Chandeliegry Puzzle

Showing 1-41 of 41 messages
Chandeliegry Puzzle spu...@pomona.edu 12/6/96 12:00 AM

Consider a chandelier that consists of a ring of n light bulbs.  Each bulb is
attached to a circuit that can send the current a particular number of bulbs
clockwise around the ring.  (Note to electrical engineers:  If this is as bogus
a concept as it seems to me, allow me the fictional construction)  Let the
electrical current come in at a particular one of the bulbs, call it bulb 1 and
number the bulbs clockwise from there.

Let the index numbers for the circuits be the set {1, 2,..., n}, so each bulb
sends the current a different number of bulbs away.

For which n is there an arrangement of bulbs that will allow all the lights
to turn on?

Consider the following examples:

n=1; 1 (all lights on)
n=2; 1 2 (all lights on), 2 1 (only the first light on)
.
.
.
n=6; 1 4 2 6 5 3 (all lights on), 2 6 1 3 5 4 (lights 1, 3, 4 on)

Also, is there a general method in these n for producing some or all of the
solutions?

I have some ideas on the topic, but not as thorough as I would like.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
spu...@pomona.edu   |                ToMm, I didn't see your reply to
Sco4tt "Fool" Purdy |        my God post.  Do you have a copy you could mail?

Chandeliegry Puzzle David Fergemann 12/7/96 12:00 AM

In article <1996Dec6.132846@pomona>, spu...@pomona.edu wrote:

> Consider a chandelier that consists of a ring of n light bulbs.  Each bulb is
> attached to a circuit that can send the current a particular number of bulbs
> clockwise around the ring.  (Note to electrical engineers:  If this is
as bogus
> a concept as it seems to me, allow me the fictional construction)  Let the
> electrical current come in at a particular one of the bulbs, call it
bulb 1 and
> number the bulbs clockwise from there.
>
> Let the index numbers for the circuits be the set {1, 2,..., n}, so each bulb
> sends the current a different number of bulbs away.
>
> For which n is there an arrangement of bulbs that will allow all the lights
> to turn on?
>
> Consider the following examples:
>
> n=1; 1 (all lights on)
> n=2; 1 2 (all lights on), 2 1 (only the first light on)
> .
> .
> .
> n=6; 1 4 2 6 5 3 (all lights on), 2 6 1 3 5 4 (lights 1, 3, 4 on)
>
> Also, is there a general method in these n for producing some or all of the
> solutions?
>
NEARLY-COMPLETE SPOILER:

Here's my attempt at putting together a Chandeliegry mathematics.  I hope
it's not too obtuse.  If you're only interested in the answers, skip to
the line of dashes.

Some definitions:

Let I(k) be the "index" of the bulb in the kth spatial position, so that
if bulb k is lit, bulb k + I(k) is also lit.  Define the "complement" of
I(k) as I*(k) = n-I(k).  Let C(j) be the spatial position of the jth bulb
reached if we follow the circuit.  Bulb k is lit if and only if there is a
j such that C(j) = k.  Furthermore, I(C(j)) is the index of the jth bulb
lit.  All arithmetic is modulo n, but for convenience all 0's should be
regarded as n's.

Some Axioms:

a) C(1) = 1
b) If all bulbs are lit, then for all k such that 1 <= k <= n, there is
some j for which C(j) = k.  (That is, each bulb appears in our list of
C(j)'s, meaning that it is lit.)
c) For all i such that 1 <= i <= n, there is some k (1 <= k <= n) for
which I(k) = i.  (Each number 1 through n must appear on a bulb, as stated
in puzzle)

A few Lemmas:

1) If all bulbs are lit, then for j >= 2, C(j) = C(j-1) + I(C(j-1))
(Should be obvious.  This just describes how we move along the circuit).

2) If all bulbs are lit, then for 1 <= i,j <= n, if i != j, then C(i) !=
C(j).  (Should also be obvious.  The circuit must go through each spatial
position exactly once).

3) If all bulbs are lit, then I(C(n)) = n
Proof:
  According to Axioms b and c, there must be some j for which I(C(j)) = n.  
  If j < n, and I(C(j)) = n, then I(C(j+1)) = n, which violates Lemma 2.
  Therefore, j = n.
 
4) If all bulbs are lit, then for 1 <= j <= n-1, I(C(j)) != I*(C(j-1))
Proof:  
  C(j+1) = C(j) + I(C(j))
         = C(j-1) + I(C(j-1)) + I(C(j))
  Suppose I(C(j)) = n - I(C(j-1)). Then,
  C(j+1) = n + C(j-1)    
  C(j+1) = C(j-1), which violates Lemma 2.

4a) If all bulbs are lit, then I(k+I(k)) != I*(k)
[For example, if n = 5, the pair "14" must not occur anywhere in the
chandelier.  Likewise, "2_3" and "3__2" cannot occur.]
This follows directly from 1 and 4 (Let k = C(j-1)).

5) If all bulbs are lit, then C(n) = n(n-1)/2 + 1 mod n
Proof:
C(n) = I(C(1)) + I(C(2)) + ... + I(C(n-1)) + 1.  But from Lemma 3 and
Axiom c, I(C(1)) through I(C(n-1)) must include all numbers 1 through n -
1, so C(n) = sum(1 + 2 + ... + n-1) + 1 = n(n-1)/2 + 1

5a) If all bulbs are lit, then I(n(n-1)/2 + 1) = n
This follows directly from 3 and 5.

Thus, we always know exactly where the bulb with index n will be placed.

6) All bulbs are lit if and only if there is no consecutive set of
I(C(j))'s which sum to a multiple of n.  That is, for any j and a such
that 1 <= j,a < n, I(C(j)) + I(C(j+1)) + ... + I(C(j+a)) != n mod n

Sort-of-Proof: Suppose I(C(j)) + ... + I(C(j+a)) = n.  Then it can be
easily shown that C(j) = C(j+a+1), which is not allowed.  To prove the
"only if" part, notice that there will be an unlit bulb only if there is a
"loop" in the circuit; that is, C(i) = C(j) for some i != j.  (This
includes the case in which the bulb labeled "n" is reached too soon: C(j)
= C(j+1) = ... = C(n).)  But clearly, if C(i) = C(j), then I(C(i)) +
I(C(i+1)) + I(C(j)) = n.  

------------------
OK, using this basis, let's take a look at some specific cases for n.

Case n = 1 and n = 2 are trivial.

For n odd (other than n=1), no solution exists.
    Proof:  By Lemma 5, C(n) = n(n-1)/2 + 1 mod n.  If n is odd, then
    n(n-1)/2 is divisible by n, so n(n-1)/2 + 1 = 1 mod n, and C(n) = 1.
    But C(1) = 1, and C(1) != C(n), so by contradiction, no solution exists.

For n = 4, Lemma 5a says the solution must be of the form xx4x.  2x4x is
immediately ruled out because it violates Lemma 6.  1342 and 3241 violate
Lemma 4a, leaving only 1243 and 3142.

For n = 6, I found two solutions: 142653 and 531642.  I think they are the
only two, but I didn't try everything.

