Camel Puzzle
Alasdair Stewart
An Arab left his sons his camels in his will in various proportions. He
left HALF of his camels to his eldest son, on THIRD of them to his
second son and one NINETH to his youngest son [and none to his daughters
as they should be in the kitchen cooking and not playing with camels ;-)
]
When he died, he had 17 camels.
The eldest son said "I can not hal eight and a half camels - what good
is half a camel?"
The second son said "And I can not have five and two thirds of a camel,
what good is two thirds of a camel?"
Similarly, the youngest son wasn't content to have one and eight nineths
of a camel.
Luckily, a wise old Arab was passing, how did he help them resolve the
situation?
Yours
Al.
Apologies if this is a common post, but I couldn't find the FAQ.
--
To E-mail, remove '*' from address, i.e. ads...@globalnet.co.uk
_ _ __ ___ __ _ __ ___
/_\ | \ |__ | |__ \ _ / /_\ |__| |
/ \ .|_/ . __| | |__ \/ \/ / \| \ |
S
The passing arab loans the sons one of his camels, so now there are 18.
The passing arab said let us take 1/2 for the eldest which is 9 camels.
Then we take 1/3 to the middle son which is 6 camels.
Finally 1/9 is 2 camels.
9 + 6 + 2 = 17 and the passing arab takes back his camel.
David Pendleton
Alasdair Stewart <ads...@globalnet.co.uk*> wrote:
>An Arab left his sons his camels in his will in various proportions. He
>left HALF of his camels to his eldest son, on THIRD of them to his
>second son and one NINETH to his youngest son [and none to his daughters
>as they should be in the kitchen cooking and not playing with camels ;-)
>]
>When he died, he had 17 camels.
>
>The eldest son said "I can not hal eight and a half camels - what good
>is half a camel?"
>
>The second son said "And I can not have five and two thirds of a camel,
>what good is two thirds of a camel?"
>
>Similarly, the youngest son wasn't content to have one and eight nineths
>of a camel.
>
>Luckily, a wise old Arab was passing, how did he help them resolve the
>situation?
>
If you use the fractions as though there are 18 camels then the oldest
gets 9, 2nd gets 6 and the youngest 2 which adds up to 17 camels
total, the number left by the father.
|\ |>
|/avid |endleton
Shaun
> Luckily, a wise old Arab was passing, how did he help them resolve the
> situation?
The wise old arab took one of his old camels and put it in the group (to
make 18 camels)...
He took half, and gave one son 9... he took one third and gave the other
son 6... and he took one ninth and gave the last son 2... 9 + 6 + 2 =
17... the wise arab grabbed his camel and walked away with a smile.
"How did that work?" some of you might ask... well, if you are to add up
1/2 + 1/3 + 1/9, you get an answer of 17/18 - when the man made his will,
he didn't add up too well... :)
Stephen H. Landrum
Alasdair Stewart wrote:
>
> An Arab left his sons his camels in his will in various proportions. He
> left HALF of his camels to his eldest son, on THIRD of them to his
> second son and one NINETH to his youngest son [and none to his daughters
> as they should be in the kitchen cooking and not playing with camels ;-)
> ]
> When he died, he had 17 camels.
>
> The eldest son said "I can not hal eight and a half camels - what good
> is half a camel?"
>
> The second son said "And I can not have five and two thirds of a camel,
> what good is two thirds of a camel?"
>
> Similarly, the youngest son wasn't content to have one and eight nineths
> of a camel.
>
> situation?
He took all of the camels, because the dead Arab had forgotten to pay
his FAQ tax. It was then easy to divide up the remaining 0 camels.
--
"Stephen H. Landrum" <slan...@3do.com>
Peter Richard
He said lets have camel stew! call the women.
Tom Maciukenas
Alasdair Stewart <ads...@globalnet.co.uk*> wrote:
: An Arab left his sons his camels in his will in various proportions. He
: left HALF of his camels to his eldest son, on THIRD of them to his
: second son and one NINETH to his youngest son [and none to his daughters
: as they should be in the kitchen cooking and not playing with camels ;-)
: ]
: When he died, he had 17 camels.
:
: The eldest son said "I can not hal eight and a half camels - what good
: is half a camel?"
