Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As it's not the answer i meant i'll be annoying :P and say that neither death nor life exist for the 'beings', they only exist within that place and so either door would lead to their own nulification, as such the questions you suggested are void :P

/purposely didnt include spoilers, additional info freely given and helps in little way

oh EDIT: also @MB

either of your questions would result in two different answers from the guards anyway and so you still wouldnt know which door to go through, the liar would say the door leading to death, the truth teller to life, as you dont know which being is which you would still not know which door to exit through

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 358
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

the answer to the door riddle?!

ask the beings which door the other being would tell you brings death. if you ask the truth teller, he will point at the safe door (because he knows the liar would say that one), if you ask the liar, he will also point at the safe door (because he knows the truth teller would point at the other one). problem solved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always existed, yet people redefine me.

I have never changed, yet people know me differently.

I cannot be seen, yet people see things through me.

I cannot be heard, yet people understand me.

I cannot be touched or moved, yet people exploit me.

I am Her twin, yet people mark me as Her enemy.

What am I?

Just made that one up. Not sure if it's comprehensible, or is it too easy?

Anyway, have fun :P and take your time with the math problem. :P So far, one of my friends have managed to solve 5 out of 10 (which is actually 9), so I'm not giving up on mankind anymore. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

woo for MB :P

yup Phlegm thats right, though i usually hear it the other way round

where they end up both pointing at the death door, so you go through the other one

will have a go at your puzzle Saco when i get back from 6th form :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mur, I feel honored :)

As it's not the answer i meant i'll be annoying :P and say that neither death nor life exist for the 'beings', they only exist within that place and so either door would lead to their own nulification, as such the questions you suggested are void :P

/purposely didnt include spoilers, additional info freely given and helps in little way

oh EDIT: also @MB

either of your questions would result in two different answers from the guards anyway and so you still wouldnt know which door to go through, the liar would say the door leading to death, the truth teller to life, as you dont know which being is which you would still not know which door to exit through

Read again ;), I was under the assumption that the beings could also 'sort of' die or live should they choose a door, and they weren't suicidal. If so, should I have asked them: 'What door would lead to your death?' The liar would've pointed to the door with 'life' and the sayer of truth as well. I admit, was kind of thinking wrong when I said in the earlier post, 'what door they would choose', just ignore that, it's negligible :D. Anyway, they weren't 'living' creatures, so Grido got it right :)

At the riddle of Saco

What is good and what is evil? Bwahaha XD

Good has always existed and many a time redefined by man.

Good never changed, by convention and logic, but our emotions let us gaze upon it differently.

Good, as is with absolute morality, is abstract and cannot be seen, as it is a value, yet people see and judge on their ´goodness´, like that fat red guy.

Etc etc, people understand good, exploit it (Machiavelli (I love that backstabbing guy ;)) And evil is her opposite, but necessary entity, and thus her twin and enemy.

Hehe, this is going to break you :)

