A really good riddle
Dave Dragon Michaels
>In article <mark-170...@128.157.9.146> ma...@trillian.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Manning) writes:
>> A man not a man saw and did not see a bird not a bird
>> sitting on a stick not a stick and hit it with a stone
>> not a stone.
>
>Hit it with a rock not a rock. Perhaps a clump of mud or dirt that
>just looked like a rock?
STONE not a STONE. There's a difference between the wording. Stone not a
stone might imply a rock that didn't weigh as much as a stone -- the
'stone' being a unit of weight measurement in ancient times. Perhaps a
pebble.
Stick not a stick is still a stumper, though ... maybe a log. ;)
---
/ \ //\
|\___/| / \// .\ dra...@prism.nmt.edu
/O O \__ / // | \ \ Dave Michaels
/ / \/_/ // | \ \ System Programmer
@___@' \/_ // | \ \ "People say I'll get better soon,
| \/_ // | \ \ but I keep telling them, ``I'm
| \/// | \ \ not that kind of dragon!''"
_|_ / ) // | \ _\
The Grim Reaper
>In article <24reo5$3...@news.u.washington.edu> scy...@stein2.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper) writes:
>>In article <mark-170...@128.157.9.146> ma...@trillian.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Manning) writes:
>>> A man not a man saw and did not see a bird not a bird
>>> sitting on a stick not a stick and hit it with a stone
>>> not a stone.
>>
>>Hit it with a rock not a rock. Perhaps a clump of mud or dirt that
>>just looked like a rock?
>
>STONE not a STONE. There's a difference between the wording. Stone not a
>stone might imply a rock that didn't weigh as much as a stone -- the
>'stone' being a unit of weight measurement in ancient times. Perhaps a
>pebble.
>
something? Not as ancient as what he's talking about at least.
>Stick not a stick is still a stumper, though ... maybe a log. ;)
>
Yeah, someone suggested a branch, which sounds good.
>---
>
> / \ //\
> |\___/| / \// .\ dra...@prism.nmt.edu
> /O O \__ / // | \ \ Dave Michaels
> / / \/_/ // | \ \ System Programmer
> @___@' \/_ // | \ \ "People say I'll get better soon,
> | \/_ // | \ \ but I keep telling them, ``I'm
> | \/// | \ \ not that kind of dragon!''"
> _|_ / ) // | \ _\
>
Everyone else has already pointed this out, but nice .sig!
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| One .sig to rule them all, one .sig to find them... |
| One .sig to bring them all and in the darkness bind them |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| The Grim Reaper (Reaper of Souls, Stealer of .sigs) |
| scy...@u.washington.edu |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Andrew Wall
> sitting on a stick not a stick and hit it with a stone
> not a stone.
> Guesses anyone?
Like the riddle, pity I have no idea what it is on about. My only thought is
that "A man not a man" struck me as being: a boy.
As far as the other stuff goes it would be really good to great a few ideas
from other netters out there.
Andrew (wa...@newton.otago.ac.nz)
Sujay Shaunak
>> A man not a man saw and did not see a bird not a bird
>> sitting on a stick not a stick and hit it with a stone
>> not a stone.
>> Guesses anyone?
How about a woman throwing a snowball at a penguin
which is sitting on an ice ledge?
--
----
Sujay S. ---- "Sooge" sk...@ra.msstate.edu
Senior, Computer Engineering Mississippi State University
Shawn M. Asmussen
--
Shawn Asmussen
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Dave Dragon Michaels
>> A man not a man saw and did not see a bird not a bird
>> sitting on a stick not a stick and hit it with a stone
>> not a stone.
>that "A man not a man" struck me as being: a boy.
That's a thought -- I guessed a woman, but boy works, too.
>As far as the other stuff goes it would be really good to great a few ideas
>from other netters out there.
Bird not a bird could be something that flies that is not a bird? A bat,
maybe?
"saw and did not see" could mean the man is blind, but was still able to
locate the bird. But then, how did he know it was sitting on a stick?
Bart Lamiroy
|> This riddle comes to us from ancient Greece and is in one of the
|> books I am reading. I just thought that everyone would like a look
|> at what an ancient riddle looked like. :)
|>
a man not a man : a statue of a man ?
saw and did not see : the statue looks at something, but statues don't acually
'see' things.
bird not a bird/strick not a stick : same as 'man not a man'
stone not a stone : with his hand which is a stone, but represents not a stone
but a hand.
So my guess is :
A statue of a man hitting a bird on a stick.
Bart
|\/\/\/| Bart ... Not Simpson however
| | Lamiroy is the name !
| _ _|
| (o)(o) Bart Lamiroy
C _) lam...@sirius.imag.fr
| |
| '___| Magistere Modelisation
| / Universite Joseph Fourier - Grenoble - France
Tim Glauert
|> >that "A man not a man" struck me as being: a boy.
|>
|> That's a thought -- I guessed a woman, but boy works, too.
Oh dear! Hasn't *anyone* read the Mallorean, by David Eddings?
"The Man who is no Man" ?
Tim.
Lutz Hofmann
--
Ob. Disc: Dies ist kein Flame. --- This is no flame.
Paul M. Liss
A picture / painting of a man throwing a rock at the bird on the branch.
The man in the picture is not a real man, the bird not really a bird, etc.
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Calvin Jestice
>This riddle comes to us from ancient Greece and is in one of the
>books I am reading. I just thought that everyone would like a look
>at what an ancient riddle looked like. :)
>
>
> A man not a man saw and did not see a bird not a bird
> sitting on a stick not a stick and hit it with a stone
> not a stone.
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I sat upon the sands of time. Watching the world. And through my fingers
>it all ran. Like life. Forever slipping away. - Mark Manning
>
>ma...@trillian.jsc.nasa.gov
Eunich, bat, petrified wood, pumice.
Cal Jestice
cal...@ecs.comm.mot.com
If you bet on a horse - that's gambling
If you bet you get three spades - that's entertainment
If you bet cotton will go up three points - that's business
See the difference?
--
K.D. Colagio
->
-> Riddle:
->
-> A man not a man saw and did not see a bird not a bird
-> sitting on a stick not a stick and hit it with a stone
-> not a stone.
->
-> Guesses anyone?
->
A boy cut out the shape of a bird on a stick (making a cane) and
then either:
1) used it (stone being the ground) or
2) chopped off the top (stone being the head of an axe...metal)
Am I close?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Kevin Colagio aka KDC...@ultb.isc.rit.edu KiLar on IRC
Bear code? You think I know what that is? B2/4 w g++ K s- h+ r
Finger kdc...@ultb.isc.rit.edu public pgp key and misc stuff...
