOC
#1 3 1 8 5 4 1 4 6
#2 6 18
#3 18 23 46 83
#4 14 18 36 64
#5 8 20 20 36
#6 19 1 53 48 4 24 48 93
#7 23 1 61 56 4 28 56 108
#8 14 36 66
#9 6 9 63 18 36 9 18 36
St. Ives is a doddle.
>
> Cheers!
> Rich
Mark Brader
>
> Only if there is a driver. The girls could be sitting
> around waiting for the driver to arrive.
For that matter, as "girl" sometimes used adult women, one of the girls
could *be* the driver.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "group this in post-top usually don't we"
m...@vex.net | -- Mike Lyle
Mark Brader
> "As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives.
> Each wife had seven sacks, each sack had seven cats,
> Each cat had seven kits.
>
> How many were going to St. Ives?"
There is insufficient information given to answer the question.
--
Mark Brader | And the customary practice seems to be "FIRST,
Toronto | let the cat out of the bag; THEN inform you
m...@vex.net | that there's a cat and a bag." --Daniel P.B. Smith
dgates
wrote:
I suspect that the "trick" would be that the bus driver is a separate
person. It just *feels* like it would go that way.
Bruce Esquibel
> I suspect that the "trick" would be that the bus driver is a separate
> person. It just *feels* like it would go that way.
That joke or puzzle (if you want to call it that) seems to be making the
rounds. Especially around the high school crowd.
It, like the St. Ives one is better spoken than written.
The correct answer to the bus one is something like "none, a bus doesn't
have legs" and the St. Ives one is "you were the only one going there, the
people you met were coming from there".
-bruce
b...@ripco.com
S.C.Sprong
>Rich Grise writes:
>> "As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives.
>> Each wife had seven sacks, each sack had seven cats,
>> Each cat had seven kits.
>> How many were going to St. Ives?"
>There is insufficient information given to answer the question.
My, there's even a Wikipedia entry on this...
the usual answer is that the speaker is the only on going _to_ the place,
and the mob described is going away _from_ the place.
Similarly, I presume that in English the bus driver is _in_ the bus and
the bus passengers are _on_ the bus.
scs,
"Op de weg naar Henegouwen,
Kwam ik een man tegen met zeven vrouwen.
Elke vrouw die droeg een zak,
In elke zak daar zat een kat,
En elke kat had zeven jongen.
Jongen, katten, zakken, vrouwen,
Hoevelen gingen nu naar Henegouwen?"
Brian Tung
> That joke or puzzle (if you want to call it that) seems to be making the
> rounds. Especially around the high school crowd.
>
> It, like the St. Ives one is better spoken than written.
>
> The correct answer to the bus one is something like "none, a bus doesn't
> have legs" and the St. Ives one is "you were the only one going there, the
> people you met were coming from there".
Except, then, the question should not have been, "How many legs are
*in* the bus?" [emphasis added]. That makes the "legs possessed by bus"
interpretation quite a bit less plausible, in my opinion.
--
Brian Tung <br...@isi.edu>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
Mark Brader
>>> "As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives.
>>> Each wife had seven sacks, each sack had seven cats,
>>> Each cat had seven kits.
>>> How many were going to St. Ives?"
Mark Brader:
>> There is insufficient information given to answer the question.
S.C. Sprong:
> My, there's even a Wikipedia entry on this...
Of course there is. And it's wrong.
> the usual answer is that the speaker is the only on going _to_ the place,
> and the mob described is going away _from_ the place.
Of course it is. And it's wrong. There is insufficient information
given to answer the question.
> Similarly, I presume that in English the bus driver is _in_ the bus and
> the bus passengers are _on_ the bus.
Frankly, both prepositions work reasonably well for this in English, but
the normal usage is that everyone is "on" it.
> "Op de weg naar Henegouwen,
> Kwam ik een man tegen met zeven vrouwen.
> Elke vrouw die droeg een zak,
> In elke zak daar zat een kat,
> En elke kat had zeven jongen.
> Jongen, katten, zakken, vrouwen,
(Note incidentally that that last line isn't in the version Rich posted,
but is in the usual version in English.)