You are sitting in a wagon. A train wagon. It's a fast and new train, real slick and smooth, like slurpies, that give you brain freeze :). You are sitting backwards, which means that the train is moving in the opposite direction you are looking at. In that wagon are 4 people, besides you. One is a really pretty lady, like hawt, like Keira Knightly, when she's not skinny, hot. She sits next to you, lucky sonuva (unless you are not into ladies, don't worry we won't judge...much :P, in the middle of the couch. She is a special kind of girl, as she is able to fend for herself. She went to Shaolin Kung Fu class, so that she could kick dirty perverts butts, also she is sick of these sick men and will always defend a woman. Next to her is a guy with a goatee, that looks real sleezy, the goatee that is. Across the wagon, it's a special wagon with only 2 couches, with room enough for 2 3-seat couches, it's like a coupé sized wagon, also the window's are huge, like man sized huge because there are no lamps inside the wagon, anyway in front of you sits a guy, who has just been miraculously been cured from his 7-year long infliction, namely blindness. Note that he is older than 7 years, else he wouldn't be a man, but that's beside the point, the point is that he learned that he loves his sight so much, that he would kill himself if he would ever go blind again. The sad part is that the doctors told him that there was a 50% chance in the coming week that he would go blind again. Anyway, next to that guy, opposite of the hawt lady, is a nun. A real motherlike nun, and she became a nun, because she is not a lesbian, but is very suspicious of men. She hates them really, it's like a disorder or something. Anyway, she will always suspect men in the near vicinity to be total pigs, preying on woman flesh, not literally, we're not cannibals, it's just that we like.., I mean... She thinks that 'we', assuming you're a guy, are total perverts. She is already suspecting the guy with the goatee, to be a total debauched goat, no pun intended. Even if it were meant as a pun, it would really suck as it isn't even a funny one, so I'm sorry... really I am... just couldn't resist. Anyway the nun sees the guy on her left side coming in the wagon, so he is a new guy, with you included, the 6th person in the wagon. The guy is part of a film crew and cast and he is dressed as a savage. He explains everything, so nobody, including you, is not worried. The reason you should be worried is because that guy is wearing a big fat sharp knife that would rend the flesh from your bones, it's on his rightside, because he's left handed. But he explained everything, so there is no problem, also his name is Bob, also he has a smoking problem, so he askes if they could open the window, so that he could smoke. The problem is that he is trying to quit, but sometimes just can't leave that sigaret alone. His urges come in spikes, as in really strong, but very fast urges to smoke, these urges quickly subside. To fight these urges he grabs the nearest things with his hands and holds onto it.

I know, I feel your pain... but there are things much more weirder things in the world, so go with the flow.

Here comes the tricky part. The train rides into a dark black tunnel, you see nothing but hear a guy groping, followed by a high pitched scream, then you hear some kungfu kicks and a big fat shiny knife being unsheated and you hear someone, a guy at least, screaming. Then the train comes out of the tunnel and it is obvious that someone has died.

My questions are:

Who died?

Why did he die?

And the most important question:How could his death have been prevented and what is the moral of this story?

Bwahahahahhahahahaa

Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer to the most recent from MB...?

The blind guy killed himself because the train went into the dark tunnel, and he thought he went blind again. It could have been prevented by having lights on the train... lol. Or possibly seating the guy with the knife further away from him.

That's my guess anyway. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
At the riddle of Saco

What is good and what is evil? Bwahaha XD

Good has always existed and many a time redefined by man.

Good never changed, by convention and logic, but our emotions let us gaze upon it differently.

Good, as is with absolute morality, is abstract and cannot be seen, as it is a value, yet people see and judge on their ´goodness´, like that fat red guy.

Etc etc, people understand good, exploit it (Machiavelli (I love that backstabbing guy :P) And evil is her opposite, but necessary entity, and thus her twin and enemy.

Oww :D I knew it, the clues were too vague. ;) Sorry, but

"Good"

(or

"Evil"

, for that matter) wasn't the answer I've intended.

Fortunately, I have a few counterpoints. ;)

1. How could

"Good"

exist before

man existed

? As far as I'm concerned, it is a concept which exist to

maintain our society. Without a society of sentient beings to perceive and judge actions, Good or Evil does not exist.

(Please don't bring up a holy book. It can't satisfy ALL of us, at least not me.)

2.

Good

has never changed? Really? You may disagree here and I admit this is a weak counterpoint, but I think

"Good"

does change when it is redefined in different time and place.

3. Forgive my ignorance, as I don't know

who Machiavelli was or what he did

(please educate me if you would be so kind), but how exactly do you exploit

Good

?

4. Just personal preference, but I wouldn't bother muddying it up and saying that two things are twins when they are clearly exact opposites. Their relationship has to be more subtle than that.

......Ahem, excuse me, but they were far from being as indisputable as I want.

After consulting some dictionaries, I think I seriously shot my own foot with the first two lines of the riddle :P , so...... I should fix it. Apologies to those who have wasted mind space on it. :P

I cannot exist without people, yet people can exist without me.