In general, for n even, the following two solutions always exist:

(n-1) (n-3) (n-5) . . . 5 3 1 n (n-2) (n-4) . . . 6 4 2

1 (n-2) (n-4) . . . 4 2 n (n-1) (n-3) (n-5) . . . 7 5 3

I think these are the only solutions for a given n, but I haven't proved
it yet.  I can, however, prove that for any even n except n=2, there is an
even number of solutions:

By Lemma 6, if we have a valid solution represented by I(C(1))...I(C(n)),
there is no subsequence of I(C(1))...I(C(n-1)) which sums to n.  Define a
new circuit function C' such that C'(n) = C(n) and C'(j) = C(n-j).  Then
clearly, there is no subsequence of I(C'(1))...I(C(n-1)) which sums to n.
By Lemma 6, the sequence I(C'(1))..I(C'(n)) is another valid solution,
which is clearly distinct from the original one as long as n != 2.  (For
n=2, C' and C are identical)

Notice that the pairs of solutions I've given for n=4 and n=6, as well as
the two general solutions, are all solution pairs constructed in this
manner.

-Dave Fergemann
dsfe...@fas.harvard.edu

Chandeliegry Puzzle David Moews 12/10/96 12:00 AM

In article <1996Dec6.132846@pomona>,  <spu...@pomona.edu> wrote:
|Consider a chandelier that consists of a ring of n light bulbs.  Each bulb is
|attached to a circuit that can send the current a particular number of bulbs
|clockwise around the ring.  (Note to electrical engineers:  If this is as bogus
|a concept as it seems to me, allow me the fictional construction)  Let the
|electrical current come in at a particular one of the bulbs, call it bulb 1 and
|number the bulbs clockwise from there.
|
|Let the index numbers for the circuits be the set {1, 2,..., n}, so each bulb
|sends the current a different number of bulbs away.
|
|For which n is there an arrangement of bulbs that will allow all the lights
|to turn on?
(SPOILER)
For even n only (and n=1.)  The bulb numbered n must be the last to be fed
current, since it only sends current to itself; hence the first n-1 bulbs have
the net effect of sending the current 1 + 2 + ... + n-1 = (n-1)n/2 bulbs
clockwise.  If n is odd this is a multiple of n, so the current arrives back
at the entrance bulb after the first n-1 bulbs.  The remaining bulb is thus
unlit (unless n=1.)

If n is even, use the following pattern:

1 n-2 n-4 n-6 ... 2 n n-1 n-3 n-5 ... 3

As in Scott's post, the current enters at the leftmost bulb.
--
David Moews                                  dmo...@xraysgi.ims.uconn.edu

Chandeliegry Puzzle spu...@pomona.edu 12/11/96 12:00 AM

In article <58krao$o...@makam.ccrwest.org>, dmo...@xraysgi.ims.uconn.edu (David

Moews) writes:
> For even n only (and n=1.)  The bulb numbered n must be the last to be fed
> current, since it only sends current to itself; hence the first n-1 bulbs
> have the net effect of sending the current 1 + 2 + ... + n-1 = (n-1)n/2 bulbs
> clockwise.  If n is odd this is a multiple of n, so the current arrives back
> at the entrance bulb after the first n-1 bulbs.  The remaining bulb is thus
> unlit (unless n=1.)
>
> If n is even, use the following pattern:
>
> 1 n-2 n-4 n-6 ... 2 n n-1 n-3 n-5 ... 3


        This much I had, plus a little bit more.  In addition to this pattern
is one more, described by the mirror image over the bulb 1 to n diameter of the
additive inverse in mod n of the above pattern.  Effectively, this is the same
pattern run counter-clockwise

Thus, we have...
1 2 4 3 as above
3 2 4 1 additive inverse
3 1 4 2 mirror image

        Now for the question I don't have an answer to.  Are there any more?
Do they have general patterns?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
spu...@pomona.edu   |                Received the Damngry in the mail today
Sco4tt "Fool" Purdy |                   Replied with the archive entry.

Chandeliegry Puzzle David Moews 12/12/96 12:00 AM

In article <1996Dec11.012723@pomona>,  <spu...@pomona.edu> wrote:
|... This much I had, plus a little bit more.  In addition to this pattern

|is one more, described by the mirror image over the bulb 1 to n diameter of the
|additive inverse in mod n of the above pattern.  Effectively, this is the same
|pattern run counter-clockwise
|
|Thus, we have...
|1 2 4 3 as above
|3 2 4 1 additive inverse
|3 1 4 2 mirror image

This is a special case of a more general transformation.  Suppose we number
the bulb positions from 0 to n-1, with the starting bulb being in position 0.
Then, for all i relatively prime to n, we can transform any working pattern so
that, if the bulb numbered j is in position k in the original pattern, the bulb
numbered ij mod n is in position ik mod n in the transformed pattern.
(The bulb numbered n must have started in position n/2, and it stays fixed
there.) Your transformation is the case i=n-1 of this.

|        Now for the question I don't have an answer to.  Are there any more?

Oh, oodles.  The above transformation implies that the number with length n
is always divisible by phi(n) (= the number of positive integers less than or
equal to n relatively prime to n.)  For the first few n, an exhaustive search
yields the following numbers:

n    # of necklaces

1    1
2    1
3    0
4    2
5    0
6    4
7    0
8    24
9    0
10   288
11   0
12   3856
13   0
14   89328


 
|Do they have general patterns?

If n is a power of 2 (and only then) you can construct a pattern such
that the current starts with the bulb numbered 1, then flows to the bulb
numbered 2, then to the bulb numbered 3, &c.  For example, if n=8,
1 2 5 3 8 7 4 6 works.  This is the only other infinite family I've
constructed.
--
David Moews                                dmo...@xraysgi.ims.uconn.edu

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert OrbitGuy 12/15/96 12:00 AM

Greetings:
Hopefully this isn't in the FAQ (so I'm lazy, get over it-if this answer
is posted enough maybe the "gry" will die).
Anyway, this is the only amswer to the "gry" problem.
Stop laughing until you read the whole post.
Again, if all this is in the FAQ, or has been posted a thousand times, I
apologize. Beat me with a wet electron. Any way...

The reason this damn "gry" spammage has spread is because people who
don't understand or know the answer(or what I believe is the answer, not
knowing the intentions of the primal author of the riddle-I prefer to
think he/she had noble intentions, as you see by the answer, rather than
"hoaxing" intentions) have taken it upon themselves to rewrite the
puzzle imprecisely, and have thus made it unanswerable. Having read well
over ten different versions ( including Marilyn Vos Savant's) I have
culled out a correct "layout", if you will, and post it here so that it
may act as antidote to the multitude of wrongly written versions
proliferating. This version is obviously not the "only" version, as the
intelligent person will see ( for example, I prefer the word choice
"them" at one point to add confusion to the puzzle and yet add a clue,
whereas some people prefer "it" instead).
Here is a correctly written "gry" riddle:


There are three words in the English language that end in gry.
Two words that end in gry are hungry and angry.
Everyone knows what the third word means, and everyone uses them every
day.If you listened very carefully, I have just told you what the third
word is. The three words that solve this riddle are...?