> Hoevelen gingen nu naar Henegouwen?"
At least this version isn't ambiguous as to whether it means St. Ives in
Cornwall or Cambridgeshire, or any other St. Iveses there may be.
--
Mark Brader | "It is impractical for the standard to attempt to
Toronto | constrain the behavior of code that does not obey
m...@vex.net | the constraints of the standard." -- Doug Gwyn
My text in this article is in the public domain.
S.C.Sprong
>Rich Grise:
>>>> "As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives.
>> the usual answer is that the speaker is the only on going _to_ the place,
>> and the mob described is going away _from_ the place.
>Of course it is. And it's wrong. There is insufficient information
>given to answer the question.
Pedantically, yes, but these rhymes are from a time when people tried
to amuse themselves during the long dark months of winter; after they
ran out of pedants to set fire to. You were supposed to be stumped for
_weeks_.
"And G*d said, let there be light"
"What colour?"
was also severely frowned upon.
>> Similarly, I presume that in English the bus driver is _in_ the bus and
>> the bus passengers are _on_ the bus.
>Frankly, both prepositions work reasonably well for this in English, but
>the normal usage is that everyone is "on" it.
Wow! English propositions are slightly less fiendishly subtle as I think.
Of course, it means that my answer is incorrect.
>> Hoevelen gingen nu naar Henegouwen?"
>At least this version isn't ambiguous as to whether it means St. Ives in
>Cornwall or Cambridgeshire, or any other St. Iveses there may be.
Apart from the fact that "Henegouwen", or "Heinault", is a Belgian province,
admittedly a laughingly small one to Canadian standards.
scs
Mark Brader
> "And G*d said, let there be light"
> "What colour?"
> was also severely frowned upon.
Chairman: What about this wheel thingy? It sounds a terribly
interesting project.
Marketing girl: Er, yeah, well, we're having a little difficulty there.
Ford Prefect: Difficulty?! It's the single simplest machine in the
entire universe!
Marketing girl: Well, all right, Mr. Wiseguy, you're so clever, you
tell us what colour it should be.
[Taken from an unofficial source; wording may not be exact]
> Apart from the fact that "Henegouwen", or "Heinault", is a Belgian province,
> admittedly a laughingly small one to Canadian standards.
Belgian provinces, don't talk to me about Belgian provinces. I still
remember the time I thought I just driven into Luxembourg and discovered
that I had actually entered Luxembourg!
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Remember the Golgafrinchans"
m...@vex.net -- Pete Granger
Roy
"Roy" <web...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2bCdnQpJ8qOgkSna...@bt.com...
Dave Baker
"S.C.Sprong" <scsp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:61mi9nF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Similarly, I presume that in English the bus driver is _in_ the bus and
>>> the bus passengers are _on_ the bus.
>>Frankly, both prepositions work reasonably well for this in English, but
>>the normal usage is that everyone is "on" it.
>
> Wow! English propositions are slightly less fiendishly subtle as I think.
Or even "slightly less fiendishly subtle than I thought."
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines
Roy
Clue there is no bus driver.
Do the calculation for one girl and then multiply your answer by 7 and don't
forget to add 14. 7 girls x 2 legs.
I am amazed that some of you thought it was a trick question, and cant be
done.
"> Correct answer is 10990
Barbara Bailey
news:082dnfm-ed0lgSra...@bt.com:
> If anybody wants me to explain who we get to 10990. let me know.
> Clue there is no bus driver.
> Do the calculation for one girl and then multiply your answer by 7 and
> don't forget to add 14. 7 girls x 2 legs.
>
> I am amazed that some of you thought it was a trick question, and cant
> be done.
>
> "> Correct answer is 10990
>>
>>
>> >> One to get you thinking!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is the question:
>>>
>>> There are 7 girls on a bus.
7 girls @ 2 legs each 14 legs so far
>>> Each girl has 7 backpacks.
>>>
>>> In each backpack, there are 7 big cats.
Each girl has 49 big cats: 7 backbacks @ 7 big cats each = 49 big cats
per girl or 343 big cats total
Each big cat has 4 legs = 1372 legs on all the big cats.