I can work without people, yet people cannot work without me.

I cannot be seen, yet people see things better through me.

I cannot be heard, yet people understand me.

I cannot be touched or moved, yet people exploit me.

I am Her twin, yet people mark me as Her enemy.

What am I?

Please take your time. I'll just go cry in a corner and make up more rigid puzzles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Answer to the most recent from MB...?

The blind guy killed himself because the train went into the dark tunnel, and he thought he went blind again. It could have been prevented by having lights on the train... lol. Or possibly seating the guy with the knife further away from him.

That's my guess anyway. :D

Obviously I forgot to put in:

That the who and the why and the how part are all connected to 1 person. I know kinda vague, but I meant that the 'why and how' are connected to the 'who' part.

Ok Saco get ready for a crash course of philosophy, ethics section. :P

Good is a phenomenon in our minds, we only have one idea about good, even though that may vary per person. This 'good' thing exists in our minds, outside of time and outside of space, because it is a value. Therefore good existed in a logical way before man existed. (If you need more help with this one, I'm going to have to start to put in the that go(o)d is the postulate of reason (I'm not religious, Kant called it that way, not me, btw Kant was a very influential philosopher during modern Europe and the Late Enlightenment )).

The point being that Good and Evil exist, contingent on humans, therein you are correct. But all humans need a moral and ethics code. Even if a man were to live totally alone on an island (thus no society) and lived in pure bliss and harmony, he would still need a grasp of good and evil to dictate the majority of his actions. Therefore man cannot be fully happy without good or evil, thus man needs it. Now this is also applicable to other creatures, but you call that instinct. In their eyes they call it good, why else would they do it? Does it not feel good to survive? Make babies? (hell yeah) Good and evil give reason to action. (Kant said good (and evil) gives meaning to our reasoning and are therefore necessary for our ratio, but he kept saying good was God)

Now good as a phenomenon is fixed, as it gives every person a goal, or at least a directive or drive/protocol. The good you are referring to, is the good that was laid down upon us. (Check Nietzche) He brought down the belief in fixed absolute morality. That the good of the Christian God was nothing more than a means to overpower the people. This good has indeed changed over time. But it is not the good I am referring to.

Therefore good is necessary for all of us and thus fixed, but is has been given a different !appearance! over time and space. (I'm not a good teacher, so if you still don't understand I could write it down in huge laps of texts :P)

Machiavelli was also a 'great' philosopher during the Renaissance. He was one of the first to say, after a long braindead period (after the romans, before the rebirth), that a leader needed to appear good and pious and such. But in secret at times had to be immoral to secure power etc. He's the kind of guy that would kill the few, to ensure the safety of the many, as long as that many would be under his dominion. He was the first to demolish absolute morality, but just in a pragmatic view. It wouldn't matter if the action was good or evil, as long as the leader would get what he wanted.

A true Machiavellian (I have been called this at times in school, and the sick part is I see it as a compliment) is one who deceives and manipulates others for gain; whether the gain is personal or not is of no relevance, only that any actions taken are only important insofar as they affect the results. Being manipulative can also mean that you keep up an appearance of being good, therefore using and exploiting good, to, for example, get closer to someone or to gain more trust, in order to gain something for yourself. This is egoistic and manipulative, and for some people therefore evil (not in my eyes :P). Thus good can be used and exploited.

And yes the relationship is subtle, but then again I was referring to the fixed definition of good. It is easier explained in wrong and right (so in the most simple cases, there is only 1 right and 1 wrong). Whereas contingent good can indeed be subtle, as it is dependent on the beholder. In that case, good and evil and neutral (MANY forget that) are indeed intertwined in a subtle way.

Really if you have questions, just ask, it'll help refresh my philosophy knowledge :P

@ The riddle, it'll take some time :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

@MB why oh why so much spoiler text, the whole chunk didnt need to be done like that surely?

also,

the man needed a cigarette, so grabbed the thing nearest him, which if memory serves would be the nun(groping), the nun assuming him a pervert, screams (scream from female) the kung-fu female then defends the nun (kung fu kicks)

i think what then happened goes something like the man to defend from the kung fu drew out the sword(sword unsheathing), the kung fu woman disarmed him, the sword lodges in yourself, you hear yourself screaming (guy screaming).