One man's perversion is another man's persuasion --me
Make it "Equal Rights" and I'll agree. Silence ~= Death
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
James R. Goodfriend
writes:
> wa...@newton.otago.ac.nz (Andrew Wall) writes:
>
> >> A man not a man saw and did not see a bird not a bird
> >> sitting on a stick not a stick and hit it with a stone
> >> not a stone.
>
> >> Guesses anyone?
>
> How about a woman throwing a snowball at a penguin
> which is sitting on an ice ledge?
>
Jin Kim
|> A man not a man saw and did not see a bird not a bird
|> sitting on a stick not a stick and hit it with a stone
|> not a stone.
|>
How about adding a lot of punctuations?
A man, not a man saw, (i.e. no one was able to see)
and did not see a bird,
not a bird sitting on a stick, (did not see a bird on a stick)
not a stick, (did not see a stick)
and hit it with a stone (i.e. hit the bird)
not a stone (i.e. did not hit the stone)
Just a guess
Jin Kim
jk...@socrates.ss.uci.edu
paulhicks
A man not a man saw and did not see a bird not a bird
sitting on a stick not a stick and hit it with a stone
not a stone.
Ok, let me jump in,
> A man not a man saw and did not see a bird not a bird
A woman saw a shadow of a bird (thereby seeing a bird but
not a bird)
> sitting on a stick not a stick and hit it with a stone
not a stone.
This bird was sitting on a branch (as was discussed earlier) and
the woman threw a pebble at it.
Anyway , my 2 cents
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
|"...and on the eigth day god created the Sauter Mean Diameter." |
| - D.W.Senser |
+-Paul G. Hicks...@mace.cc.purdue.edu--phicks@mn.ecn.purdue.edu-+
Jonas Schlein
> sitting on a stick not a stick and hit it with a stone
> not a stone.
A man and not a man could be a boy, a woman, or a man-like figure as stated.
As for see and not see I have two ideas neither of which was posted.
Blindness is one and a dream is the other.
I'm stumped on the rest *grin*
Is the original poster going to give the answer or is there none?
--
Jonas Schlein
sch...@umbc.edu
Brian Leybourne
: Riddle:
:
: A man not a man saw and did not see a bird not a bird
: sitting on a stick not a stick and hit it with a stone
: not a stone.
Hmmm... Man not a man could be a boy, Seeing and not seeing could be seeing a
picture of or a reflection of the bird. Bird not a bird is perhaps something
which is flightless but still a bird (like the native kiwi here in NZ). A stick
not a stick could be anything (tree, log, stump etc), and a stone not a stone
perhaps errr... dunno actually :-)
Or of course, the whole thing could be a picture (A picture of a man is a man
but also not a man etc)
--
As the flames climbed high into the night, | Brian S. Leybourne
To light the sacrificial rite, | br...@onyx.kiwi.gen.nz
I saw Satan laughing with delight, | or: br...@crfm.gen.nz
The day the music died. | or: shout REAL LOUD!
K.D. Colagio
-> (Mark Manning) writes:
-> : Riddle:
-> :
-> : A man not a man saw and did not see a bird not a bird
-> : sitting on a stick not a stick and hit it with a stone
-> : not a stone.
->
-> be seeing a picture of or a reflection of the bird. Bird not a
-> bird is perhaps something which is flightless but still a bird
-> (like the native kiwi here in NZ). A stick not a stick could be
-> anything (tree, log, stump etc), and a stone not a stone perhaps
-> errr... dunno actually :-)
->
A common thing I see is that people are taking "saw" (...not a man
saw and did not...) as in visual...what if it weren't?
saw...verb...to cut wood. This could then be a carving (like I
posted earlier...) in which case
a boy cut (out of wood) a shape of a bird (that is not actually a
_bird_, but rather a figure) that is sitting on a stick (not a
stick...maybe a cane [aka a walking stick]), and hit (or struck) it
with a stone (dirt is a stone) meaning used it to walk along the
road/path/whatever...
a boy (or a woman) cut the shape of a bird on the end of the
walking stick and used it to walk along the road.
Barbara Haddad
> This riddle comes to us from ancient Greece and is in one of the
> books I am reading. I just thought that everyone would like a look
> at what an ancient riddle looked like. :)
>
> Riddle:
>
> A man not a man saw and did not see a bird not a bird
> sitting on a stick not a stick and hit it with a stone
> not a stone.
>
> Guesses anyone?
>
Hmm, a woman sees the reflection of a flamingo standing on its one
stick-like leg and thru the stone of a fruit (its pit) at it. How's
that?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Haddad - mel...@shakala.com
Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA +1-408-734-2289
Kathleen Goldfein
Alright! I think enough time has passed that it's time for the original poster
to give the ansewr...
For what it's worth, I like the idea of a reflection for seeing and not seeing.. I have a problem with the idea of it being a pun on the verb "saw" as in to
saw wood because
1)it's not grammatical
2) wasn't this a translation from Greek? That would sort of tend to eliminate
any puns, as far as I'm concerned.
Perhaps a woman costumed as a bird gazes at her reflection in a wooden bowl
until she drops in a pebble to distort the image?
Alright, alright, I'm grasping at straws. So post the answer already!
-Jocelyn
--
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX kath...@netcom.com XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X QOTW: hear ye!the godless are the dull and the dull are the damned! X
X -e.e. cummings X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Ragnar Krempel
> sitting on a stick not a stick and hit it with a stone
> not a stone.
One thing about a riddle is that there is a question that has to be
awnsered. Since there isn't one here, this must be
a riddle not a riddle
Wich would solve all problems.
RTK
Mark Manning
For everyone who sent me requests (and to whom I responded) I will now
post the answer to this ancient riddle.
But first a side note: This riddle is impossible for anyone to figure
out. The reasons are two: 1)It is to esoteric and therefore many different
things could fit the description, and 2)We are not the ancient Greeks and
how we look at things is not how they looked at things.
The first reason is fairly straight forwards but it is the second which
gets everyone. A lot of people do not stop and think about it, but things
have changed drastically since the time of the ancient Greeks. To be
exact - how we categorize things is greatly different. And, as you will
see, this is why no one today could answer this riddle without knowing
the answer in advance.
So now to the riddle. Let's take it apart.
> A man not a man saw and did not see a bird not a bird
> sitting on a stick not a stick and hit it with a stone
> not a stone.
The riddle breaks apart into five parts. These are:
1. A man not a man
2. saw and did not see
3. a bird not a bird
4. sitting on a stick not a stick
5. and hit it with a stone not a stone
So the questions become:
1. When is a man not a man?
2. When do you see something but not really see it?
3. When is a bird not a bird?
4. When is a stick not a stick?
5. When is a stone not a stone?
or they become this:
1. What kind of a man is not a man?
2. If you saw something but didn't really see it then what did
you do?