Some of you may protest that my version makes the answer(see below) too
simple. I would love to see more complex rewrites from people that
understand the riddle and answer.

L8R,
Paul E. Burke, Jr.
" A riddle told wrongly isn't a riddle, it's a timewaste."
XM...@aol.com
********************SPOILER ALERT- ANSWER BELOW***********************

Are you sure you don't want to figure it out yourself?


The answer is " I am hungry".

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert Doug McKean 12/16/96 12:00 AM

OrbitGuy wrote:
>
> Greetings:
> Hopefully this isn't in the FAQ (so I'm lazy, get over it-if this answer
> is posted enough maybe the "gry" will die).
> Anyway, this is the only amswer to the "gry" problem.
> Stop laughing until you read the whole post.
> Again, if all this is in the FAQ, or has been posted a thousand times, I
> apologize. Beat me with a wet electron. Any way...

No, put your head on the block so it can be lopped off.

 
> The reason this damn "gry" spammage has spread is because people who
> don't understand or know the answer(or what I believe is the answer, not
> knowing the intentions of the primal author of the riddle-I prefer to
> think he/she had noble intentions, as you see by the answer, rather than
> "hoaxing" intentions) have taken it upon themselves to rewrite the
> puzzle imprecisely, and have thus made it unanswerable. Having read well
> over ten different versions ( including Marilyn Vos Savant's) I have
> culled out a correct "layout", if you will, and post it here so that it
> may act as antidote to the multitude of wrongly written versions
> proliferating. This version is obviously not the "only" version, as the
> intelligent person will see ( for example, I prefer the word choice
> "them" at one point to add confusion to the puzzle and yet add a clue,
> whereas some people prefer "it" instead).
> Here is a correctly written "gry" riddle:
>
> There are three words in the English language that end in gry.
> Two words that end in gry are hungry and angry.
> Everyone knows what the third word means, and everyone uses them every
> day.If you listened very carefully, I have just told you what the third
> word is. The three words that solve this riddle are...?

No.  There are 7 words in the English language that end in gry.
Please read the puzzle again.

Oh, and read the FAQ next time.  Since you spent the time
supposedly reading up on the puzzle, you could have spent
less time reading the FAQ.

*******************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------
The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone,
and do not reflect those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------
*******************************************************

Hopefully, the death of "gry" Woody Brison 12/16/96 12:00 AM

I think that in the year AD 10,345 folks will still be getting
messages with the subject line "What is the third ___GRY word?"
Stupidity is eternal, to contend against it is a noble cause
that will never be won.

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert m...@ncsa.uiuc.edu 12/16/96 12:00 AM

In article <19961217001...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, xm...@aol.com
(XMDMA) wrote:

> Yet , by your response, and assuming YOU read the FAQ, it's evident that
> all the FAQ says is the same thing Vos Savant said (i.e. "the riddle is a
> hoax"). Reread my original post again. I started by saying it's not a
> hoax; instead, I say it's been written incorrectly. Then I proceeded to
> write a "correct" version.

Hmm.  I don't get Marilyn vos Savant's column anywhere, but based on what
I've read *about* her column, her claiming that the riddle is a hoax is
*almost* enough to make me think maybe it isn't.  Not quite, though.  :-)

As to your "correct" version of the riddle, the problem with any "correct"
version of this abomination (and yours is but one of several I've seen) is
that they are just plain BORING as riddles/puzzles.

mag

--
.---o  Tom Magliery, Research Programmer                         .---o
`-O-.  NCSA, 605 E. Springfield                  (217) 333-3198  `-O-.
o---'  Champaign, IL 61820          O-        m...@ncsa.uiuc.edu  o---'

Hopefully, the death of "gry" XMDMA 12/17/96 12:00 AM

Your post can be interpreted two ways:
---------------------------------
1) You are saying that you understand my post, but think that it will have
no effect (i.e. "gry" spammage will still spread), and you are honoring me
for my " noble cause" in fighting the "stupidity".

If this is the correct interpretation of your post, I say " thanks for the
support, and please disregard the following...".
----------------------------------------------
or
2)You didn't bother to read my post and are trying to flame me, in which
case I say...

Illiteracy must be rampant also, otherwise you would have read my complete
post. After rereading it you will have a new understanding to whom the
"stupidity" in your post should be applied.
Here's a BIG CLUE for you so you won't be confused:

Absolutely nowhere in my original post do I write"What is the third ___GRY
word?" The fact that you assumed that I did just shows how ingrained the
"incorrect/imprecise" versions of the puzzle/riddle are. The version I
wrote is both precise and correct...and it has a definite answer.

If you need further clarification, email me and I'll explain it to you
line by line.
Of course, this is rec.puzzle, so maybe you should spend the 2 minutes and
figure it out yourself.

Better luck in your next attempted flame.
---------------------------------

Again, please disregard everything in section "2)" above if section "1)"
is the correct interpretation of your post.

Puzzlicious Paul E. Burke, Jr.
Filmmaker
XM...@aol.com

Hopefully, the death of "gry" Naeem Sheikh 12/17/96 12:00 AM

Woody Brison () wrote:
: I think that in the year AD 10,345 folks will still be getting
: messages with the subject line "What is the third ___GRY word?"
: Stupidity is eternal, to contend against it is a noble cause
: that will never be won.

As my father is fond of saying :

Ignorance is temporary. Stupidity is forever.

Naeem Sheikh
nsh...@cs.rochester.edu
http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/nsheikh

No sig is better than any sig.
--

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert XMDMA 12/17/96 12:00 AM

Doug McKean <doug_...@paragon-networks.com> jumped the gun:

>No, put your head on the block so it can be lopped off.

Careful...humiliation before the electronic world isn't pretty.
Luckily for you I'm a very nice person, and won't humiliate you for the
following mistake in puzzle/riddle solving:

 >>There are three words in the English language that end in gry.

NOTE: nowhere does it say "only three words".

>> Two words that end in gry are hungry and angry.
>> Everyone knows what the third word means, and everyone uses them every
>> day.If you listened very carefully, I have just told you what the third
>> word is. The three words that solve this riddle are...?

>No.  There are 7 words in the English language that end in gry.
>Please read the puzzle again.

I'm afraid YOU need to read the puzzle, as I wrote it, again.
You are on the way to understanding,  just read the first line of the
puzzle/riddle again without mentally inserting "only" before "three". From
there, it is simple. If you don't get it feel free to email me and I'll
explain the whole puzzle/riddle to you line by line.

>Oh, and read the FAQ next time.  Since you spent the time
>supposedly reading up on the puzzle, you could have spent
>less time reading the FAQ.

Yet , by your response, and assuming YOU read the FAQ, it's evident that


all the FAQ says is the same thing Vos Savant said (i.e. "the riddle is a
hoax"). Reread my original post again. I started by saying it's not a
hoax; instead, I say it's been written incorrectly. Then I proceeded to
write a "correct" version.

Again, email me if you still don't get it.