>>> For every big cat there are 7 little cats.
7 little cats per big cat, or 343 * 7 = 2401 little cats total @ 4 legs
each = 9604 legs on the little cats total.
9604 legs on little cats
+1372 legs on big cats
+ 14 legs on the girls
_______
10,990
make sense now?
Topi Linkala
Yes, but they are _on_ the bus.
>>>>Question: How many legs are there in the bus?
^^
None, unless there is a driver in which case there ore two.
Brian Tung
> Yes, but they are _on_ the bus.
>
> >>>>Question: How many legs are there in the bus?
> ^^
> None, unless there is a driver in which case there ore two.
In standard American English, at least, "on the bus" means physically
*in* the bus, so there's no difference. People are not normally
assumed to ride on top of the bus (aside from double-deckers). I
suppose it could be some nominally clever wordplay, but it's precious
thin if it's that.
Barbara Bailey
> Barbara Bailey wrote:
If you want to quibble language, then,
1) 0: there's no driver *in* the bus and the 7 girls are *on* the bus.
2) 1: the driver only has one leg, and the above reasoning applies.
3) 2: the driver has two legs and the reasoning as in #1 applies.
4) 14: there is no driver, and none of the girls has any of her backpacks
along; the girls are *in* the bus.
5) 15: as for #4,plus a one-legged driver
6) 16: as for #4 plus a two-legged driver.
7) 42: one girl has one backpack along, the small cats are not in the
backpack with the big cats, otherwise as for #4
8) 43: seven girls in the bus, only one backpack present, small cats not on
the backpack, one-legged driver.
9) 44: seven girls in the bus, only one backpack present, small cats not in
the pack, two-legged driver.
Shall I go on?
You're running into a difference in the way the English language is used
between the US and Britain: In US English, pasengers are "on" a bus, not
"in" it, generally. The exception is those double-decker tour-buses, where
the people riding the enclosed lower level may say that they rode "in" the
bus to distinguish from riding "on" it.
Roy
Do u get on a bus or in a bus?
Do u get in a plane or on a plane?
Do u get on a bicycle or in a bicycle
Do u jump in a swiimiing pool or on a swimming pool
I dont think the english language or the american language comes into this
problem.
What difference does it make if you are on a bus or in a bus ????
"Brian Tung" <br...@isi.edu> wrote in message
news:fp7cl3$gti$1...@praesepe.isi.edu...
Brian Tung
> Do u get in a car or on car?
> Do u get on a bus or in a bus?
> Do u get in a plane or on a plane?
> Do u get on a bicycle or in a bicycle
> Do u jump in a swiimiing pool or on a swimming pool
> I dont think the english language or the american language comes into this
> problem.
> What difference does it make if you are on a bus or in a bus ????
Err...that was my point. Topi posited that the correct answer turned
on the distinction between "on the bus" and "in the bus." My point is
that there is no real distinction between those in American English
(I don't know how it is in UK English, so I didn't speak for that),
so resting the answer of "two" (for the bus driver) on that subtlety
was asking a bit too much.
In case you were actually curious as to the answers for the above, I'd
say that "in" works better for cars and swimming pools, while "on" works
better for a bicycle. Either "on" or "in" can work for buses and
planes, though "on" sounds slightly more idiomatic, especially for large
buses and planes.
Since you're on (or in?) Usenet, and not a chat room, you can spell out
"you." :)
Alan Morgan
Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
>Rich Grise:
>>>> "As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives.
>>>> Each wife had seven sacks, each sack had seven cats,
>>>> Each cat had seven kits.
>>>> How many were going to St. Ives?"
>
>Mark Brader:
>>> There is insufficient information given to answer the question.
>
>S.C. Sprong:
>> My, there's even a Wikipedia entry on this...
>
>Of course there is. And it's wrong.
>
>> the usual answer is that the speaker is the only on going _to_ the place,
>> and the mob described is going away _from_ the place.
>
>Of course it is. And it's wrong. There is insufficient information
>given to answer the question.