:
: The second son said "And I can not have five and two thirds of a camel,
: what good is two thirds of a camel?"
:
: Similarly, the youngest son wasn't content to have one and eight nineths
: of a camel.
:
: Luckily, a wise old Arab was passing, how did he help them resolve the
: situation?
Unfortunately, after adding a neighbor's camel, dividing up the camels,
then returning the neighbor's camel, son#1 realized that son#2 actually
received 5.88% more camel than he was entitled to. Thus it stood to
reason that son#1 must have received LESS. Vice-versa for everyone
else. The ensuing feud lasted for years, but the daughters didn't
care because the boys were too busy fighting to expect a home-cooked
meal. In fact, all the daughters went to college and now enjoy very
fulfilling careers, and they no longer have to cook dinner unless
they want to.
The neighbor understood that 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/9 doesn't equal 1; thus
the sons and the father were all idiots (like father like son!).
-tomM
Ian Cummins
Alasdair Stewart <ads...@globalnet.co.uk*> wrote in article
<56ven0$6...@reo-pxy-1.reo.dec.com>...
> Luckily, a wise old Arab was passing, how did he help them resolve the
> situation?
>
He lent them a camel.
Ian
rshank
Alasdair Stewart wrote:
>
> An Arab left his sons his camels in his will in various proportions. He
> left HALF of his camels to his eldest son, on THIRD of them to his
> second son and one NINETH to his youngest son [and none to his daughters
> as they should be in the kitchen cooking and not playing with camels ;-)
> ]
> When he died, he had 17 camels.
>
> The eldest son said "I can not hal eight and a half camels - what good
> is half a camel?"
>
> The second son said "And I can not have five and two thirds of a camel,
> what good is two thirds of a camel?"
>
> Similarly, the youngest son wasn't content to have one and eight nineths
> of a camel.
>
> situation?
>
> Al.
>
> Apologies if this is a common post, but I couldn't find the FAQ.
> --
> To E-mail, remove '*' from address, i.e. ads...@globalnet.co.uk
> _ _ __ ___ __ _ __ ___
> /_\ | \ |__ | |__ \ _ / /_\ |__| |
> / \ .|_/ . __| | |__ \/ \/ / \| \ |
Courtesy this mail sent to the originator.
Simple. The camels cannot be split as you say. The wise arab adds his
camel to the 17 to make a total of 18.
He gives half of 18, i.e. 9 to the first son.
He gives one third of 18, i.e. 6 to second son.
He gives one nineth of 18, i.e 2 to third son.
He thus gives 17 to the sons, the balance of 1 he takes back. It is his
camel, right!
Shankar. R
Gerry Quinn
Alasdair Stewart wrote:
>>
>> An Arab left his sons his camels in his will in various proportions. He
>> left HALF of his camels to his eldest son, on THIRD of them to his
>> second son and one NINETH to his youngest son [and none to his daughters
>> as they should be in the kitchen cooking and not playing with camels ;-)
>> ]
>> When he died, he had 17 camels.
>>
No problem, they got 8, 5 and 1 and the daughters cooked all the camel chunks
left over.
- Gerry
----------------------------------------------------------
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Connell
Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> Alasdair Stewart wrote:
> >>
> >> An Arab left his sons his camels in his will in various proportions. He
> >> left HALF of his camels to his eldest son, on THIRD of them to his
> >> second son and one NINETH to his youngest son [and none to his daughters
> >> as they should be in the kitchen cooking and not playing with camels ;-)
> >> ]
> >> When he died, he had 17 camels.
> >>
all you have to do is add one camel to the bunch and take one half of
that - 9. Then take one third of that - 6. Then take one ninth of that
- 2. Add them up and you have 17. The person who added the extra camel
can walk away with his camel and the others are divided correctly.
Melissa
someone who does a bit more than cook! :-)
Murph
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
> >
> > Alasdair Stewart wrote:
> > >>
> > >> An Arab left his sons his camels in his will in various proportions. He
> > >> left HALF of his camels to his eldest son, on THIRD of them to his
> > >> second son and one NINETH to his youngest son [and none to his daughters
> > >> as they should be in the kitchen cooking and not playing with camels ;-)
> > >> ]
> > >> When he died, he had 17 camels.