Paul E. Burke, Jr.
Filmmaker
XM...@aol.com

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert David Karr 12/17/96 12:00 AM

Paul E. Burke, Jr. <xm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Oh, and read the FAQ next time.  Since you spent the time
>>supposedly reading up on the puzzle, you could have spent
>>less time reading the FAQ.
>
>Yet , by your response, and assuming YOU read the FAQ, it's evident that
>all the FAQ says is the same thing Vos Savant said (i.e. "the riddle is a
>hoax").

Someone suggests you read the FAQ, so rather than do so, you go and
post again without reading the FAQ.

Your assumption about what the FAQ says is ill-founded.  It is also
incorrect, as you would have found out if you'd taken a few moments
to look for it (it was posted again very recently).  The FAQ says
(in part) what you said: the riddle is most likely a mangling of
another riddle that actually had an answer (and it claims the answer
was the word "language").

The main difference between the FAQ and you is that the FAQ's
riddle and answer make sense.  I do not use the words "I am hungry"
every day; your reasoning is incorrect.

The most charitable interpretation of your first post is that it was
a joke.  But as a joke, I found it rather boring.  It's also in poor
taste, considering the circumstances.

-- David A. Karr (dk...@bbn.com)
   (Not necessarily representing the views of my employer)

Hopefully, the death of "gry" Joel Coltoff 12/17/96 12:00 AM

In article <1996Dec17....@cs.rochester.edu>,

Naeem Sheikh <nsh...@cs.rochester.edu> wrote:
>Woody Brison () wrote:
>: I think that in the year AD 10,345 folks will still be getting
>: messages with the subject line "What is the third ___GRY word?"
>: Stupidity is eternal, to contend against it is a noble cause
>: that will never be won.
>
>As my father is fond of saying :
>
>Ignorance is temporary. Stupidity is forever.

    "The only way to understand what mathematicians mean by infinity
    is to contemplate the extent of human stupidity."
        -- Voltaire

--
Joel Coltoff

I'd explain it, but there's a lot of math. -- Calvin

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert XMDMA 12/17/96 12:00 AM

>As to your "correct" version of the riddle, the problem with any
"correct"
>version of this abomination (and yours is but one of several I've seen)
is
>that they are just plain BORING as riddles/puzzles.
>mag
     I apologize if this posts twice (the Powers That Be signed me off in
the middle of posting it the first time):

     If by "version" you mean "different rewrites with the same answer",
as I stated there is no"one" correct way to write it , but there are a
helluva lot of incorrect ways...
       If by "version" you mean "answers ", and you've seen "several"...
I would love to see other answers that use every clue(sentence) in a
"correct" version of the puzzle/riddle, and  aren't lame
("language"-lame,"aggry"-lamest, "nugry"-funny but defeatist).
       As to the "BORING", don't blame me, I'm not the primal author. Some
people like it for it's deceptive simplicity .
It makes a great Holiday riddle (especially after everyone has stuffed
themselves with all the trimmings) :)

Happy Holidays,


Paul E. Burke, Jr.
Filmmaker
XM...@aol.com

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert Doug 12/17/96 12:00 AM

XMDMA wrote:
>
> Doug McKean <doug_...@paragon-networks.com> jumped the gun:
>
> >No, put your head on the block so it can be lopped off.
>
> Careful...humiliation before the electronic world isn't pretty.
> Luckily for you I'm a very nice person, and won't humiliate you for the
> following mistake in puzzle/riddle solving:
>
>  >>There are three words in the English language that end in gry.
>
> NOTE: nowhere does it say "only three words".
>
> >> Two words that end in gry are hungry and angry.
> >> Everyone knows what the third word means, and everyone uses them every
> >> day.If you listened very carefully, I have just told you what the third
> >> word is. The three words that solve this riddle are...?
>
> >No.  There are 7 words in the English language that end in gry.
> >Please read the puzzle again.
>
> I'm afraid YOU need to read the puzzle, as I wrote it, again.
> You are on the way to understanding,  just read the first line of the
> puzzle/riddle again without mentally inserting "only" before "three". From
> there, it is simple. If you don't get it feel free to email me and I'll
> explain the whole puzzle/riddle to you line by line.
>
> >Oh, and read the FAQ next time.  Since you spent the time
> >supposedly reading up on the puzzle, you could have spent
> >less time reading the FAQ.
>
> Yet , by your response, and assuming YOU read the FAQ, it's evident that
> all the FAQ says is the same thing Vos Savant said (i.e. "the riddle is a
> hoax"). Reread my original post again. I started by saying it's not a
> hoax; instead, I say it's been written incorrectly. Then I proceeded to
> write a "correct" version.
>
> Again, email me if you still don't get it.
>
> Paul E. Burke, Jr.
> Filmmaker
> XM...@aol.com

Oh, I get it alright.  More so than you can imagine.  

Look Paul or whoever you, this is the last time I'm
answering your inane post.  Don't try threatening me
with this "lucky I'm a nice person" crap.  The truth
of the matter is this gry puzzle is beyond old here
at rec.puzzles.  It's stupid.  Got it now?  If you
still don't get it, don't bother posting again.  
Get that through your head and go back to film
making if that's what you really do.


*******************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------
The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone,
and do not reflect those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------
*******************************************************

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert Red Chrysler 12/17/96 12:00 AM

OrbitGuy wrote:
>
> Greetings:
> Hopefully this isn't in the FAQ (so I'm lazy, get over it-if this answer
> is posted enough maybe the "gry" will die).
> Anyway, this is the only amswer to the "gry" problem.

Hey Paul-o, if ever read r.p., you would know there is rarely, if ever,
an "only" answer to a problem.Saying so is settin gyourself up for a
fall.  In fact, as of this post, your attempt to stop the proliferation
of this inane puzzle has generated, in this newsgroup alone, 4 posts
from you, and 8 from others (including myself). Not a very good solution
to either the -gry puzzle or -gry problem.

-dj

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert Wei-Hwa Huang 12/17/96 12:00 AM

m...@ncsa.uiuc.edu writes:

>In article <19961217001...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, xm...@aol.com
>(XMDMA) wrote:

>> Yet , by your response, and assuming YOU read the FAQ, it's evident that
>> all the FAQ says is the same thing Vos Savant said (i.e. "the riddle is a
>> hoax"). Reread my original post again. I started by saying it's not a
>> hoax; instead, I say it's been written incorrectly. Then I proceeded to
>> write a "correct" version.

>Hmm.  I don't get Marilyn vos Savant's column anywhere, but based on what


>I've read *about* her column, her claiming that the riddle is a hoax is
>*almost* enough to make me think maybe it isn't.  Not quite, though.  :-)

Vos Savant wrote "...[the GRY question] isn't a puzzle, it's a hoax!"
Then she proceeded to explain that there are only two common words
ending in gry, but a lot of not-so-common ones.

So in that case, she was right on the button, though a bit terse.

--
Wei-Hwa Huang, whu...@ugcs.caltech.edu, http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~whuang/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics show that Ster Trek films without Shatner do better at box offices.

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert OrbitGuy 12/17/96 12:00 AM

Doug McKean wrote:
>

>  The truth
> of the matter is this gry puzzle is beyond old here
> at rec.puzzles.  