Of course. They both could have been going to St. Ives and the narrator
could have met up with the person on the way. Or there could have been
other people going to St. Ives. Even by other routes.
>> Similarly, I presume that in English the bus driver is _in_ the bus and
>> the bus passengers are _on_ the bus.
>
>Frankly, both prepositions work reasonably well for this in English, but
>the normal usage is that everyone is "on" it.
And yet people are "in" cars. I suppose you'd be in a carriage as well.
I think you'd be in a hot air balloon, but you are on a ship, plane, train,
or bus.
God, English totally kicks ass.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
Mark Brader
>>> Similarly, I presume that in English the bus driver is _in_ the bus and
>>> the bus passengers are _on_ the bus.
Mark Brader:
>> Frankly, both prepositions work reasonably well for this in English, but
>> the normal usage is that everyone is "on" it.
Alan Morgan writes:
> And yet people are "in" cars. I suppose you'd be in a carriage as well.
> I think you'd be in a hot air balloon ...
Which is particularly curious, since physically one is neither in nor
on the balloon, but below it! (Well, except for the climactic sequence
of The Rocketeer, or that one scene in Map of the Human Heart that was,
ah, climactic in a different sense.)
ObPuzzle (open-ended): if "on a balloon" was a legitimate usage, it
would contain two instances of the digraph "on" in 10 letters; that is,
40% of the letters would consist of instances of "on". My signature,
below, contains 4 instances of "on" in 106 letters, or about 7.55%
of the whole. So without using proper names, construct a complete and
idiomatic sentence, including at least a subject and verb, where the
largest possible proportion of the letters consist of instances of the
digraph "on". (Note: "On" counts, but "o n" does not.)
--
Mark Brader | "Which baby is that? Oh, of course -- it must be
Toronto | the one that comes complete with bathwater."
m...@vex.net | --Maria Conlon
Barbara Bailey
> S.C. Sprong:
> ObPuzzle (open-ended): if "on a balloon" was a legitimate usage, it
> would contain two instances of the digraph "on" in 10 letters; that
> is, 40% of the letters would consist of instances of "on". My
> signature, below, contains 4 instances of "on" in 106 letters, or
> about 7.55% of the whole. So without using proper names, construct a
> complete and idiomatic sentence, including at least a subject and
> verb, where the largest possible proportion of the letters consist of
> instances of the digraph "on". (Note: "On" counts, but "o n" does
> not.)
Right off the top of my head:
"Go on, con one fond son."
17 letters, 6 "on"s: 58.8% of the letters are either the "O" or the "N" of
"on"
mensa...@aol.com
This is only 53%, but I think it's a better sentence:
For non-oniony wonton, don't use onion.
Brian Tung
> Right off the top of my head:
>
> "Go on, con one fond son."
> 17 letters, 6 "on"s: 58.8% of the letters are either the "O" or the "N" of
> "on"
True, but I don't think it's idiomatic. I can't imagine hearing that
without saying, "Huh?"
Bill Rider
I think when you're within a craft or vehicle, you're on it if you can
walk around. If Huckleberry Finn is sleeping in a shelter built on a
small raft, he's on the raft because he can walk around. If he sits in
the rain on the seat of a canoe, he's in the canoe because he can't walk
around.
Mark Brader
> For non-oniony wonton, don't use onion.
Okay, then this is almost 58% [22/38]:
For non-oniony wonton, son, don't put one onion on.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "[This book] is written in what I believed
m...@vex.net | to be my native language." --Susan Stepney
mensa...@aol.com
> Alan Morgan wrote:
Let's see, "on" if not inside the craft,
on a bicycle
on a snowmobile
"on" if inside but can move about,
on a train
on a 747
on a bus
on a cruise ship
"in" if inside but at fixed position,
in an F-16
in a canoe
You would also say "in" a car even if it
were a convertible.
But isn't a convertible topologically
equivalent to a roller-coaster? And wouldn't
you say you took a ride "on" the roller-coaster?
Sounds like there's still a touch of grey.
Mark Brader
> I think when you're within a craft or vehicle, you're on it if you can
> walk around. If Huckleberry Finn is sleeping in a shelter built on a
> small raft, he's on the raft because he can walk around. If he sits in
> the rain on the seat of a canoe, he's in the canoe because he can't walk
> around.