3. What kind of a creature looks like a bird but isn't?
4. What kind of plant looks like a stick but isn't?
5. What kind of stone looks like a stone but isn't?
The first three, with some thought, can be deduced (along with several
"no"'s along the way of course :) ).
1. A eunuch is a man who is not a man.
2. The person was mistaken in what they saw.
3. A bat is a creature which looks like a bird but isn't.
However, the last two can not be easily deduced because they are
outside of the normal bounds within which most people operate.
4. A reed is a kind of plant which looks like a stick.
5. Pumice is a kind of stone which (according to how the Greeks
looked at it) isn't.
It is the last part which no one could ever guess. The reason is,
is because we (meaning modern man) categorize pumice as a type of
stone. The Greeks didn't. They categorized it more as sand or grit
which had hardened into a stone-like consistency.
Therefore, the answer to the riddle is:
A eunuch saw a bat sitting on a reed and hit it with
a piece of pumice.
Now everyone can say "WHAT A STUPID RIDDLE!" and go on to something
better. No? Heh. I DID say it was a children's riddle from ancient
Greece didn't I? Later.
Patrick Rannou
Therefore, the answer to the riddle is:
A eunuch saw a bat sitting on a reed and hit it with
a piece of pumice.
Now everyone can say "WHAT A STUPID RIDDLE!" and go on to something
better. No? Heh. I DID say it was a children's riddle from ancient
Greece didn't I? Later.
The riddle is not stupid. What is stupid is believing that the ANSWER of
the riddle actually defines the QUESTION.
i.e. that there is one and only one valid answer.
Example of that taken to a bit of an example:
Sphinx: "Something that is not a thing"
Man: "Huh, easy... Life! You can talk about life
just like you can talk about something else, so in
a way it is kind of a "something", but it is surely not a thing."
Sphinx: "Wrong answer. Prepare to be eaten!"
Man: "Hey, no fair! I *did* answer that riddle!"
Sphinx: Scrunch munch burp.
I find the previous kind of riddle very disappointing. In fact, your
"riddle" should actually be taken as FIVE separate riddles that have
absolutely NO CONNECTION whatsoever with each other. If you look at a real
book of riddles, you can easily see that a good riddle is one where each
sentence of it is relevant to THE answer, as in "we are always talking
about the same thing here".
If your answer is truly "An eunuch tought he saw a bat and..." then what
you are talking about is NOT each of these individual things, but the whole
situation. i.e. the riddle isn't about a man, about seeing, about a bird,
nor about a stick or a stone. It is about a "situation" that is an EVENT.
It's the combination of these components which is the answer of the riddle.
In that way, the riddle's sentences don't talk *directly* about it's answer
at all.
Ergo, this is not a valid riddle.
If that was to be a valid riddle, then ANYONE can ask anything and it's a
riddle.
Stupid Example: "A man not a man went to a house not a house for a
challenge not a challenge".
Stupid answer: "A boy (man not man) went to a school (house of knowledge
not a real house) to pass an exam (a kind of challenge).
Duh and MEGA duh.
Maybe it was a boy's riddles in ancient Greece. Hey, maybe the answer to
the "Why did Ancient Greece disappear?" is not time but instead your riddle
is the answer... i.e. with the belief that the answer defines the way a
question should be answered, a society that convoluted can't hope to
survive for long, but it will surely show up a strange amount of talent!
This stupid thread has gone on far enough. What I suggest is removing from
the "Net Books of Riddles" every riddle that obviously can accept multiple
answers and where a specific "original" answer is given as the only one.
i.e. you say "When is a man not a man?" and say the answer is an eunuch.
BULLSHIT! A boy fits the answer too, a woman too, because by our
definitions a woman is part of the human race, thus, "a man" could be used
in the generic sense there, so you see that whenever a riddle is posed
where the answer varies *but still is there* according to the specific
culture of the answerer, and that an answerer can find multiple answers
without too much trouble, this is the telltale sign that there is something
VERY WRONG andthat it is NOT a valid riddle.
A valid riddle, a GOOD riddle, is one where you search for the answer and
search and search, and when you think you found one answer (but not the
good one) you still aren't sure of yourself, but when someone give you the
GOOD answer, or if you find the good one, your mind blow up with insight
and you then say "oh but OF COURSE! Why didn't I think of it before?!?".
Any riddle that make most people think "What a STUPID riddle" when they are
finally given the (impossible to find because too many solutions exist)
answer, is probably a non-valid riddle, and surely a very bad riddle
anyway.
Hey, with your kind of riddles, I know I wouldn't have trouble finding
food! Of course, Every one of my victims would feel cheated...
In my campaign, Sphinxes derive magic power from people they eat via the
horror the person feel while being eaten AND KNOWING THAT THEY COULD HAVE
SURVIVED. i.e. you need the kind of riddles that make people say "oh but OF
COURSE!!! Why didn';t i think the answer before (or at all)?" to get your
food.
That is why sphinxes always try to make a riddle just a tiny weeny bit
tougher than what their "victim" can think. i.e. if they throw a real hard
riddle to a stupid fighter, when the sphinx say the answer (after the
fighter failed to answer), the fighter will most probably think that he had
NO chance to answer properly and thus feel cheated, which will not produce
the same kind of horror than when the fighter see that he COULD have found
the answer and be safe instead will be dinner. That is why sometimes a
sphinx ask a riddle that is too easy: the sphinx mistakenly believed the PC
to be too lowly intelligent and asked badly.
In my campaign, there is a dream world where riddles are weapons, and
stories are money. You can pay for passage through a bridge by telling the
bridge guardian a story, or you can "kill" the same guardian in a riddle
match. Of course, a riddle never directly kills, nor do damage. Only, if
one doesn't obey the laws of a riddle match, the greater powers of that
plane will notice it, and THEN you will die... >;-> thus, a riddle match
becomes a good alternative to an actual bloody fight. Especially if you are
intelligent and limited in weapon skills. Usually, tough, a guardian will
use the riddle law that only one riddle is needed, and it is asked by the
guardian. Only one may answer for the whole group who wish to pass. Nobody
can help him. If he fail the whole group must go away, and even sometimes
pay something to the guardian so he will forget they ever came. i.e. a
guardian is duty-bound to tell it's master of all who tried to pass, but the
law is that if the guardian receive a reasonnable gift he is honor-bound to
keep this to himself, and this takes precedence. Of course, just what is
"reasonnable" may vary upon each guardian and each visitor. i.e. the
guardian of a remote passage that one can easily wlak around isn't going to
ask for big gifts, but the guardian guarding the entrance to a castle is
going to need a big enticement if his master's blood enemy want to make the
guardian "forget" he ever tried to pass...