The only thing that is old around here is the closed-mindedness. I
understand how defeatists like you work now:"There are some lame
answers, we've seen 'em thousands of times, so we're just gonna sit here
and go nugry every time someone posts about it". Maybe you have seen the
answer "I am hungry" a thousand times. Not in the FAQ though. And not on
this list for the last couple of weeks. Instead just endless "nugry"
jokes, seems just as easy to me to give the newbies a riddle with an
answer as to try to humiliate them for thinking that the mutant versions
have answers . Of course, negative defeatists don't think that way.

>It's stupid. <
Your opinion. Others like it when written so it has a discoverable
answer. Maybe not as complex as say "The Puzzling Adventures of Dr.
Ecco", but logically sound (at least as much as "4-2-3 legs").

>Got it now?  If you
> still don't get it, don't bother posting again.
> Get that through your head

I undersood the WHOLE essence of this "gry" deal LONG before I posted. I
also now understand how sadly some people like you get in negative ruts.
Wallow in it for all I care. Lots of people in this list have written
that they like the riddle when written the positive way , a way that
ISN'T in the FAQ, nor posted in the past two weeks that I saw. I am not
implying I was the first to think of this answer, I am not. But it has
an answer that isn't a punctuation trick ("language") nor lame and
incorrect ("aggry"). It may be simple, but it works for every clue. I
really couldn't give a rat's rectum whether a negative defeatist likes
it or not. Defeatists can keep on 'spoutin' "nugry", I'll keep on giving
people a version with an answer. You know , "Goodwill" and all that
stuff.


Happy Holidays,
Puzzlicious Paul E. Burke, Jr.
Filmmaker

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert David Fergemann 12/17/96 12:00 AM

In article <32B768...@aol.com>, XM...@aol.com wrote:

> But it has
> an answer that isn't a punctuation trick ("language") nor lame and
> incorrect ("aggry")

Nevertheless, it relies on a misreading of English syntax, leaving it in
the same category as the "language" and "what" answers.  Let's look at
your version again:

> There are three words in the English language that end in gry.

The key words in this sentence are "words" and "end."  Both are the plural
forms.  "I am hungry" is not three words that end in 'gry.'  (The poor
grammar in that sentence is intentional, and meant to highlight the
problem with your puzzle.)  "I am hungry" is a three word phrase that ends
in 'gry,' which is not what the puzzle calls for.  If you asked me for
three numbers divisible by 3, and I told you "528," (which is, after all,
divisible by 3), you'd think I was an idiot.

To put it another way, it is incorrect to say, "'I am hungry' are three
words that end in 'gry,'" because "I am hungry," used as a noun, is
singular.  It is also incorrect to say, "'I', 'am', and 'hungry' end in
'gry,'" because the first two words don't.

> Two words that end in gry are hungry and angry.
> Everyone knows what the third word means, and everyone uses them every
> day.

The word "them" in this sentence lacks an antecedent.  

And you still have not countered David Karr's observation that he does
*not* use the phrase "I am hungry" every day.  Neither do most people.  If
I want to express that thought, I say, "I'm hungry," which is a two-word
phrase.

> Lots of people in this list have written
> that they like the riddle when written the positive way , a way that
> ISN'T in the FAQ, nor posted in the past two weeks that I saw.

This is not a list, and no one has posted to this newsgroup saying they
liked your version of the riddle.  On the contrary, several of the highest
content-providers on this newsgroup have stated their opinions that your
version is just as ridiculous as all the others we've seen.  If you have
received e-mail from people who like your version, please encourage them
to post those opinions to the newsgroup.

> Defeatists can keep on 'spoutin' "nugry", I'll keep on giving
> people a version with an answer. You know , "Goodwill" and all that
> stuff.

No one can stop you from doing that.  But the least you can do is to stop
claiming that your version of the puzzle is the "correct" one.  You have
absolutely no evidence that your version is more correct than any other.

-Dave Fergemann
dsfe...@fas.harvard.edu

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert Naeem Sheikh 12/18/96 12:00 AM

Doug McKean () wrote:

: XMDMA wrote:
: >
: > Doug McKean <doug_...@paragon-networks.com> jumped the gun:
: >

: Look Paul or whoever you, this is the last time I'm
: answering your inane post.  Don't try threatening me
: with this "lucky I'm a nice person" crap.  The truth
: of the matter is this gry puzzle is beyond old here
: at rec.puzzles.  It's stupid.  Got it now?  If you
: still don't get it, don't bother posting again.  
: Get that through your head and go back to film
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

: making if that's what you really do.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now that's more than a little uncalled for, don't you think Doug?
I suppose you have a better professional excuse for commenting on
puzzles.

Naeem Sheikh
nsh...@cs.rochester.edu
http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/nsheikh

P.S. : The last line above should be compiled with -sarcasm
command line argument.
--

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert XMDMA 12/18/96 12:00 AM

sighhhh...
This post is in answer to several so as to save precious BW
(ouuuuu,ahhhhhhh).
It's in the format
"what poster(s) generally said"-my answer

1)"Read the FAQ"-
 Read it, has the same old answers that don't really work, i.e don't
answer all the clues . Read the FAQ yourself and see.
2)"Read the Archive"-
Read it, at least the parts I found about"gry", has the same answers plus
a couple more, still not really any good ones that use all the clues. Nice
pointless list of words ending in "gry" there, though. The answer "I am
hungry" is nowhere to be seen. If it is somewhere in the archive I missed
it, and I beg foregiveness.
3)"I don't use the words ' I am hungry' every day so your version doesn't
work"-
 I wasn't walking on four legs this morning either, so I guess we'd better
toss the "4-2-3 legs" riddle. Riddles are sometimes about thinking
"outside the lines".
If you don't like "use" insert "think'. Or better yet go back to strict
math puzzles. I did ask for rewrites from people who understood what I was
getting at with this rewrite. Alway open to fine-tuning.
4)"You're just another newbie who thinks he has  'the' answer"-
 No, I just proposed "an" answer, which I did not originate (this riddle
is a lot older than some of you assume; I think this answer has probably
been batted around verbally since before vacuum tubes), which I did not
say I originated, and which satisfies each clue, which the other answers
(FAQ and Archive) do not : they usually require one to discard a couple of
clues, and a rewrite,while "I am hungry" requires only a rewrite, keeping
all clues.
5)" The FAQ says (in part) what you said: the riddle is most likely a