This is close to something. Consider that a person is "in the boat"
if it's a rowboat but "on the boat" if it's a ferry. And a fighter
pilot might be "in the plane" while an airline passenger is "on the
plane". But I think I want to say "in" for bomber crews, and they
have space to walk around.
--
Mark Brader | "You read war books -- people shooting each other,
Toronto | people bombing each other, people torturing each
m...@vex.net | other. I like to look at people doing, uh, naughty
| things to each other!" -- Ria, "Butterflies"
Richard Heathfield
> Do u get in a car or on car?
If you want to be pedantic, well, I have no problem with that, but if
you're going to be pedantic, please be pedantic with your spelling and
grammar.
For the record, whether I get in a car or on a car depends on what I'm
doing. If I'm about to drive down to the shops, I'll get in the car. If
I'm chasing the bad guys in a third-rate 1970s cop movie, I may very well
get on the car.
Watch "Born Free". Elsa (a lioness) would cheerfully get either in or on a
car as the mood took her - and who was going to argue?
> Do u get on a bus or in a bus?
Again, this depends on the circumstances. Maybe the bus is owned by a local
voluntary group, and maybe I've volunteered to give it a thorough clean -
and that would involve my getting on it, in it, under it, in front of it,
and behind it.
> Do u get in a plane or on a plane?
No. Do you?
> Do u get on a bicycle or in a bicycle
That depends again, you see. A human is more likely to get /on/ a bicycle
(or off it), whereas a mouse chasing a piece of chocolate might well find
himself whizzing down one of the frame tubes.
> Do u jump in a swiimiing pool or on a swimming pool
That depends on the temperature of the water.
> I dont think the english language or the american language comes into
> this problem.
Words fail me.
> What difference does it make if you are on a bus or in a bus ????
Mu.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
S.C.Sprong
>"S.C.Sprong" <scsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Wow! English propositions are slightly less fiendishly subtle as I think.
>Or even "slightly less fiendishly subtle than I thought."
Thank you for the correction. 'as' Is definitely wrong, however, I still
think / am thinking that they are fiendishly subtle, even with the
encouraging counter-evidence that is presented in this thread.
scs
S.C.Sprong
>What difference does it make if you are on a bus or in a bus ?
The point is that historically the solution to riddles like the one
you presented depends on trickery, often a language trick, especially
if a lot of counting is involved. Many people who are reading this
newsgroup are therefore automatically assuming that there's a trick
and go off on a tangent.
As the saying goes: "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and
swims like a duck, it's most certainly a crocodile or a shark. Never
a duck."
scs
S.C.Sprong
>So without using proper names, construct a complete and idiomatic
>sentence, including at least a subject and verb, where the largest
>possible proportion of the letters consist of instances of the
>digraph "on".
Pity you're disallowing using the name of the Belgian popgroup "Wontonton".
"Ons kent ons" = "We know ours" = 40%
"On y va" = "Let's go" = 40%
"On, son, con the Onion" = 62.5%
Bon,
scs
LDC
>ObPuzzle (open-ended): if "on a balloon" was a legitimate usage, it
>would contain two instances of the digraph "on" in 10 letters; that is,
>40% of the letters would consist of instances of "on". My signature,
>below, contains 4 instances of "on" in 106 letters, or about 7.55%
>of the whole. So without using proper names, construct a complete and
>idiomatic sentence, including at least a subject and verb, where the
>largest possible proportion of the letters consist of instances of the
>digraph "on". (Note: "On" counts, but "o n" does not.)
A group of con men were traveling through the midwest trying to con
the farmers out of their recent harvest. One reported to the group:
A one on one con won one ton.
66.6%
Bill Rider
You can be in a car on a highway. Isn't a roller coaster a roadway
rather than a car?
Bill Rider
> Bill Rider writes:
>> I think when you're within a craft or vehicle, you're on it if you can
>> walk around. If Huckleberry Finn is sleeping in a shelter built on a
>> small raft, he's on the raft because he can walk around. If he sits in
>> the rain on the seat of a canoe, he's in the canoe because he can't walk
>> around.