Some riddles are asked to give the PCs a chance to escape alive from a
predator, but refusing the riddle makes one cursed (thus,
fleeing from a sphinx is a bad idea because you get automatically cursed).
Other guardians will fight anyway, and just ask the riddle to improve their
chances. i.e. the PCs who succeed at the riddle will have to fight the
guardian anyway, so some players might think why not directly go to the
fighting match? Simple: the poweer behind a riddle-spell of such a levwel
is great, and refusing to take part in the riddle makes you cursed. i.e.
Say, if you attack, you will suffer exactly the same to hit penalty as if
you failed to solve the riddle (say, -4 to hit, and -1 to damage). In
short, a riddle-spell is kind of more powerful than a bless/curse spell but
there is a kind of saving throw: answering the riddle! This kind of magic
is interesting because it is different than magic. i.e. these spells are
INNATE and are backup up but divine powers. This means that eveb if you
have magic resistance, it doesn't count. It's not "magic", it's something
much more primordial than magic.
Have fun.
--
/---------------------------\
| Patrick "Paradak" Rannou. |
| Ran...@info.polymtl.ca |
\---------------------------/
Kathleen Goldfein
[EIGHT PAGES of responses to the riddle banished to the netherworld where they
belong]
Y'know, Pak, for someone who was flaming other posters not too long ago for
wasting bandwidth, you're leaving yourself awfully open to flames...
:-) for the humor impaired
-Jocelyn
Patrick Rannou
Patrick Rannou writes:
Well, winter is coming, ya know. I have to make some reserve for those
freezing nights. ( saying this, I put up my Bag of Flame Capturation ).
:-)
Patrick Rannou
Uh - no. Neither "woman" or "boy" would fit correctly. Remember that
they are speaking in absolutes. Therefore you know it is a man. Children
were considered to simply be small men and if it had been a woman, then
they would have said woman.
Who "they"????
*I* am the one the riddle is asked, so *I* can damn well use my definition
(according to my culture) of a man to solve the riddle and I am perfectly
elligible to do so!
An example why I find the original riddle totally stupid:
Suppose the riddle is:
"Something Red and Round"
And then you answer "An apple!" and me, the sphinx, say "wrong answer: it
was a red ball!" and then proceeds to eat you, wouldn't you feel a tiny
weeny bitCHEATED? I know I would (if I was the guy being eaten up).
Conclusion: Riddles that readily have several different answers according
to the culture of the one hearing the riddle, heck, even several answers
that seem very logical according to evben a single culture, are BAD
riddles, and should not exist, and those thinking these are good riddles
should see their Shield of Flame Deflection confiscated, and then the
Computer should order them to go as fast as possible toward the nearest
Target practice room to assist with the current lack of available targets.
Patrick Rannou
Well, I read your rather long chest thumping and had to ask a couple of
questions. First, what do you care? As I pointed out when I posted it,
the riddle is not of my making but of the ancient Greeks. I also stated
that it was very hard to figure out. Then I went through and showed why
the riddle was impossible to answer in this day and age, gave the answer,
and why the answer was what it was. I found out the riddle was impossible
to answer because I asked a lot of people and no one could answer it. Not
one in five, not one in ten, fifty, or hundred. No one.
OK. But that was kinda previsible, don't you think?
Second, the net.book.riddles is a compendium of riddles from many sources.
I do not reject any riddle so long as it fits into what I consider a
riddle to be. And since Tolkien showed a riddle can be a simple
question such as "What have I got in my pocket?"; you may find ANY kind
of a riddle in the n.b.r.
OK. I agree. Still, "What I have I got in my pocket?" is so bad a riddle
that I would, if I had been gollum, immediately attacked our poor hobbit!!!
So, so far as the removal of any
riddles from the n.b.r goes - forget it.
Yers. i'ts better to let each person make his/her own judgments. I got the
n.b.r. I sifted through it, and deleted over 75% of it because it was
plain trash. Still, I managed to get 25% of interesting stuff in there.
What you don't like, someone else
may think is wonderful.
Goo for them.
Use what you like, draw happy faces where you
will, and burn the rest.
OK. :-)
Third, it is great to hear how you handle sphinxes and other things,
but do you have to do it by climbing on my back and saying your
way is better?
Sorry. It *was* kinda late.... :-)
To correct you though, the riddle is not all that vague IF you remember
that the Greeks were very straight forwards in their speech and used
many absolutes.
OK, agreed. Still, it was kind of hard. Did you specify it was a
"specifically GREEK riddle" in the original post? If you did, OK, if not,
then of course everybody will answer different things!
Lastly, who ever said there was one absolute answer to the riddle? I have
posted what THE answer was in the book. Why not write to Plato and
chide him?
:-) Yeah, why not? Can I borrow your time-machine, please? I've got a
reality-check to do with Plato.
Hey, actually, I'm sure such a discussion with him would be quite
interesting...
Or better yet - write to W.H.D. Rouse and complain to him.
Too bad i didn't keep a copy of that post. I'm too lazy to tye it again...
After all, he is the one who wrote the book I am reading. It's called
"Great Dialogues of Plato" by W.H.D.Rouse. I'm sure he'd be very
interested in hearing from someone who insists there must be alternate answers to
every riddle ever devised.
Not every. Anyway, this riddle, being put back in it's proper context,
doesn't seem so bad. i.e. One would expect a book by Plato to contain
riddles that actually have only one meaning.
Anyway, I dislike riddles that are of the "many components' type. i.e. Is
there a reason why the eunuch and the bat are in the same riddle? No, not
at all. thus, the "riddle" is actually 5 separate riddles. I just don't
like the "hey, here's a question: what is the answer to the mutliplication
of A by B for all values of A and B from 1 to 10?" i.e. if you want to pose
me a question, pose one where there is ONE answer...
That said, I must again apologise for the flaming I did; after all, you
originally posted the riddle in all good tought.
As for myself, I'm going to take a more common sense approach. After all,
how many times in your life have you had someone come up to you and
threaten to kill you if you don't answer a riddle? So get a life. I
didn't need the diatribe against myself or the riddle.
huh, this *is* rec.games.frp, so I'll just ask you a "riddle", OK?
"How many times have frpg adventurers have got to answer a riddle of else
face a life threatening situation???"
:-) Geez, not another "get a lifer!" Don't they read the star trek
newsgroup: there is a regular automated post that says just HOW one does
have to do a correct "get a life" flame posting. Gee, you didn't even use
all caps, nor tell me how to get a life, nor anything else like that.
I think your post gets a 1/10 on the "get a life" post scale.
:-) for the humor impaired.
P.S. Yes, it's 2 AM...