> > >>
>
You know, the solution seems clever at first, but when you think about how
the sons would have dealt it, it's common solution isn't even needed.
First son: I get half, or 8 1/2 camels. I'll take 9 for now. I think I owe
someone half a camel.
Second son: I get a third, or 5 2/3 camels. I'll take six for now. I owe
someone a third of a camel.
Third son: I get a ninth, or 1 8/9 camels. I'll take two for now. I owe
someone a ninth of a camel.
Since nobody was named as the beneficiary of the last 1/18th of the lot,
they never had to worry about paying what they owed.
Ron Moulton
************************
You all have very imaginitive answers, but obviously the problem can be
solved with simple algebra...
let x = the # of camels he started with
he finished with 17, so:
x - (1/2)x - (1/3)x - (1/9)x = 17
multiply both sides by 18 to get rid of the fractions
18x - 9x - 6x - 2x = 306
x = 306 camels!
Matt Machtan
Ron Moulton <ro...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>You all have very imaginitive answers, but obviously the problem can be
>solved with simple algebra...
>let x = the # of camels he started with
>he finished with 17, so:
>x - (1/2)x - (1/3)x - (1/9)x = 17
>multiply both sides by 18 to get rid of the fractions
>18x - 9x - 6x - 2x = 306
>x = 306 camels!
Wow 306 camels huh......
can you do my tax returns ;-)
joemax
Floyd Smoot wrote:
>
> Hi gerry,
> I use lower case cause it seems to fit. You obviously do not have the
> skills necessary to correctly awnser a puzzle. Forrest Gump said
> "stupid is as stupid does." Whynot learn from that and try to solve a
> puzzle? Instead you seem to think it cool to be a typical asshole.
> Maybe your parents should have been literate enough to correctly spell
> 'JERRY'.
> ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote:
>
> >Alasdair Stewart wrote:
> >>>
> >>> An Arab left his sons his camels in his will in various proportions. He
> >>> left HALF of his camels to his eldest son, on THIRD of them to his
> >>> second son and one NINETH to his youngest son [and none to his daughters
> >>> as they should be in the kitchen cooking and not playing with camels ;-)
> >>> ]
> >>> When he died, he had 17 camels.
> >>>
>
> >left over.
>
> >- Gerry
>
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> > ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
> >----------------------------------------------------------
Give the guy a break Smoot (speaking of names)! How about asking Santa
for a sense of humor for Christmas...
Paul Galoob (not really)
Floyd Smoot
bernie
I can't understand why everybody seems to have gotten this question so
mixed up, look at Ron's posting above, that's ridiculous, everybody
knows that an arab with three sons would have more than 306 camels, more
like 3060.
The answer can be found very easily in the clue that you all seem to
have missed.
You add up the numbers corresponding to the letters in camels as below:
c = 3
a = 1
m = 13
e = 5
l = 12
s = 19
Then you total them up, they equal 53. Then you add the 5 and 3
together.
That totals 8. So they ate the camels, obviuos.
Ah kicking yourself now are you, why you didn't think of that.
Goh Kai Song
That's nonsense, it is stated clearly in the puzzle that the man had 17
camels to start with, now what happened was, a total stranger came along
and added his own camel to the 17, so now the total is 18
Eldest is suppose to get 1/2 of 18 = 9
Second 1/3 of 18 = 6
Youngest gets 1/9 of 18 = 2
So if you care to add up the three figures, 9 + 6 + 2 = 17 the extra one
from the 18 belongs to the stranger.
You realise of course this is wrong mathematically, but then again, this
is supposed to be a brain teaser not a maths problem.
Matt Machtan (impe...@imperiumgames.com) wrote:
: Ron Moulton <ro...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: >You all have very imaginitive answers, but obviously the problem can be
: >solved with simple algebra...
: >let x = the # of camels he started with
: >he finished with 17, so:
: >x - (1/2)x - (1/3)x - (1/9)x = 17
: >multiply both sides by 18 to get rid of the fractions
: >18x - 9x - 6x - 2x = 306
: >x = 306 camels!