>
> This is close to something. Consider that a person is "in the boat"
> if it's a rowboat but "on the boat" if it's a ferry. And a fighter
> pilot might be "in the plane" while an airline passenger is "on the
> plane". But I think I want to say "in" for bomber crews, and they
> have space to walk around.
I was thinking about the same thing. A few bombers have been designed
so a crewman can go from end to end in flight, but you may have to
crouch and the bomb bays are in the way. What verb describes moving
from one end of a canoe to the other? I think the same verb would
describe moving in a large bomber.
The method of entrance would help a witness decide if you are on or in a
craft. Huck Finn could walk aboard a raft but would climb into a canoe.
A transport crew could walk through a door into their airplane, but a
bomber crew would climb in.
Brian Tung
> This is close to something. Consider that a person is "in the boat"
> if it's a rowboat but "on the boat" if it's a ferry. And a fighter
> pilot might be "in the plane" while an airline passenger is "on the
> plane". But I think I want to say "in" for bomber crews, and they
> have space to walk around.
Maybe it depends on whether the rider is a customer or not?
mensa...@aol.com
I suppose took a ride "on" the roller-coaster implies
the roadway in addition to the car. After all, you're
not supposed to stand up once you're in the car.
Mark Brader
>> What difference does it make if you are on a bus or in a bus ?
> The point is that historically the solution to riddles like the one
> you presented depends on trickery, often a language trick, especially
> if a lot of counting is involved. Many people who are reading this
> newsgroup are therefore automatically assuming that there's a trick
> and go off on a tangent.
Tangent? Do you really believe that the answer "Zero -- buses don't
have legs" is wrong?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "I may be ranting, but I'm right!"
m...@vex.net -- Wojeck: Out of the Fire
S.C.Sprong
>S.C. Sprong:
>> Many people who are reading this newsgroup are therefore automatically
>> assuming that there's a trick and go off on a tangent.
>Tangent? Do you really believe that the answer "Zero -- buses don't
>have legs" is wrong?
"What have I got in my pocket?"
scs
Bill Rider
Here's how the New Oxford Dictionary defines it:
"an amusement park attraction that consists of a light railroad track
with many tight turns and steep slopes, on which people ride in small
fast open cars."
It appears to me that the cars are merely the means of using the roller
coaster.
mensa...@aol.com
I notice the definition uses both "on" and "in".
>
> It appears to me that the cars are merely the means of using the roller
> coaster.
But the cars are part of the roller-coaster. Unlike
an auto/road situation, you can't use one without
the other.
Bill Rider
> Mark Brader wrote:
>> This is close to something. Consider that a person is "in the boat"
>> if it's a rowboat but "on the boat" if it's a ferry. And a fighter
>> pilot might be "in the plane" while an airline passenger is "on the
>> plane". But I think I want to say "in" for bomber crews, and they
>> have space to walk around.
>
> Maybe it depends on whether the rider is a customer or not?
>
think "aboard" meant standing on the boards of the vehicle or craft.
The Oxford Dictionary says it means "to the board" and not "on the
board", and "board" seems to mean "edge". It cites the French phrase "ą
bord", which seems to mean "to the edge".
I suppose it originally meant everyone who wasn't in the crew of a ship
should line up at the rail to verify that all the passengers and only
the passengers were aboard.
Mark Brader
>>> I think when you're within a craft or vehicle, you're on it if
>>> you can walk around.
Mark Brader:
>> This is close to something. Consider that a person is "in the boat"
>> if it's a rowboat but "on the boat" if it's a ferry. And a fighter
>> pilot might be "in the plane" while an airline passenger is "on the
>> plane". But I think I want to say "in" for bomber crews, and they
>> have space to walk around.
Brian Tung:
> Maybe it depends on whether the rider is a customer or not?
Nope -- consider the crew of the ferry or airliner.
I think the "walk around" test is correct; on further thought I'll
retract the bomber example.