Stuart MacMartin
>
>An example why I find the original riddle totally stupid:
>
>Suppose the riddle is:
>
>"Something Red and Round"
>
>And then you answer "An apple!" and me, the sphinx, say "wrong answer: it
>was a red ball!" and then proceeds to eat you, wouldn't you feel a tiny
>weeny bitCHEATED? I know I would (if I was the guy being eaten up).
>
>Conclusion: Riddles that readily have several different answers according
>to the culture of the one hearing the riddle, heck, even several answers
>that seem very logical according to evben a single culture, are BAD
>riddles, and should not exist
Then you would hate my dungeons. Virtually every dungeon has a wandering
soothsayer who speaks in "riddles". Something like:
"Build a fire on the beach. The rocks will take you home."
or
"Deep inside Havel Pass
Elandis rules.
Lured by the treasure that Pavel has:
Jorlain's lures."
Now these aren't riddles in the sense of "What has 4 wheels and flies?",
but by the time the dungeon is over, they make sense. Sometimes the
characters don't connect what's happening around them with the riddle
until too late; other times they catch on, and avert disaster.
(The "rocks" were rocs - yes, I know that's an English homonym, but
I just assume there is a similar confusion in common.)
(The "Deep inside..." riddle is particularly twisted but quite
straight-forward when you understand it. I can't explain it just yet
because someone might be listening... but I can say that "deep inside"
is underground, within Havel Pass; Jorlain was a king from long ago,
and Elandis is an Ellessit, the true line of kings. Doesn't help much?
I didn't think so. You need to see something else to understand the
riddle.)
Many of these riddles have many interpretations. But only one is valid
because only one will come to pass.
And it took 3 soothsayers in different adventures before one character
caught on: the riddle was buried in a conversation:
adventure 4:
"That's a nice sword you have there. I'd concentrate on that,
if I were you."
Player: "Yes, it is a nice sword. What can you tell me about it?"
adventure 5:
"You have bows, a long sword *and* a bastard sword? You have great
skill at the bow and the long sword, but I'd concentrate on the
bastard sword if I were you."
Player: "I intend to."
adventure 9:
"That's a nice sword you have there. I'd concentrate on that,
if I were you."
Player: "Ok, I concentrate on the sword..."
Stuart
--
== Stuart MacMartin s...@bnr.ca Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, CANADA
== Standard disclaimers apply
James Smith
think which play it could be. Does Punch do something like this in
punch and Judy? I don't think so.
Jim
--
James J Smith | "I couldn't get over it. All these women
School of Engineering | in the world...and under their clothes
Newcastle University | each and every one of them was naked, you
en...@cc.newcastle.edu.au | know..." -- Psycho-killer, "Sandman"
THE MAN WITH ONE BRAIN
hang out on rec.puzzles and snag a really rough puzzle. or just an easy one
and give it a time limit...
a recent one was:
a woman has to walk to the store, which is 2 miles away. she walks the first
mile at 1 mph. how fast must she walk the second mile to make her average 2
mph?
answer follows.....
she can't. it already took her 1 hour!
snag!
ok. I guess that means I get to eat the poor little paladin!
lee
Eric Fulton
btw, 1 mph is SLOW..i'm pretty sure a normal person walks at 3-4 mph :)
efulton.
Clayton Colwell
In article <RANNOU.93A...@quine.info.polymtl.ca>, Ran...@info.polymtl.ca (Patrick Rannou) writes:
> In article <mark-230...@128.157.9.145> ma...@trillian.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Manning) writes:
>
>
> Uh - no. Neither "woman" or "boy" would fit correctly. Remember that
> they are speaking in absolutes. Therefore you know it is a man. Children
> were considered to simply be small men and if it had been a woman, then
> they would have said woman.
>
> Who "they"????
>
> *I* am the one the riddle is asked, so *I* can damn well use my definition
> (according to my culture) of a man to solve the riddle and I am perfectly
> elligible to do so!
>
> An example why I find the original riddle totally stupid:
>
> Suppose the riddle is:
>
> "Something Red and Round"
>
> And then you answer "An apple!" and me, the sphinx, say "wrong answer: it
> was a red ball!" and then proceeds to eat you, wouldn't you feel a tiny
> weeny bitCHEATED? I know I would (if I was the guy being eaten up).
Read Zelazny's "Trumps of Doom" series. Merlin (Corwin's son) comes
across such an encounter and (successfully) argues that, as he had
come up with an answer that satisfied the conditions of the riddle,
that he should pass unmolested. (Of course, his sword skill and
magic enhanced his success dramatically!)
--
Clay Colwell "If homosexuality is a disease, then let's all call
arch...@vnet.ibm.com in queer to work." - Robin Tyler
IBM Austin, TX Disclaimer: This is *Clay* talkin', not IBM.
Pitt Crandlemire
>mile at 1 mph. how fast must she walk the second mile to make her average 2
>mph?
L>she can't. it already took her 1 hour!
L>snag!
>ok. I guess that means I get to eat the poor little paladin!
Guess not...
The total duration of her trip wasn't mentioned as being limited in any
way. Therefore, she only has to do the last mile at 3 mph to average
2 mph for the entire journey.
Mile 1 # 1 mph
Mile 2 @ 3 mph
Total time = 1 hour 20 minutes
Average speed = 2 mph
Now then, what treasure does your puzzling sphinx have for my Wizard?
dk...@cas.org
> L>a woman has to walk to the store, which is 2 miles away. she walks the first
> >mile at 1 mph. how fast must she walk the second mile to make her average 2
> >mph?
>
> L>she can't. it already took her 1 hour!
>
> L>snag!
> >ok. I guess that means I get to eat the poor little paladin!
>
> Guess not...
>
> The total duration of her trip wasn't mentioned as being limited in any
> way. Therefore, she only has to do the last mile at 3 mph to average
> 2 mph for the entire journey.
Yes it was, you just didn't see it. If the store is 2 miles away and you
average 2 miles per hour then you can't take longer than an hour to get
there. And if she walked the first mile at 1 mile per hour then she would
have to travel at an infinite speed to travel the second mile in 0 time.
>
> Mile 1 # 1 mph
> Mile 2 @ 3 mph
> Total time = 1 hour 20 minutes
> Average speed = 2 mph
>
> Now then, what treasure does your puzzling sphinx have for my Wizard?
No, no, if you travel mile 1 at 1 mph and mile 2 at 3 mph then your total
time is correct, 1 hour and 20 minutes, but since you have traveled 2 miles
in 1 hour and 20 minutes then your average speed would be 1.5 miles per hour.
(1.5 mph * 1.333333333... hours = 2 miles).
Dave.
ISVAX 7750 BULIAVAC 23882
Sorry, the first poster was correct. This is a typical college freshman
physics problem.
You don't calculate average speed by averaging speeds at different times.
Average speed = Total distance / Total time
For your numbers:
Average speed= 2 miles / 1.3333 hours = 1.5 miles/hour
This might not look correct to you at first, but look at this way.