: Wow 306 camels huh......
: can you do my tax returns ;-)
;1;1;0
Sandy Morton
joemax <joe...@voyageronline.net> wrote:
> Give the guy a break Smoot (speaking of names)! How about asking Santa
> for a sense of humor for Christmas...
and how about giving him a sense of humour as well :-))))
Sandy Millport
on the bicycle island
Milo Gardner
The 9, 6 and 2 answer is correct mathematically - as Egyptian fractions,
the notation assumed by the puzzle requires.
Note that the puzzle does not add up to 1, one common unit fraction
problem, Thus there is no extra camel for any stranger. A more
ancient view of the problem/solution might
1/2 + 1/3 + 1/9 = x
or 9 + 6 + 2 = 17
Milo Gardner, Sacramento, Calif.
Egyptian fractions is one
of my specialties
On 20 Dec 1996, Goh Kai Song wrote:
>
> That's nonsense, it is stated clearly in the puzzle that the man had 17
> camels to start with, now what happened was, a total stranger came along
> and added his own camel to the 17, so now the total is 18
>
> Eldest is suppose to get 1/2 of 18 = 9
> Second 1/3 of 18 = 6
> Youngest gets 1/9 of 18 = 2
>
> So if you care to add up the three figures, 9 + 6 + 2 = 17 the extra one
> from the 18 belongs to the stranger.
>
what extra camel?
Ian Stewart's Scientific American 'camel' article is silly - seen
as a historical solution. That is, modern mathmaticians have lost
any appreciation of Roman, Greek and Egyptian unit fractions.
All those cultures worked within the domain of rational numbers
my several easy to use conversion method, such as the Greek rule:
n/pq - 1/a = (na -pq)/apq, (equation 1.0)
where q could equal one (defining the n/p case).
Anyone want a definition on how the highly composite number a was
historically chosen such that a short and small last term denominator
can always be chosen (with using Fibonacci or other silly modern
math 'stabs' at reading historical documents like the Akhmim P.
or the Hibeh n/45 table that used equation 1.0 several times.
Gary Hill (Obi One)
Matt Machtan wrote:
After he's done your tax return I'd like to but Manhattan!
Obi One!
Gerry Quinn
In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.96122...@gaia.ecs.csus.edu>, Milo Gardner <gard...@gaia.ecs.csus.edu> wrote:
m the 18 belongs to the stranger.
(hak)
>what extra camel?
>
>Ian Stewart's Scientific American 'camel' article is silly - seen
>as a historical solution. That is, modern mathmaticians have lost
>any appreciation of Roman, Greek and Egyptian unit fractions.
>All those cultures worked within the domain of rational numbers
>my several easy to use conversion method, such as the Greek rule:
>
(chop)
Much of quantum theory relies on virtual particles. Surely this is the 18th
camel?
Milo Gardner
Gerry:
Your humor is imaginary, ha, ha. Mine is exact!
Happy Holidays,
Milo
On Sun, 22 Dec 1996, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.96122...@gaia.ecs.csus.edu>, Milo Gardner <gard...@gaia.ecs.csus.edu> wrote:
> m the 18 belongs to the stranger.
>
> (hak)
>
> >what extra camel?
> >
> >Ian Stewart's Scientific American 'camel' article is silly - seen
> >as a historical solution. That is, modern mathmaticians have lost
> >any appreciation of Roman, Greek and Egyptian unit fractions.
> >All those cultures worked within the domain of rational numbers
> >my several easy to use conversion method, such as the Greek rule:
> >
> (chop)
>
chomp on:
n/pq - 1/a = (na -pq)/apq where the divisors of a are used to compute na -pq,
created. a short and small last term Egyptian fraction series -
However re-stating the 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/9 = x = 17/18 as an Egyptian fraction
problem, in reverse, shows that 9/18 + 6/18 + 2/18 means 9 + 5 + 2 = 17
correct - rational number answer.
Again, there are no virtual particles and quantum theory is a red herring -
why not try fishing somewhere you might catch something?
> Much of quantum theory relies on virtual particles. Surely this is the 18th
> camel?
>
Surely? Wow, you must be a physcist!