mangling of
 another riddle that actually had an answer (and it claims the answer was
the word "language")"-
 Except "language" doesn't work if the first sentence of the puzzle is
"There are three words in the English language that end in -gry", because
the "that end in -gry" would make the sentence confusing pointless
nonsense when applying the answer "language". "I am hungry" works fine to
satisfy the first sentence of the puzzle, and the others .
6)"I believe that this puzzle is indeed a hoax and has always been
intended
to be a hoax."-
That's fine, because everyone's entitled to believe what they want.
Neither side of this argument has proof; I throw myself in with the
positivist side that thinks it was originally a riddle, with an answer,
that got mangled by oral and electronic mis-transmission.
7)"SHUT UP" et al - Learn to use "delete" and "mark as read" buttons, it's
easy (I've done it to you already).
8) "The bad versions are too widespread. Your answer, while clever, will
have no effect"-
 Doesn't hurt to try, though. And it's not "my" answer, it's been around
for years. And again, it answers all of the "rewritten" clues, unlike all
other answers I've seen both in the FAQ and the Archive.  If "I am hungry"
IS in the Archive, I apologize to everyone who read it there. I didn't
find it there.
9)"You shouldn't use the word 'correct' on rec.puzzles, it's inviting
trouble"-
 I tried to use "a correct" in my posts to defuse this problem. A "the
correct" or two could have slipped by. I still say this answer is much
better than the others I've seen so far, because it answers ALL the clues.
And again, I am not claiming I discovered this answer, it's been around
for years.
10)"What''s your point"-
Well, at this point in time, to wrap up this thread so the Nattering
Negativist "Nugry"-spouters will have the newsgroup-purity they so
ferociously desire. Of course that will only last until tomorrow when the
next "mangled" -gry riddle is posted, along with several "nugry' posts.
Originally I posted hoping to find a few understanding folks who would
agree that it's easier to fight the "mangled" -gry viruses by telling
people  one answer that answers all the rewritten clues, rather than give
them 10+ answers that answer only part of the rewritten clues, or saying
the negativist "it's a hoax". Maybe I was wrong. C'est la vie. Thanks to
the people who emailed me that they like the riddle now . Heck, thanks
even to the people who grudgingly admitted "it works now, but I still
don't like it". To the NatNegNugs I say: smile, you'll feel better.

Happy Holidays,


Paul E. Burke, Jr.
Filmmaker


Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert Admiral Jota 12/18/96 12:00 AM

xm...@aol.com (XMDMA) writes:

>sighhhh...
>This post is in answer to several so as to save precious BW
>(ouuuuu,ahhhhhhh).
>It's in the format
>"what poster(s) generally said"-my answer

[All the rambling snipped]

Well, in your supposed attempt to single-handedly quell the GRY plague,
you have managed to create a yet another long, content-free thread on the
subject of GRY. Congratulations; I hope you're satisfied.
--
                         /<-= -=-=- -=  Admiral Jota  =- -=-=- =->\
                     __/><-=-  http://www.tiac.net/users/jota/  =-><\__
                       \><-= jo...@mv.mv.com  --  Finger for PGP =-></
                         \<-=- -=  -=-  -=  -==-  =-  -=-  =- -=->/

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert Dr D F Holt 12/18/96 12:00 AM

In article <32B4C5...@aol.com>,
        XM...@aol.com writes:
>
>There are three words in the English language that end in gry.

>Two words that end in gry are hungry and angry.
>Everyone knows what the third word means, and everyone uses them every
>day.If you listened very carefully, I have just told you what the third
>word is. The three words that solve this riddle are...?
>
>
>The answer is " I am hungry".


At the risk of being tedious, let me offer two objections to that solution.

1. The first sentence of the problem applied to "I am hungry" does not
make sense. The use of the plural "end" in the the sentence implies that
all three words end in "gry", which they do not. It would have to read
"There is a three word phrase in the English language, which ends in gry".

2. Not everybody (in the western world at least) says "I am hungry" every day.

Anyway, while writing this, I have just thought of another solution.

hungry, hungry, angry!

Nowehere in the problem does it say that the three words are distinct.
OK!!!!

Derek Holt.

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert Carl Witthoft 12/18/96 12:00 AM

In article <32B768...@aol.com> XM...@aol.com writes:
>>  The truth
>> of the matter is this gry puzzle is beyond old here
>> at rec.puzzles.  
>
>The only thing that is old around here is the closed-mindedness. I
>understand how defeatists like you work now:"There are some lame
>answers, we've seen 'em thousands of times, so we're just gonna sit here

Hey Paul:
What's your real name: Steve Boursy or Ken Arndt?
Get  a freakin' life.  sheesh.
Next thing you know, you'll be accusing the USENET puzzle cabal of
censoring your posts or something.


--
Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates
ca...@aoainc.com   54 CambridgePark Drive, Cambridge,MA 02140 617-864-0201
        Musicians Just "Do" It.

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert Doug McKean 12/18/96 12:00 AM

Naeem Sheikh wrote:
> Now that's more than a little uncalled for, don't you think Doug?
> I suppose you have a better professional excuse for commenting on
> puzzles.
>
> Naeem Sheikh
> nsh...@cs.rochester.edu
> http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/nsheikh
>
> P.S. : The last line above should be compiled with -sarcasm
> command line argument.

Anyone has the right to comment, Naeem.  "Better professional
excuse"?  Why you expanded this to other puzzles or 'better
professionalism' is rather amusing.  There are only a few
here at rec.puzzles I consider in that class.

Now can we move on or do you want to continue this?

*******************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------
The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone,
and do not reflect those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------
*******************************************************

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert Matthew Daly 12/18/96 12:00 AM

In article <32B714...@osprey.smcm.edu> Red Chrysler <djon...@osprey.smcm.edu> writes:
>OrbitGuy wrote:
>>
>> Greetings:
>> Hopefully this isn't in the FAQ (so I'm lazy, get over it-if this answer
>> is posted enough maybe the "gry" will die).
>> Anyway, this is the only amswer to the "gry" problem.
>
>Hey Paul-o, if ever read r.p., you would know there is rarely, if ever,
>an "only" answer to a problem.Saying so is settin gyourself up for a
>fall.  In fact, as of this post, your attempt to stop the proliferation
>of this inane puzzle has generated, in this newsgroup alone, 4 posts
>from you, and 8 from others (including myself). Not a very good solution
>to either the -gry puzzle or -gry problem.

Indeed.  The first problem with this puzzle is that there is no solution.
Beneath that, though, is the problem that there are too many solutions.

I don't doubt OrbitGuy's noble intentions in giving us a single answer
to provide to the people who need help, but he is not the first to give
us a "definitive" answer that contains serious flaws.  More importantly,
he is not the first who has volunteered to teach this answer to every
nugry who comes by, which would have to lead me to start killfiling
posters in rec.puzzles, which is something that I've been happy to not
have to do up to this point.

I think we are all in agreement that only two common English words end
in GRY, and thus we can all probably agree that the proliferation of
questions that are phrased in any-ole-way do not have a solution.  I
don't doubt that we're all capable of twisting the question in subtle
ways to each allow our own notion of what a third word would be in a
"fair" way, but let's be clear that doing so is just going to be
confusing to the hundreds of people who come here just to find out
what THE third word is.

-Matthew
--
Matthew Daly             I don't buy everything I read ... I haven't
da...@ppd.kodak.com       even read everything I've bought.

My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer, of course.

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert Doug 12/18/96 12:00 AM

In article <32B4C5...@aol.com>, dated Sun, 15 Dec 1996
19:45:58 -0800, OrbitGuy of XM...@aol.com broke his fingers
while typing ---
->Greetings:

Whatever...