The woman walked 1 mph for 60 minutes
She walked 3 mph for 20 minutes.
You could weight the 1 mph speed by a factor of 3 and compute the average.
In other words, take 20 minutes as a time unit. She spend 3 units at 1 mph
and 1 unit at 3 mph.
Average speed = (1+1+1+3)/4 = 1.5 mph, as above.
------------------------------------------------------
Greg Buliavac
buli...@puma.litc.lockheed.com
Nothing is impossible. Some things just haven't been
done yet.
Stuart MacMartin
How about a laser splitting your brain in half vertically?
If you take 1hr 20 minutes to travel 2 miles, you have gone
2 miles per (hour and 20 minutes), not 2 miles per hour.
This is a standard trick question.
The correct solution (DM dependent?) is: teleport (infinite speed).
ISVAX 7750 BULIAVAC 23882
riddle is that she cast teleport to return home instantaneously, thus
covering 2 miles in 1 hourm for an average speed of 2 mph.
Ron Servant
Your logic (or actually your math) is flawed.
speed = distance / time
we need to know how much time was spent traveling and then we can find her
average speed.
first mile 1 mph, second mile 3 mph.
So total time = time for first mile + time for second mile
time for first mile = 1 hour
time for second mile = 20 minutes (or 1/3 hour)
total time = 1 and 1/3 hour
average speed = 2 miles / (1 and 1/3 hour)
= (aproximately) 1.53 mph
The time isn't mentioned as being a limiting factor becasue that is what
the riddle is all about! You have to realize that she cannot travel fast
enough to reach the store with an average speed of 2 miles per hour.
Here is an abstract proof for you.
average speed = distance / time (1)
let distance = 2 miles
then from (1) we get
average speed = 2 miles / time (2)
we want average speed to be 2 mph so from (2) we get
2 mph = 2 miles / time (3)
=>
time = 2 miles / 2 mph (4)
=>
time = 1 hour (5)
Now since she has already traveled for an hour it is impossible to obtain
an average speed of 2 mph.
So the obvious conclusion is that your wizard has become a side dish ;-)
#include <std.disclaimer>
--
Ron Servant University of Waterloo Computer Science
rser...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca | Information Systems
Sea Wasp
>In article <40.11447.22...@channel1.com>, pitt.cra...@channel1.com (Pitt Crandlemire) writes:
>|> L>a woman has to walk to the store, which is 2 miles away. she walks the first
>|> >mile at 1 mph. how fast must she walk the second mile to make her average 2
>|> >mph?
Simple. Instead of taking a straight route, the woman takes a
detour which adds 2 miles onto her distance, and walks this entire
3-mile length in 1 hour, thus having traveled 4 miles in 2 hours, for
an average speed of 2 miles per hour.
Nothing was said about limiting either time OR distance... :)
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
craig sivils
There is another answer. You state that the distance between the two
destination points is two miles and then make the assumption that the lady
travels in a straight line. If the lady were to travel say due north, due east
then due south. North 1 mile, east 2 two miles and south one mile, the trip
would now be long enough that the the lady could make up for lost time.
Remember speed is distance traveled per hour, not progress made.
So now theres two answers huh?
Craig
dk...@cas.org
> EXCUSE ME!!!!
>
> There is another answer. You state that the distance between the two
> destination points is two miles and then make the assumption that the lady
> travels in a straight line. If the lady were to travel say due north, due east
> then due south. North 1 mile, east 2 two miles and south one mile, the trip
> would now be long enough that the the lady could make up for lost time.
No the original poster didn't say that the distance between the two points was
two miles they said that the TOTAL distance traveled is two miles. The
relevant part of the post follows:
>>a woman has to walk to the store, which is 2 miles away. she walks the first
>>mile at 1 mph. how fast must she walk the SECOND mile [my emphesis] to make
>>her average 2 mph.
Notice that she has only traveled 2 miles, 1 mile at 1 mph and the second mile
at x mph. The question was what does x have to be for her average speed to be
2 mph for the entire trip. The answer is infinite speed because she has to
travel that second mile in 0 time.
> Remember speed is distance traveled per hour, not progress made.
Remember that on a 2 mile trip if you average 2 mph your travel time is 1
hour exactly and if you travel the first mile at 1 mph you have spent your
hour and must travel the second mile in 0 time.
>
> So now theres two answers huh?
Well actually I can think of three possible answers, but they all fall in
the same category. However your answer is not one of them, here they are
in my order of preference:
1) Infinite speed (necessary to travel a given distance in 0 time).
2) Speed of Light (it is theorized that when traveling light speed
distances shrink to 0).
3) She can't do it. (Since it is not currently possible for humans
to travel at infinite/light speed. But I don't
like this answer since no limit was placed on
her speed)
Dave.
craig sivils
I still stand by my answer, you make the assumption that the SECOND
mile of her trip equates to the SECOND mile distance to the store. In
fact, you also make the assumption that the first mile was in the
direction of the store.
In fact I'll make the statement that any speed will do for the second mile
provided she walks fast enough and long enough to raise her average speed
before she finally navigates to the destination point.
Craig
Sea Wasp
>In article <6...@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sea...@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
> > first mile at 1 mph how fast must she walk the second and last mile to make
> > her average speed for the trip 2 mph.
> Sorry, no winner there either. If I take a 2 mile diversion and thus
> walk the last three miles at 3 mph, I'm walking the second mile at 3mph, AND
> the LAST mile at 3mph... nothing in your above sentence requires me to assume
> that the second mile IS the last mile.
>I disagree with Sea Wasp here. The original poster did specifically say
>"how fast must she walk the second mile t mkae her speed..."
>Unless one is really dense, then it's clear that this means that the woman
>will walk THAT mile and only that mile and must follow it.
No. It's clear that this is what the asker of the riddle WANTS you
to think. The point of finding an answer, especially an unexpected one,
to a riddle is to find some way of interpreting the wording which is
NOT the "wanted" interpretation. As long as you can justify your choice
of interpretation (and I can; it asks, "how long must she walk the
second mile", and makes no declaration that she must ONLY walk one
more mile) then your answer is a perfectly valid one.
If you want bulletproof riddles, find bulletproof language for
it.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
dk...@cas.org
Not really the first part of the question stated that she HAS [my emphasis] to
walk to the store. Not that she has to end up at the store, now if she walks
any other direction than directly at the store she would no longer be walking
to the store, now she may end up at the store, but she would not be walking to
the store. So a direct path is the only one that she can take.
The wording IS ambiguous and this could be argued both ways, but I think that
its clear that a direct route is what the question intended. Perhaps in the
future it should be worded as follows:
A woman has to walk to the store, which is 2 miles away. If she walks the
first mile at 1 mph how fast must she walk the second and last mile to make
her average speed for the trip 2 mph.