--
Mark Brader | "As a professional, it's my job to take a slightly dim
Toronto | view of the ... people who will look at my code next.
m...@vex.net | If I am wrong... so much the better!" -- Henry Spencer
Bill Rider
they were designed for an you could be arrested.
Suppose an engineer makes a temporary repair to a gage in his locomotive
at a station. He's on the railroad. Suppose the next day he replaces
that gage while the locomotive is in the roundhouse. He's in the
locomotive but not on the railroad.
If that's the only locomotive the company owns, the railroad can't be
used. Suppose the conductor brings the engineer his hat, saying he saw
it lying on the railroad half a mile away. Without any cars, a track is
still a railroad.
Bill Rider
> Bill Rider:
>>>> I think when you're within a craft or vehicle, you're on it if
>>>> you can walk around.
>
> Mark Brader:
>>> This is close to something. Consider that a person is "in the boat"
>>> if it's a rowboat but "on the boat" if it's a ferry. And a fighter
>>> pilot might be "in the plane" while an airline passenger is "on the
>>> plane". But I think I want to say "in" for bomber crews, and they
>>> have space to walk around.
>
> Brian Tung:
>> Maybe it depends on whether the rider is a customer or not?
>
> Nope -- consider the crew of the ferry or airliner.
>
> I think the "walk around" test is correct; on further thought I'll
> retract the bomber example.
I think mensanator has a point. There is a gray area. A person is
usually said to be on the train but in the dining car, for example. I
think it's conceptual. The car is where the passenger sits and the
train is the series of cars he walks through to get there.
CBFalconer
>
> Do u get in a car or on car?
> Do u get in a plane or on a plane?
u rarely does any of those things. If you meant 'you' you should
have so written.
Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
irrelevant material. See the following links:
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/> (taming google)
<http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/> (newusers)
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
CBFalconer
> "Roy" <web...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> "Roy" <web...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> One to get you thinking!!!!
>>>
>>> Here is the question:
>>> There are 7 girls on a bus.
>>> Each girl has 7 backpacks.
>>> In each backpack, there are 7 big cats.
>>> For every big cat there are 7 little cats.
>>> Question: How many legs are there in the bus?
>>
>> Correct answer is 10990
>
> Copy of smarter_than_fifth_grader (3).xls
> Type: Excel File (application/msexcel)
> Encoding: x-uuencode
Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
irrelevant material.
Please also avoid attachment of binary files. This is usenet, not
e-mail. The following URLs may be helpful:
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/> (taming google)
--
CBFalconer
>
> One to get you thinking!!!!
>
> Here is the question:
>
> There are 7 girls on a bus.
>
> Each girl has 7 backpacks.
>
> In each backpack, there are 7 big cats.
>
> For every big cat there are 7 little cats.
>
> Question: How many legs are there in the bus?
56 * 49 * 4 + 14 = 10990 (assuming no amputations nor fleas)
CBFalconer
>
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:39:16 +0000, Roy wrote:
>
> > One to get you thinking!!!!
> >
>
>
> "As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives.
> Each wife had seven sacks, each sack had seven cats,
> Each cat had seven kits.
>
> How many were going to St. Ives?"
2752
Ed Murphy
A ring, obviously.
Nick Wedd
<web...@hotmail.com> writes
>If anybody wants me to explain who we get to 10990. let me know.
>Clue there is no bus driver.
>Do the calculation for one girl and then multiply your answer by 7 and don't
>forget to add 14. 7 girls x 2 legs.
>
>I am amazed that some of you thought it was a trick question, and cant be
>done.
We thought the answer 10990 was trivially easy, so we wondered what the
trick was. In fact the first response (from Richard Heathfield) reads
>Hmmm. Am I missing something obvious?
.
.
.
>10990.
Nick
>"> Correct answer is 10990
>>
>>
>> >> One to get you thinking!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is the question:
>>>
>>> There are 7 girls on a bus.
>>>
>>> Each girl has 7 backpacks.
>>>
>>> In each backpack, there are 7 big cats.
>>>
>>> For every big cat there are 7 little cats.
>>>
>>> Question: How many legs are there in the bus?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Nick Wedd
<scsp...@gmail.com> writes
Ok, here's an easy puzzle. Native English speakers should not respond.