So...Who died? well you did

Why did he die? cos he was in a carriage with a load of insane people

How Prevented and moral? Leave carriage when you realise they're all loons, dont stay in a carriage with crazy people when entering dark tunnels

the end bit is likely not correct, but the first part has gotta be at least close

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea I just noticed I put it in a spoiler... kinda automatic I guess :P

@Grido, I am sorry but you fell for it :P

But I get the feeling that if I explain to much, you might guess it in it's entirety :P, so keep trying :P

***edit***

One thing I forgot to put in is that the train belongs to the Bunny Empire and that it's design is not be meddled with. Change it and be court-martialed for high treason, or abducted and be experimented on. It's design is impeccable, stay away from it :P. Also, the train did have lights and such, really splendid and shiny lights, but due to a freak accident involving many glorious and gory death's of kittens and one Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog, the lights went out exactly when the train went into the tunnel.

Don't try and find the answer to the last question in the flaw[ed]less design of the [im]perfect train. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok when the train went into the tunnel, the man who just got his eye sight back panicked, because he thought he was going blind again. While groping around he brushed against the nun who screamed, causing the Kung Fu chick to leap into action, since it's dark she kicks the man with the knife and he drops to the floor, the once blind man finds the knife on the knife guys belt, takes it out, screams out of terror and stabs himself, thus killing himself.

Who died?: The once blind man

Why did he die?: He thought he was blind again.

How could it have been prevented?: GET SOME BLOODY LIGHTS! Or the seating ordeal could have been different

All this is probably wrong, but it seems logical. For all I know the Goatee guy could be the one that's killed because he looks like a pervert.

Like, Blind man brushed against nun, nun screams, Kung Fu chick kicks the Goatee Guy next to her, Knife Guy across from goatee guy has his (Knife Guy) belt knife snatched from him (Knife Guy) by the nun and the nun stabs him (Goatee Guy), he (Goatee Guy) screams a death scream and dies.

Who: Goatee Guy

Why: Cause people naturally mistrust those who "look" suspicious.

How: The guy could have shaved and been more respectable looking.

There are so many factors, so many possibilities. Hell for all we know, you could have started all of this just to provide a mystery.

Blah! Just wanted some text out of the spoiler tag...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Ruin. Many things could have happened. Not enough info really. Possibly if all of the passengers have to be involved, or something like that.

Here is a new one to try on for size:

You have a piece of wood that is the shape of a perfect cube. It fits perfectly into a box, leaving no space at all, and fills the box completely to the top. Remove the block from the box, and cut it into two perfect halves. Then cut the halves into perfect halves again. Repeat this process to infinity (assume zeno's paradox doesn't apply, and you are able to get to a point of sufficient infinity). You are left with an infinite number of wood block "pieces" that are also infinitely small. Now put the pieces of the block back into the box. How full is the box? Why?

:P

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to cut the pieces infinitely small for this one to work :P 1mm cubed isn't nearly small enough. hehe...

Here is another one that might be more fun:

A guy gets home at 5pm and sees his wife cooking, he then takes a nap and when he wakes up (at 8pm) a superb dinner was ready to be eaten. At 11 pm they go to bed. In the morning at 6am, he killed her. Why? What happened here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give a hint:

The obvious problem is, is that there are soooo many possibilities. The solution is to look away from all of that and start at the end (remember hello kitty? :P. Also the story is big for a reason, because you have to search within the story from clues to make your story from the end to the start plausible.

Big hint here, if you look at it, you could probably solve it very very quickly.

For example, if the prevention of death would be to shave off the goatee, I would've given the goatee guy a very special position, and given a bigger piece of text on something about removing that goatee or not. Or if it were the lights in the train (which do not exist, 'cuz I'm evil :P I would've given the lights some big fat special place in the story.