Dave
Stuart MacMartin
>
> A woman has to walk to the store, which is 2 miles away. If she walks the
> first mile at 1 mph how fast must she walk the second and last mile to make
> her average speed for the trip 2 mph.
>
Same answer, same argument. The second mile is not the last mile.
Stuart MacMartin
Were you the one who said 1 mph for 1 hour and 3 mph for 1/3 hour?
If so, you were wrong.
1 mph for 1 hour and 3 mph for 1 hour would work, *if* the question was
that the woman was to have averaged 2 mph on her way to the store.
Unfortunately, this was not the question. The question explicitly
said "the second mile". Perhaps you would have been happier if the
question had been even more explicit and said "average velocity".
Sea Wasp
>walk to the store. Not that she has to end up at the store, now if she walks
>any other direction than directly at the store she would no longer be walking
>to the store, now she may end up at the store, but she would not be walking to
>the store. So a direct path is the only one that she can take.
I do not agree. If I am going to the store and divert to the post
office to mail a letter, I'm still going to the store. If my intended
destination is the store, I'm still walking to the store no matter WHAT
route I take.
>The wording IS ambiguous and this could be argued both ways, but I think that
>its clear that a direct route is what the question intended.
The point of riddles is that the answer to the question may depend on
interpreting the question as INTENDED at ONE point and as literally as
possible on other points.
Perhaps in the
>future it should be worded as follows:
>
> A woman has to walk to the store, which is 2 miles away. If she walks the
> first mile at 1 mph how fast must she walk the second and last mile to make
> her average speed for the trip 2 mph.
Sorry, no winner there either. If I take a 2 mile diversion and thus
walk the last three miles at 3 mph, I'm walking the second mile at 3mph, AND
the LAST mile at 3mph... nothing in your above sentence requires me to assume
that the second mile IS the last mile.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Stuart MacMartin
My previous response is correct to a point. I no longer have the original
post, so I can't verify your claim that the "the" of "the second mile" did
not necessarily refer to that particular mile that is the latter half of
the direct route to the store, but rather to the second mile that the
lady travelled.
But you still need to go 3mph for 1 full hour.
Patrick Rannou
Perhaps in the
>future it should be worded as follows:
>
> A woman has to walk to the store, which is 2 miles away. If she walks the
> first mile at 1 mph how fast must she walk the second and last mile to make
> her average speed for the trip 2 mph.
Sorry, no winner there either. If I take a 2 mile diversion and thus
walk the last three miles at 3 mph, I'm walking the second mile at 3mph, AND
the LAST mile at 3mph... nothing in your above sentence requires me to assume
that the second mile IS the last mile.
I disagree with Sea Wasp here. The original poster did specifically say
"how fast must she walk the second mile t mkae her speed..."
Unless one is really dense, then it's clear that this means that the woman
will walk THAT mile and only that mile and must follow it. i.e. sure, if
she had to go to the store and made a diversion to the post office, and
then continue toward the store, she would still be going *to* the store BUT
she wouldn;t be walking *that* second mile. i.e. She would be walking along
another route. And she must walk.
The only possible answer is that she must go at the speed of light. i.e.
using the woman's ROF, she will effectively have travelled ONE mile in ONE
hour. This is because at light speed time/space dilatation/compression
become infinite so distance and time are reduced to zero. In the fixed
observer's ROF, you would need infinite speed (teleportation is out of the
question since she must "walk that second mile").
The original poster clearly said "walk that second mile". He didn't say
"walk along that second mile", so she realyl can't go back and forth along
that 1 mile-long part of the road that is nearer the store. i.e. No matter
hjow you dice it, the fixed observer will see that she has walked 2 and
excatly 2 miles. Otherwise either she hasn't walked along that second mile,
or there are some really dense people in the net. A flame? Yes!
\
Pitt Crandlemire
>average 2 miles per hour then you can't take longer than an hour to get
>there. And if she walked the first mile at 1 mile per hour then she would
>have to travel at an infinite speed to travel the second mile in 0 time.
Right. I got that. Wasn't she casting that Instantaneous Teleport
Spell as she finished that first mile...?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OK. OK. I blew it. I make the obligatory "it was 2:00 am" excuse and
ask the sphinx if he'd like me raw or parboiled...
ecrj...@economics.adelaide.edu.au
> >mile at 1 mph. how fast must she walk the second mile to make her average 2
> >mph?
>
> L>she can't. it already took her 1 hour!
>
> L>snag!
> >ok. I guess that means I get to eat the poor little paladin!
>
> Guess not...
>
> The total duration of her trip wasn't mentioned as being limited in any
> way.
Apart from the fact that the store was only 2 miles away, hence the TOTAL time
the journey had to take was 1 hour.
> Therefore, she only has to do the last mile at 3 mph to average
> 2 mph for the entire journey.
>
> Mile 1 # 1 mph
> Mile 2 @ 3 mph
> Total time = 1 hour 20 minutes
> Average speed = 2 mph
BZZT, you jjust failed grade 7 maths.....
>
> Now then, what treasure does your puzzling sphinx have for my Wizard?
Death, but if your wizard could justify that 18 Int he no doubt has by saying
"She is a witch and she uses her teleport spell" then you could earn that nice
little item......
Rob
craig sivils
>If so, you were wrong.
not mention any numbers because I is still an open question how long the
route that the woman took to make the two mile trip is. It may only be
two miles up the slope, but the road may be 10 miles long to avoid going
straight up.
Craig
craig sivils
>"walk along that second mile", so she realyl can't go back and forth along
>that 1 mile-long part of the road that is nearer the store. i.e. No matter
>hjow you dice it, the fixed observer will see that she has walked 2 and
>excatly 2 miles. Otherwise either she hasn't walked along that second mile,
>or there are some really dense people in the net. A flame? Yes!
Yes, but I'll be polite and not point them out :)
Ok, in slow motion. Store is two miles east.
Woman walks 1 mile east.
There is one mile between woman and store. lets refer to it as the
golden mile.
Woman walks one mile NORTH.
woman walks one mile SOUTH.
woman now walks that EXACT SAME "golden" mile.
QVP
The intent is all over the riddle, but there is no real restriction on the
length of the trip other than the intent. The proper wording would be to
ask how fast must the woman travel to average 2 mph for the two mile
journey. SEE we specify the length of the journey and close the loophole.
Craig
p.s. It does seem kinda trivial doesn't it?
<G.J.Fraser>
trip cannot be 2mph because the trip is 2 miles and she has already taken
one hour to do the first mile. She would have to do the second mile
instantaneously!
geoff.