What do you do with a tree after you cut it down?
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Barbara Bailey
> S.C.Sprong writes:
>>Dave Baker wrote:
>>>"S.C.Sprong" wrote:
>>>> Wow! English propositions are slightly less fiendishly subtle as I
>>>> think.
>>>Or even "slightly less fiendishly subtle than I thought."
>>Thank you for the correction. 'as' Is definitely wrong, however, I
>>still think / am thinking that they are fiendishly subtle, even with
>>the encouraging counter-evidence that is presented in this thread.
> Ok, here's an easy puzzle. Native English speakers should not
> respond. What do you do with a tree after you cut it down?
<snicker>
S.C.Sprong
>Nick Wedd wrote:
>> Ok, here's an easy puzzle. Native English speakers should not
>> respond. What do you do with a tree after you cut it down?
><snicker>
That does not bode well...
Hm, since one usually starts removing the bark and the branches I guess
that you are doing something _to_ a tree.
?
scs
jonnie303
> In message <61r10lF202i1...@mid.individual.net>, S.C.Sprong
> <scspr...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >Dave Baker <N...@null.com> wrote:
> >>"S.C.Sprong" <scspr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Wow! English propositions are slightly less fiendishly subtle as I think.
> >>Or even "slightly less fiendishly subtle than I thought."
>
> >Thank you for the correction. 'as' Is definitely wrong, however, I still
> >think / am thinking that they are fiendishly subtle, even with the
> >encouraging counter-evidence that is presented in this thread.
>
> Ok, here's an easy puzzle. Native English speakers should not respond.
> What do you do with a tree after you cut it down?
>
I prefer: "What do you do with a tree after you chop it down?"
...but it amounts to the same thing.
-----------
jonnie303
Sevenoaks, uk
Nick Wedd
<scsp...@gmail.com> writes
Ok, here's the answer:
(rot13)
Nsgre lbh phg vg qbja, lbh phg vg hc.
S.C.Sprong
><scsp...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>Nick Wedd wrote:
>>>> Ok, here's an easy puzzle. Native English speakers should not
>>>> respond. What do you do with a tree after you cut it down?
>>that you are doing something _to_ a tree.
Growing, that's awlful wordplay, but I axed for it. It didn't occur to me
that 'cut up' was used for wood.
scs
Rich Grise
> Nick Wedd <ni...@maproom.co.uk> wrote:
>><scsp...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>Nick Wedd wrote:
>>>>> Ok, here's an easy puzzle. Native English speakers should not
>>>>> respond. What do you do with a tree after you cut it down?
>>>Hm, since one usually starts removing the bark and the branches I guess
>>>that you are doing something _to_ a tree.
>
> Growing, that's awlful wordplay, but I axed for it. It didn't occur to me
> that 'cut up' was used for wood.
>
But, howcome you eat your food up but swallow it down? ;-)
ObPuz:
What can go up a chimney down but not down a chimney up?
Cheers!
Rich
Mensanator
> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:35:45 +0000, S.C.Sprong wrote:
> >><scspr...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>Nick Wedd wrote:
> >>>>> Ok, here's an easy puzzle. �Native English speakers should not
> >>>>> respond. What do you do with a tree after you cut it down?
> >>>Hm, since one usually starts removing the bark and the branches I guess
> >>>that you are doing something _to_ a tree.
> >>After you cut it down, you cut it up.
>
> > Growing, that's awlful wordplay, but I axed for it. It didn't occur to me
> > that 'cut up' was used for wood.
>
> I originally heard it, "You chop a tree down, then chop it up."
>
> But, howcome you eat your food up
Plate to mouth.
>but swallow it down? ;-)
Mouth to stomach.
gerson
> ObPuz:
> What can go up a chimney down but not down a chimney up?
Umbrella
Doesn't everybody know that ?
Doesn't anybody know that ?
Doesn't everyone know that ?
Doesn't anyone know that ?
gerson
Once upon a time places were "in" a street, and now they're "on" it
Once upon a time information was "in" a page whereas the
printing was "on" the page. No-one thinks like that any
more, I think.