***edit***

Removed answer to the cube and box riddle, because I thought it was stupid and I need to think it over :P

After studying some more for school perhaps :P

@last riddle

The man comes in, but the wife doesn't see him, yet there is a splendid meal made, even though the wife doesn't know he is home, meaning that there is another guy. 'They' go to bed at 11pm, meaning the wife and the lover. Obviously the man who was being cheated on killed her, explaining the riddle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Metal Bunny, that's not the answer.

In your scenario, why didn't he kill her at 8 PM when he woke up, or at 11pm?

There is a better solution. :P

**edit**

Also, i'd like to hear your answer for the cube puzzle. :P Even if you think it's stupid, it might have some merit. The *real* answer is debatable anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@MB: Thanks for the crash course. Now that you mention it, I've seen the term Machiavellian before, but I just learned from you where it came from. :P

About your take on good and evil, I'll just take it as it is without completely accepting or disregarding it. There are some holes I'd like to contradict, as with most arguments on morality, but since I can't come up with a less holy... err...holey argument at the moment, I'd rather not waste our time. :P

@Train riddle:

The only thing I think I got right was the wagon layout:

^ The train is going this way ^

------| Goatee | -Lady- | -Me- |

Door |----------|----------|--------| Window

------| --Bob-- | -Nun-- | Blind |

Some initial guessworks:

The scream was the nun's, and probably because she's the one being groped, or thinks she is.

The couches are tightly packed ("2-3 seat couches"), so the Kung Fu Lady shouldn't be able to kick me or the goatee guy.

Conclusive guessworks, don't ask me how it evolved into this. I have no idea:

This is based on the assumption that nobody sees a thing while the train is inside the tunnel, but other basic senses should still be working, such as the ability to know where a sound is coming from. Another assumption is that I just sit there like a log.

As the train enters the tunnel, Bob got an urge to smoke and he "grabs the nearest things with his hands and holds onto it". Now, there is nothing on his left-hand side except the door, and he might or might not grab it, nobody would care. However, the knife is on his right-hand side, so he grabs it with his right hand, since he is big and the couched is packed, he brushes the paranoid nun in the process, making her scream.

The kung fu lady, hearing the scream from that direction, presumes that a fellow woman is harassed and that justice is called for, and deliver her kicks at Bob. Bob still grabs the knife tightly with his right hand, which is unsheathed as he was being kicked due to him raising his arms to fend of the kicks or simply losing balance.

The ex-blind guy sits there in the darkness, hearing all the commotion but seeing nothing. He assumes that he just got blind again. He turns emo, screams, and jumps out the open window. He dies.

Suppose the above is what happened, it could have been prevented by eliminating one of the many bizarre conditions, to name a few:

If Bob wasn't a smoker, or if the window wasn't opened.

If I switched my seat with the nun's. (I said I'd just sit there like a log. :P)

If the goatee guy switched place with the nun. (So I'd still get to sit in that prime location.)

I'd rather not attempt anything about the moral of the story now. Someone get me out of that wagon! >_<

EDIT: Oh, okay, I'll give it a try anyway, how about:

Smoking is bad for you. It is sinful, it doesn't make you popular with the ladies, it hurts you, and it kills someone else in the process.

@The box puzzle:

Depends on how the cube of wood is cut up...

1. If you discard some sawdusts, that the total volume of the cubes would be smaller. But I guess the tiny cubes would qualify as sawdusts anyway.

2. If you break their molecular structure (how would they still be called "wood" anyway?) and they don't disperse in the air, then the volume would be smaller as well, as there are a lot of empty space in wood.

3. If you don't break their molecular structure, then the small cubes won't fit because it's near impossible to cut them up neatly. If you DO cut them up squarely, then they still won't fit, since the cubes would accumulate humidity in the air very fast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... @ The killing his wife thing:

Still same assumption, the man killed the wife because she cheated on him, but this time, when he sees the meal, he immediately understands that his wife is having an affair. So he poisons the food and leaves. They go to bed, the husband is gone, she wakes up dead.