--
Geoff Fraser, School of Psychology| AARNet : ps...@cc.flinders.edu.au
Flinders University, GPO Box 2100,| Phone (Int.) : 61-8-2012469
Adelaide, 5001, Australia | Phone (Aust.) : 08-2012469
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Rannou
Craig
Yes, but it's fun anyway, so i'll continue...
Call the second mile the "silver" mile. In your version, you say she walks
a golden mile, then a norht mile, then a south mile, then walk again the
same golden mile. That is wrong. She can't walk again the same golden mile
unless she starts out at the same sport and follow the sdame road part.
i.e. the last mile is the silver mile, not the "golden" mile.
i.e. stop being realtive and use ther most direct interpretation.
I'll show this to you very simply:
Z---------------Y
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
H--------------X---------------S
"A woman is at her house H. 2 miles away there is a store S. The
woman walks one mile at 1mph. How fast must she walk
the remaining mile to have an average speed of 2mph?"
This was the orignal riddle. Now, question yourself "just what does it mean
in the orignal riddfle when it is written "the second and last mile?". You
seem to imply that the woman could walk from X to Z, then back to X, then
walk from X to S. If she could do that sure you would be able to get 2mph.
Hoewever, she wouldn't have walked, in that case, the second and last mile.
The second and last mile is from X to S. Not from X to Z to X to S, nor X
to Z to Y to S. ONLY from X to S can we say that the woman walked the
second and last mile. Any other way, she didn't follow the path. If she
uses X to Z to X to S, sure she will have walked the second and last mile
BUT she will also have walked another "middle" part that the riddle
definition doesn't allow to exist.
Let's use it even simpler:
Z---------------Y
| black |
|green |
| |yellow
| |
red | blue |
H--------------X---------------S
"A woman is at her house H. 2 roads away there is a store S. The
woman walks the first road at 1mph. How fast must she
walk the remaining road to have an average speed of 2mph?"
i.e. Here all roads are 1 mile long.
Now, The previous riddle is the SAME as the original riddle: I simply
replaced the word "mile" by the word "road". Since each road is exactly one
mile long, it doesn't matter wether you call a mile a mile or a road, just
like a feet is both a feet (the length) and a feet (the thing). Got it?
Now, on my graph I added "color tags" to name my roads. Note that the
riddle doesn't have these tags at all. Now I look at the riddle I see "she
walks the first road at 1mph". QWhat is the first road? The red road, of
course. So after that she is now at X.
I look at the riddle again and I see "how fast must she walk the remaining
road to have an average speed of 2mph?". Just like in the first "mile"
version of the riddle it says "how fast must she walk the remaining mile"
at the SINGULAR, here too it is one and *only* one road that she can walk
to get to the store. So, the ONLE possible way is the blue road.
Combinations like going to Z through the green road, going back along the
same road to X, and then using the blue road, are not valid at ALL. Because
in that case she won't have "walked the remaining road", she will have
walked MORE than "walked the remaining road". i.e. she won't have "walked
the remaining mile", she will have walked MORE than the "remaining mile".
Thus, the ONLY possible and valid answer for a medieval campaign (that uses
newtonian physics) is "infinite speed".
You may still disagree that she CAN use the other roads. This is akin to
giving a problem that say "you have two levers. The person pulls at the
first level at speed X. How fast must the person pull at the remaining
level in order to activate the machine in time?" and you would find a
"workable" solution by saying that before pulling on the second lever our
person do something else like putting a third lever on the machine and
pulling on it. Gee, talk about following the facts of the riddle!
Thanks for not pointing yourself out. :-)
craig sivils
> Z---------------Y
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> H--------------X---------------S
h-x
x-z
z-x
x-s
You ask how fast she must walk the second and last mile. You think it is one
question, but it could be two. You misunderstood my response so perhaps if you
follow the above you'll get it.
Craig
still not pointing.
craig sivils
Once again, you have a loop-hole, what if the first lever activates the
machine. You really need to be more careful with your wording.
Craig
craig sivils
>woman walks one mile at 1mph. How fast must she walk
>the remaining mile to have an average speed of 2mph?"
>This was the orignal riddle. Now, question yourself "just what does it mean
>in the orignal riddfle when it is written "the second and last mile?". You
It is not in the original riddle, see above for your quote of the original
riddle.
Craig
craig sivils
> Z---------------Y
> | black |
> |green |
> | |yellow
> | |
> red | blue |
> H--------------X---------------S
>"A woman is at her house H. 2 roads away there is a store S. The
>woman walks the first road at 1mph. How fast must she
>walk the remaining road to have an average speed of 2mph?"
ONCE AGAIN, YOU DO NOT CLOSE THE LOOPHOLE
in slow motion, the lady has walked the red road. And needs to walk the
blue road to complete the trip, but there is no requirement to walk it next
so she walks up the green road @ 3 miles per hour then walks DOWN the green
road @ 3 miles per hour then walks the blue road @ 1 mile per hour. She
walked the remaining road at 1 mph but her average speed was 2 miles per hour,
your problem is in that average speed is over all of the distance traveled,
not progress made. THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN YOUR LEVER PROBLEM where you placed
an absolute time limit.
if you phrase it as second and last mile it can be interpreted as two questions
If you really feel strongly about closing the loop hole then do not specify the
length to the destination point, specify the length traveled. IE: a woman who
wishes to walk two miles walks the first mile at one mile per hour. How fast
must she walk the second mile to have an average speed of two miles per hour
for the trip?
Don't talk to me about intentions,
"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"
If you don't specifically rule it out then its allowed. Thats usually key to
riddles. For example, I have two coins who's total value is 35 cents. One of
them is not a quarter. What are they?
Answer a dime and a quarter, the dime is not a quarter.
Craig
Ron Servant
NO, it does not.
Why? Because the person asking the riddle already knows what answers he or she
will accept. For example if a sphinx asks the question and wants the correct
answer then he wont accept 3 miles per hour and however answered dies or whatever.
Its that simple. Everyone can throw in their interpretations, but that won't
stop the sphinx from eating the wizard.
--
Ron Servant - University of Waterloo - Computer Science/Info Sys
rser...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca *** ai...@Freenet.carleton.ca
Silver Omega
> Those all this bickering (sp?) about the riddle really solve anything?
>
> NO, it does not.
>
> Why? Because the person asking the riddle already knows what answers he or she
> will accept. For example if a sphinx asks the question and wants the correct
> answer then he wont accept 3 miles per hour and however answered dies or whatever.
>
> Its that simple. Everyone can throw in their interpretations, but that won't
> stop the sphinx from eating the wizard.
Obviously, you haven't read _Pyramids_ (Terry Pratchett) :-)
Of course, that was an assassin, not a wizard ...
Harry.
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
Harry Johnston, uda...@oak.cc.kcl.ac.uk