Read this Paul, or Orbitguy or XMDMA.

I'll end this right now.

You state you have the "correct" wording of
the famous gry puzzle.  But, you have made
a gross logical error.

Let me prove it to you...

You have stated that you don't know how
old this puzzle is when you said that
it's been around since maybe tubes.

Since you don't know how long it's been around
or when it started, you don't have the exact
precise and correct original wording of the puzzle.

Therefore, you do NOT have the "correct" wording.

But, perhaps, if you could supply us with your
exact "references" as to where YOU got the
"correct" wording, then YOU could settle this right now.

Otherwise, I can only logically deduce one thing about you.

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert Wei-Hwa Huang 12/18/96 12:00 AM

dk...@raspberry.bbn.com (David Karr) writes:
>Paul E. Burke, Jr. <xm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Yet , by your response, and assuming YOU read the FAQ, it's evident that
>>all the FAQ says is the same thing Vos Savant said (i.e. "the riddle is a
>>hoax").

>Someone suggests you read the FAQ, so rather than do so, you go and
>post again without reading the FAQ.

>Your assumption about what the FAQ says is ill-founded.  It is also
>incorrect, as you would have found out if you'd taken a few moments
>to look for it (it was posted again very recently).  The FAQ says
>(in part) what you said: the riddle is most likely a mangling of
>another riddle that actually had an answer (and it claims the answer
>was the word "language").

It's possible that he confused the archive with the FAQ.  So far as
I know, no one has changed the archive entry to incorporate
"joke" riddles.

--
Wei-Hwa Huang, whu...@ugcs.caltech.edu, http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~whuang/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I came close to seeing Elvis once, but my shovel broke.

Hopefully, the death of "gry" Woody Brison 12/19/96 12:00 AM

xm...@aol.com (XMDMA) [Puzzlicious Paul E. Burke, Jr., Filmmaker] wrote:

> Your post can be interpreted two ways:
> ---------------------------------
> 1) You are saying that you understand my post, but think that it will have
> no effect (i.e. "gry" spammage will still spread), and you are honoring me
> for my " noble cause" in fighting the "stupidity".
>
> If this is the correct interpretation of your post, I say " thanks for the
> support, and please disregard the following...".
> ----------------------------------------------
> or
> 2)You didn't bother to read my post and are trying to flame me, in which
> case I say...

[good stuff snipped, sorry]

No, I wasn't trying to flame you or anybody (except whoever keeps
posting this GRY puzzle maybe).  I was indeed honoring you.  I
probably wasn't clear enough.  I just think that it will never
die.  There is an article <http://jr.ttisms.com/pjf/frog.html>
about the US Government's troubles over a non-existent pamphlet
called "The Love Life of the Frog".  It was basically a mistake,
but once it got going nobody could shut it down.  This thing
seems to me to be similar.  If you could inform all people on
the planet about the GRY puzzle, it wouldn't stop some fools
from posting again, because they weren't listening, or forgot,
or weren't born yet, or maybe they do it for a prank -- hey
let's see how many people we can get irked on rec.puzzles, just
post this:  "Here's a puzzles that been driving me nuts for a
while..."

Hmmm.  Some thought comes to me about a problem in remedial
speech therapy, where the patient was given a set of headphones
and in them heard his own voice, delayed by some amount, one
second or something... cured his stutter immediately.  Maybe
this is a problem that control theory [electrical engineering]
could solve.

Wood

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert Mark van Hoeij 12/19/96 12:00 AM

In <dsfergem-171...@dsfergem.student.harvard.edu> dsfe...@fas.harvard.edu (David Fergemann) writes:

>"I am hungry" is a three word phrase that ends
>in 'gry,' which is not what the puzzle calls for.

So it isn't perfect. OK. But the answer is cleary *much* better than
"aggry" or "nugry". I don't see how anyone can seriously claim "nugry"
to be a real answer or to be a better answer than "I am hungry".

The name of this thread "Hopefully, the death of gry" is correct. The best
way to get rid of a puzzle is to post the solution, and so I'm glad someone
posted the right answer.

Mark van Hoeij

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert David Karr 12/20/96 12:00 AM

Mark van Hoeij <ho...@sci.kun.nl> wrote:
>I don't see how anyone can seriously claim "nugry"
>to be a real answer [...]

I don't think anyone does.  It's a joke, a pun on "newbie."  Personally
I find it rather tedious (sorry, folks!), but I don't take it seriously.

>The name of this thread "Hopefully, the death of gry" is correct. The best
>way to get rid of a puzzle is to post the solution, and so I'm glad someone
>posted the right answer.

I still think the answer in the FAQ (which has been posted weekly
since I forget when) is better, and more plausibly the original answer.
Now it may be our friend's motives were honorable, and I suppose my
own entry to rec.puzzles involved a bit of a faux pas over Monty Hall
so I should be forgiving, but look at the results: a lot more "gry".
Probably it would be better to just forgive and forget the whole thing.

I do wonder, though, if it would be helpful for the FAQ actually to
reconstruct the purported original puzzle, rather than merely giving a
specification to be worked out.

-- David A. Karr (dk...@bbn.com)
   (Not necessarily representing the views of my employer)

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert Mark T. Anderson 12/21/96 12:00 AM

Regarding this "gry" nonsense..

See  http://www.users.interport.net/~words1/gry.html

Makes sense to me.


Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert Scott Haney 12/21/96 12:00 AM

In article <dsfergem-171...@dsfergem.student.harvard.edu> dsfe...@fas.harvard.edu (David Fergemann) writes:
> In article <32B768...@aol.com>, XM...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > But it has
> > an answer that isn't a punctuation trick ("language") nor lame and
> > incorrect ("aggry")
>
> Nevertheless, it relies on a misreading of English syntax, leaving it in
> the same category as the "language" and "what" answers.  Let's look at
> your version again:
>
> > There are three words in the English language that end in gry.
>
> The key words in this sentence are "words" and "end."  Both are the plural
> forms.  "I am hungry" is not three words that end in 'gry.'  (The poor
> grammar in that sentence is intentional, and meant to highlight the
> problem with your puzzle.)  "I am hungry" is a three word phrase that ends
> in 'gry,' which is not what the puzzle calls for.  If you asked me for
> three numbers divisible by 3, and I told you "528," (which is, after all,
> divisible by 3), you'd think I was an idiot.

Another way to put it: the puzzle says `three words in the English
language that end in gry' when it means `a three-word phrase in English
that ends in gry.' So we've exchanged a punctuation trick for a
syntax trick. I do not think this is an inherently better solution.
(Neither is it worse.)

> No one can stop you from doing that.  But the least you can do is to stop
> claiming that your version of the puzzle is the "correct" one.  You have
> absolutely no evidence that your version is more correct than any other.
>

Bingo!


--
Scott Haney           sco...@olivia.cedar-rapids.ia.us
May you die in bed at 95, shot by a jealous spouse.