@ The cube:

2 conditions. 1, the cuts are perfect and 2, they don't dissipate or stuff like that. It then must mean, seeing as they do not dissapear into the fabric of the weave :P, and the cuts are perfect. Then it wouldn't matter how tiny you would slice 'em up, it would still fill up the entire box.

@ The earlier riddle:

Closest I can get is the human mind, but I need more clues :P, as the human mind doesn't really apply to some of the lines you gave.

Also @ my own train from hell riddle:

You are very close, and you and phlegmtheorem are the closest so far, because you answered the first and second question correctly, it was the blind guy that died, because he thought he was going blind again.

Funny as about half of the people (In real life :P) go for the blind guy, and the other half is spread out over the nun, you and the guy with the goatee. Never the hawt chick... :P

Also the hardest part is the last question, because you need to give someone the blame, yes someone, not the friggin' train :P.

Link to post
Share on other sites

train riddle!

I blame the guy with the knife. Dont wear a knife in public. that's just stupid. pack it in a bag or hide it or something...

Box riddle: Grido has the best answer. there is one similar possibility that no one has mentioned yet. Saco also came up with some creative answers (I liked the one with molecular structure... NICE! :P)

Man coming home riddle: not close yet... here is a hint

read the riddle again more slowly, think about what each part is saying individually... forget the order for now

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of you have probably heard of this puzzle before:

There are 9 coins. (gold, silver, copper, whatever, doesn't matter)

8 of these coins are authentic, while one of them is made of counterfeit material.

The fake coin has the same appearance and texture as a real one, but is slightly lighter than a real coin.

Given a balance scale which you can only use twice, describe a method which can always identify the counterfeit coin.

(Another version includes only 8 coins total, and it can be solved in a similar manner.)

For the four of you who haven't heard it before, give it a try first before continue reading. :P

Then there is a harder version which isn't as popular as the first (because it is difficult for average folks) but still somewhat well-known:

There are 13 coins. (aluminum, tin, nickel, whatever, doesn't matter)

12 of these coins are authentic, while one of them is made of counterfeit material.

The fake coin has the same appearance and texture as a real one, but its weight differs slightly, and you don't know if it is heavier or lighter than a real coin.

Given a balance scale which you can only use no more than 3 times, describe a method which can always identify the counterfeit coin.

(Another version includes only 12 coins total, and it can be solved in a similar but noticeably more flexible manner.)

Assuming you haven't lost interest by now, there should be at least several people here who don't know the solution(s) yet. Give it a try. It should take you a while. I can wait a few days. :P

Now, for the rest of you fellow puzzle nuts...

As I tend to extend on existing ideas more often than being really original, here is a souped up version for those who have a deep understanding of this puzzle:

There are 40 coins. (platinum, mithril, kryptonite, whatever, doesn't matter)

39 of these coins are authentic, while one of them is made of counterfeit material.

The fake coin has the same appearance and texture as a real one, but its weight differs slightly, and you don't know if it is heavier or lighter than a real coin.

Given a balance scale which you can only use no more than 4 times, describe a method which can always identify the counterfeit coin.

(No other popular version exists. I mean, come on, what's the point? It's unnecessarily hard, and who still uses balance scale to check counterfeit coins anyway?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

@MB:

Hey now I also answered that it was the once blind guy, and because he thought he was going blind :P! By the way MB I like your explanation of the Husband killing his wife..."She woke up dead".

Anywho as for how your train scenario could have been prevented? Bob could have asked to switch seats with Mr. Once Blind. It's Bob's fault for wanting the window open. Moral? Smoking kills -Takes a drag of his cigarette..."All lies I say!"

Truthfully without knowing the way Mr. Once Blind actually died the "how could it be prevented is really hard"...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Forum Statistics

    16,160
    Total Topics
    176,437
    Total Posts

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
  • Recent Event Reviews

×
×
  • Create New...