Milo Gardner
Hum,
Hi Brian:
I wonder if your university makes typos - obviously
the correct answer is 9 + 6 + 2 = 17 , as proven,
and not as 9 + 5 + 2 ---
Merry Christmas,
Milo
On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Brian Gordon wrote:
> In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.961223...@gaia.ecs.csus.edu> you write:
> >Gerry:
> >
> >Your humor is imaginary, ha, ha. Mine is exact!
> >
> >Happy Holidays,
> >
> >Milo
> >
> >On Sun, 22 Dec 1996, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.96122...@gaia.ecs.csus.edu>, Milo Gardner <gard...@gaia.ecs.csus.edu> wrote:
> >> m the 18 belongs to the stranger.
> >>
> >> (hak)
> >>
> >> >what extra camel?
> >> >
> >> >Ian Stewart's Scientific American 'camel' article is silly - seen
> >> >as a historical solution. That is, modern mathmaticians have lost
> >> >any appreciation of Roman, Greek and Egyptian unit fractions.
> >> >All those cultures worked within the domain of rational numbers
> >> >my several easy to use conversion method, such as the Greek rule:
> >> >
> >> (chop)
> >>
> >
> >chomp on:
> >
> >
> >n/pq - 1/a = (na -pq)/apq where the divisors of a are used to compute na -pq,
> >created. a short and small last term Egyptian fraction series -
> >
> >However re-stating the 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/9 = x = 17/18 as an Egyptian fraction
> >problem, in reverse, shows that 9/18 + 6/18 + 2/18 means 9 + 5 + 2 = 17
> >correct - rational number answer.
> >
> >Again, there are no virtual particles and quantum theory is a red herring -
> >why not try fishing somewhere you might catch something?
> >
>
> I'm not sure I an do my work in a universe where suddenly 9 + 5 + 2 = 17 :-(
> --
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | Brian Gordon -->bri...@netcom.com<-- bgo...@isi.com |
> + AOL: BGordon CompuServe: 70243,3012 +
> -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>
>
Milo Gardner
Everyone seems to like to ignore fractions. The smallest answer is
9, 6, 2. Again, the mathematical technique used comes from Egyptian
fractions, and exact notation that Egyptians may have began in 2000 BC
and detailed in 1650 BC as the RMP 2/nth table records.
Seen as Greeks and Romans saw Egyptian fraction problems
1/2 + 1/3 + 1/9 = 17/18 such that unity is used to solve problem.
That is there are 17 camels that are understood by looking at the
18 camel case, without buying an 18th camel!
Mark Brifman
He merely adds one camel, then divides them in the assigned proportions. After
the division, he has one camel left over - his - which he retrieves and goes on
his way.
Mark
Alasdair Stewart <ads...@globalnet.co.uk*> wrote:
>An Arab left his sons his camels in his will in various proportions. He
>left HALF of his camels to his eldest son, on THIRD of them to his
>second son and one NINETH to his youngest son [and none to his daughters
>as they should be in the kitchen cooking and not playing with camels ;-)
>]
>When he died, he had 17 camels.
>The eldest son said "I can not hal eight and a half camels - what good
Zen Dave
MarkB...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Mark Brifman) wrote:
>He merely adds one camel, then divides them in the assigned proportions. After
>the division, he has one camel left over - his - which he retrieves and goes on
>his way.
>
>>An Arab left his sons his camels in his will in various proportions. He
>>left HALF of his camels to his eldest son, on THIRD of them to his
>>second son and one NINETH to his youngest son [and none to his daughters
>>as they should be in the kitchen cooking and not playing with camels ;-)
>>]
>>When he died, he had 17 camels.
>
>>The eldest son said "I can not hal eight and a half camels - what good
>>is half a camel?"
>>The second son said "And I can not have five and two thirds of a camel,
>>what good is two thirds of a camel?"
>>Similarly, the youngest son wasn't content to have one and eight nineths
>>of a camel.
>>Luckily, a wise old Arab was passing, how did he help them resolve the
>>situation?
Apologies if this is regularly said.
I particularly loathe this puzzle and the "solution". No matter how
many camels you add or subtract from the original number, half of 17
is ALWAYS 8.5 camels, one third is ALWAYS 5 and two thirds, and a
ninth is ALWAYS 1 and eight ninths.