Hopefully, the death of "gry" Mitzi, la chanteuse 12/21/96 12:00 AM

Woody Brison wrote:
There is an article <http://jr.ttisms.com/pjf/frog.html>
> about the US Government's troubles over a non-existent pamphlet
> called "The Love Life of the Frog".  It was basically a mistake,
> but once it got going nobody could shut it down.

Wouldn't it have been easier for the government to just write the stupid
frog pamphlet? Likewise, can't the anti-gry energy used to discourage
the gry-curious be used to encourage some marketeer of some product to
invent this 3rd gry word for some element of the product?

It's not like the frog pamphlet can't be written or that the word can't
be invented and used. After all, neither effort involves science. And so
what if it's useless? It's collective art. Creating something for which
there is no need but demand exists for it anyway. No, that's effective
advertising...

Sorry for the rambling. Guess I'm just loogry over this gry business.

Hopefully, the death of "gry" -SPOILER alert Matthew Daly 12/23/96 12:00 AM

In article <59db0t$5...@raspberry.bbn.com> dk...@raspberry.bbn.com (David Karr) writes:
>Mark van Hoeij <ho...@sci.kun.nl> wrote:
>>I don't see how anyone can seriously claim "nugry"
>>to be a real answer [...]
>
>I don't think anyone does.  It's a joke, a pun on "newbie."  Personally
>I find it rather tedious (sorry, folks!), but I don't take it seriously.

Well, the purpose is to use the word enough that it comes into "common
use", at which point it becomes a solution.  Ingenious, non?

>>The name of this thread "Hopefully, the death of gry" is correct. The best
>>way to get rid of a puzzle is to post the solution, and so I'm glad someone
>>posted the right answer.
>
>I still think the answer in the FAQ (which has been posted weekly
>since I forget when) is better, and more plausibly the original answer.
>Now it may be our friend's motives were honorable, and I suppose my
>own entry to rec.puzzles involved a bit of a faux pas over Monty Hall
>so I should be forgiving, but look at the results: a lot more "gry".
>Probably it would be better to just forgive and forget the whole thing.

If the whole thing were caused by regulars, I'd agree, and I reach
for the "k" button every time the "was I first to see this one"
monster rears its head.  But people would continue to ask in this
newsgroup as long as people wonder about it and think that we're a
source of the answer.  (We also need to factor in that pissing us
off has got to be known as one of the easiest trolls on Usenet at
this point that we feed every time we reply by posting instead of
email....)

And, for the record, I think that we're on original ground on this
Monty thing for the first time in ages!  :-) :-)

>I do wonder, though, if it would be helpful for the FAQ actually to
>reconstruct the purported original puzzle, rather than merely giving a
>specification to be worked out.

The puzzle is a century old, from what I've heard.  I could well
imagine that it was written by Dudeny who is the kind of guy who
would think that aggry was a common word.  (In the Canterbury
Puzzles, he stated that "pyx" was common....)

At any rate, what the puzzle was at its inception is long lost to us,
and not relevant to the current mutations of the puzzle, which travel
the country without benefit of a solution.

-Matthew
--
Matthew Daly             I don't buy everything I read ... I haven't
da...@ppd.kodak.com       even read everything I've bought.

My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer, of course.

Hopefully, the death of "gry" FINISHED JamesT8763 12/30/96 12:00 AM

This is the answer to the "gry" puzzle.

You need an old dictionary to get a definition of a old word.  
A friend of my father's (His name is Innocenzo Brugnano from St. Clair
Shores Michigan) went into some of his old books and found a Webster's
New Twentieth Century Unabridged Second Addition that was published
in 1965.  I would give an ISBN so you could see it for yourself but
this book doesn't have one. In the first of two volumes on page 807
it states the following:
  _
gry, n. [L. gry, small trifle; Gr. gry, a grunt, a morsel.]

  1. a measure equal to one-tenth of a line. [Obs.]
  2. anything very small, or of little value. [Rare.]

If it was rare and obsolete back in 1965 then it is really gry now. ;)


Hopefully, the death of "gry" FINISHED Carl Witthoft 12/31/96 12:00 AM

In article <19961230192...@ladder01.news.aol.com> james...@aol.com (JamesT8763) writes:
>This is the answer to the "gry" puzzle.
>
>You need an old dictionary to get a definition of a old word.  
>gry, n. [L. gry, small trifle; Gr. gry, a grunt, a morsel.]

Can we tell this guy "No shit, Sherlock."  ?

ObPuzzle: come up with a simple formula to determine the equivalent
taxable interest rate on a tax-free MoneyMarket account (ignoring state
tax for now) for a family in the "disappearing Schedule A" bracket, which
cuts in above $130k or so.  :=( :=(


--
Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates
ca...@aoainc.com   54 CambridgePark Drive, Cambridge,MA 02140 617-864-0201
                        S P Q R

Hopefully, the death of "gry" FINISHED JamesT8763 12/31/96 12:00 AM

Just trying to help. Sorry if it offensive to you.


Hopefully, the death of "gry" FINISHED Seth Breidbart 12/31/96 12:00 AM

In article <5aa4st$k...@gaia.aoainc.com>, Carl Witthoft <ca...@aoainc.com> wrote:

>ObPuzzle: come up with a simple formula to determine the equivalent
>taxable interest rate on a tax-free MoneyMarket account (ignoring state
>tax for now) for a family in the "disappearing Schedule A" bracket, which
>cuts in above $130k or so.  :=( :=(

For every $1.00 your income increases, your taxable income increases
by $1.03 ($1.00 in real income, $0.03 in lost Schedule A deductions).

ObPuzzle: How many different tax brackets are there _really_?

(Hint: How many different deductions phase out, and over what ranges
of income?)

Seth

Hopefully, the death of "gry" FINISHED David Karr 12/31/96 12:00 AM

Seth Breidbart <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>Carl Witthoft <ca...@aoainc.com> wrote:
>
>>ObPuzzle: come up with a simple formula to determine the equivalent
>>taxable interest rate on a tax-free MoneyMarket account (ignoring state
>>tax for now) for a family in the "disappearing Schedule A" bracket, which
>>cuts in above $130k or so.  :=( :=(
>
>For every $1.00 your income increases, your taxable income increases
>by $1.03 ($1.00 in real income, $0.03 in lost Schedule A deductions).

So if a married couple comes up with $140k in "taxable income" on your
form 1040, their actual tax rate is not 31% (the tax bracket from
Schedule Y-1) but 31.93%, that is, $100 additional income would raise
their tax by $31.93.

>ObPuzzle: How many different tax brackets are there _really_?

This is complicated by the fact that the point at which the
Schedule A deduction stops phasing out depends on how much you
would have been able to deduct on Schedule A in the first place.


ObPuzzle:  What's the highest possible tax bracket, and what would
you have to do to get into it?

ObPuzzle:  Consider a family of four consisting of a married couple
and two dependent children.  Suppose the couple earn too little to
be in any "disappearing Schedule A" tax bracket.  What is the highest
possible (marginal) Federal tax rate they might be paying, and about
how much would they have to be making to be subject to that rate?
In other words, what's the bracket with the highest possible rate
for this family?


-- David A. Karr (dk...@bbn.com)
   (Not necessarily representing the views of my employer)

More topics »