The father's will only deals with 17 eighteenths of the herd(?) i.e.
1/2 + 1/3 + 1/9 = 17/18.
The remaining eighteenth of the herd, or 17 eighteenths of a camel are
allocated to the sons outside the terms of the will. The oldest son
gets half a camel too many, the second son gets a third of a camel too
many, and the third son gets one ninth of a camel too many.
The "solution" means the oldest son is actually getting 52.94% of the
herd (instead of 50%), the second son 35.29% (instead of 33.33%) and
the third son 11.76% (instead of 11.11%).
Perhaps the 17 eighteens of a camel which the sons are STEALING should
go the the soup pots where the neglected daughters are cooking?
The wise old arab is altering the terms of the will (and the
conditions of the puzzle) and finding a half, a third and a ninth of
the herd total PLUS one.
Zen Dave
TRM
Zen Dave wrote:
> Perhaps the 17 eighteens of a camel which the sons are STEALING should
> go the the soup pots where the neglected daughters are cooking?
Stealing from whom?
You are forgetting that the one camel is taken back from the three sons,
restoring the proper proportions.
Mike Naylor
Zen Dave wrote:
>I particularly loathe this puzzle and the "solution". No matter how
>many camels you add or subtract from the original number, half of 17
>is ALWAYS 8.5 camels, one third is ALWAYS 5 and two thirds, and a
>ninth is ALWAYS 1 and eight ninths.
>
>The father's will only deals with 17 eighteenths of the herd(?) i.e.
>1/2 + 1/3 + 1/9 = 17/18.
>
>The remaining eighteenth of the herd, or 17 eighteenths of a camel are
>allocated to the sons outside the terms of the will. The oldest son
>gets half a camel too many, the second son gets a third of a camel too
>many, and the third son gets one ninth of a camel too many.
>
>The "solution" means the oldest son is actually getting 52.94% of the
>herd (instead of 50%), the second son 35.29% (instead of 33.33%) and
>the third son 11.76% (instead of 11.11%).
>
>go the the soup pots where the neglected daughters are cooking?
TRM <diogenes*antispam*@kear.tdsnet.com> wrote:
>Stealing from whom?
>
>You are forgetting that the one camel is taken back from the three sons,
>restoring the proper proportions.
Zen Dave is saying that since the fractions do not add up to one, the
father did not intend to give his entire herd of camels to his sons, and
that one eighteenth of the herd was to go elsewhere.
That's a reasonable way to look at it, but suppose no other heirs were
named in the will. The camels have to go to somebody, so it could be
assumed that although the father couldn't add fractions properly, he wanted
the camels to be distributed among his sons in the ratios indicated by the
relative values of the fractions. So we have 1/2 = 9/18, 1/3 = 6/18, and
1/9 = 2/18. Translate the numerators of these fractions into "shares" and
you have a herd of 17 camels to be divided into 17 shares. 9 go to the
oldest son, 6 to the second son, and 2 to the third son. It's an equitable
division, and of course there's really no need to borrow a camel from
anyone and then give it back.
--
Mike Naylor - myfirstname...@mail.serve.com
Visit Strawberry Macaw's Puzzle page at
http://www.serve.com/games/puzzles.htm
Mark Brader
Zen Dave:
> > I particularly loathe this puzzle and the "solution". No matter how
> > many camels you add or subtract from the original number, half of 17
> > is ALWAYS 8.5 camels, one third is ALWAYS 5 and two thirds, and a
> > ninth is ALWAYS 1 and eight ninths.
> >
> > The father's will only deals with 17 eighteenths of the herd(?) i.e.
Mike Naylor:
> That's a reasonable way to look at it, but suppose no other heirs were
> named in the will. The camels have to go to somebody, so it could be
> assumed that although the father couldn't add fractions properly, he wanted
> the camels to be distributed among his sons in the ratios indicated by the
> relative values of the fractions. ...
The first time I saw the puzzle, the wording given was that a man left
his camels to his sons "in the proportions 1/2, 1/3, and 1/9". Part of
the trick was to figure out that the use of the word "proportion" implies
a treatment similar to what Mike said -- the fractions don't have to add
up to 1 and it's only a coincidence that they nearly do.
Does that version redeem it for you, Zen?
--
Mark Brader The "I didn't think of that" type of failure occurs because
SoftQuad Inc. I didn't think of that, and the reason I didn't think of it
m...@sq.com is because it never occurred to me. If we'd been able to
Toronto think of 'em, we would have. -- John W. Campbell
My text in this article is in the public domain.
M Ivon M
m...@sq.com (Mark Brader) wrote:
>The first time I saw the puzzle, the wording given was that a man left
>his camels to his sons "in the proportions 1/2, 1/3, and 1/9". Part of
>the trick was to figure out that the use of the word "proportion" implies
>a treatment similar to what Mike said -- the fractions don't have to add
>up to 1 and it's only a coincidence that they nearly do.
>Does that version redeem it for you, Zen?
I'm not Zen, but I'd say no. In this version you don't need the extra
camel from the wise man to devide the herd.
M Camel M
GT Cherer
In alt.brain.teasers Charles Carroll <ccar...@nyx.com> wrote:
i have trouble with your distinctly western pedestrian point of
view.
yes, there is one camel left over. but the terms of the will are plain,
and are fulfilled using absolute value math.
half of 3 camels is either 1 camel, or 1 camel and large chunk of camel
fajita. half a camel is not a camel. the old geezer can talk of 'his
camels' in his beneficence, but the heirs cannot talk of a chunk of one as
a portion of a camel except descriptively, 'cause it is no longer a camel.
not all math is meaningful using decimals or fractions, e.g. .8 pregnant
or 3/16ths ignorant.
--
G.T. Jeff Cherer gch...@texas.net
Intellectually, spiritually horny
Wei-Hwa Huang
One particular spin that someone had posted on this newsgroup in the past:
Son 1: I'll just take 9 camels for now. I owe someone half a camel.
Son 2: I'll just take 6 camels for now. I owe someone a third of a camel.
Son 3: I'll just take 2 camels for now. I owe someone a sixth of a camel.
Hmm. No camels left. Everyone owes something to some unspecified
person. Oh well. He can claim his camel pieces, if we can just
figure out who he is. :-)
--
Wei-Hwa Huang, whu...@ugcs.caltech.edu, http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~whuang/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing. -- Engineer's Motto
David Seale
In article <5meug4$j...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
whu...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Wei-Hwa Huang) wrote:
> Son 1: I'll just take 9 camels for now. I owe someone half a camel.
> Son 2: I'll just take 6 camels for now. I owe someone a third of a camel.
> Son 3: I'll just take 2 camels for now. I owe someone a sixth of a camel.
That's not exactly true.
9
+6
+2
----
17
----
As there was 17 camels in the first place, how can the 3 sons each owe
someone pieces of camel that don't exist? If you take 17 and:
1) Take away 9 and a half
2) From that take away 6 and a third
3) From that take away 2 and a sixth
You should be left with minus 1 camel. Nonsense.
I think you DO need the xtra camel from that wise geezer.
--
David
Kevin D. Knerr, Sr.
OK, try it this way:
17 camels to start with.
1/2= 8.5 camels
1/3= 5.6 camels
1/9= 1.8 camels
If each son takes the integer portion, that's 14 camels accounted for,
with 3 camels left over. Each son takes one to make up for the
fractional portion, in effect, rounding up to the next whole camel.
Why? Because 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/9 = 17/18 ! It's as if a part of the herd
(1/18) is missing. (Which is what the extra camel supplies.)
Instead of looking at a herd of camels, consider a pie that is as yet
uncut. You give out slices in the named proportions and you will have a
sliver left over. But if the sliver is already missing, you can either
give 1/2 of the whole pie or 1/2 of the portion that is left.
The twist in this puzzle is that we're not cutting up a whole pie, even
though the problem is worded as if we are.
Barthel
---------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:kkne...@ptdprolog.net *or* mailto:Ld.Ba...@juno.com
PGP Public Key: http://home.ptd.net/~kknerrsr/bapkey.asc
http://home.ptd.net/~kknerrsr
Where would you like Bill Gates to go today?