Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / [LOCKED] Hard Riddle?

Author
Message
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 19th Jul 2005 12:34
Link
Quote: "(I will PAY the riddler 400£ if he can provide a valid proof.)
"


Can he have that in contract form, with two witnesses present?

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Merranvo
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th May 2005
Location: That ^ is a Orange
Posted: 19th Jul 2005 12:37
Link
Real question is who would judge it? Mabey Indi... Indi, you want to take up a bet that the "Riddler" can't provide a Mathamatical Proof that the answer is 4. (Only diffrence between a logical proof and a Mathamatical Proof is that you can't cheat as easy, numbers never lie, words do.

Blasting, Shooting, and Maiming. Aspects of Modern Gamming.
Back to top
Profile PM
indi
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Earth, Brisbane, Australia
Posted: 19th Jul 2005 12:41
Link
i wash my hands of this nonsense.

It doesnt enlighten anyone to something new regarding computer technology or new advances in game design. It shows your waisting your time on trivial stuff, its a precursor for where your headed.

If you dont focus now you will learn bad habits and only lose out on opportunities that pass you by, finally you will say oh hey i waisted all that time on something stupid when I could have accomplished something then.

let it go and get back to things that count towards the bigger picture.

If no-one gives your an answer to a question you have asked, consider:- Is your question clear.- Did you ask nicely.- Are you showing any effort to solve the problem yourself 
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 19th Jul 2005 13:12
Link
Quote: " finally you will say oh hey i waisted all that time on something stupid when I could have accomplished something then."

I always say that already

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Lost in Thought
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2004
Location: U.S.A. : Douglas, Georgia
Posted: 19th Jul 2005 13:31
Link
I say the riddler cannot provide logical or mathmatical proof that with the information given she is without a doubt number 4. It is impossible. I would bet but I am broke.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 19th Jul 2005 13:32
Link
Quote: "I say the riddler cannot provide logical or mathmatical proof that with the information given she is without a doubt number 4. It is impossible. I would bet but I am broke. "


meh, probably right. I just gave up

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Keaz
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere in south Texas
Posted: 19th Jul 2005 15:51 Edited at: 19th Jul 2005 16:53
Link
[Edit] I can only prove it's impossibility the riddle is flawed. 1 shook 9 so the other 9 shook at least 1 (they had to shake 1's hand)

p1 9s
p2 8s
p3 7s
p4 6s
p5 5s
p6 4s
p7 3s
p8 2s
p9 1s
p10 0s

10 for 10 people

But if that were true p10 shook 0 which already was proved wasn't true. Therefore it flawed at the begining in the riddle itself.

Breaking Stuff=Fun!,Bug Testing<>Fun!, Bug Testing=Breaking Stuff, so...
Bug Testing=Fun! Hmmmm....
DOES NOT COMPUTE! SYSTEM MALFUNTION!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 19th Jul 2005 15:57
Link
Quote: " So let me get it straight
Person Shakes
1 shook 9
2 shook 8
3 shook 7
4 shook 6
5 shook 5
6 shook 4
7 shook 3
8 shook 2
9 shook 1
10 shook 0
Correct?

So first it's known you and her are a person somewhere between 2 and 10.

[edit] I does help with debugging and logic routines, by teaching process of elimination. "



sorry, think we've already died

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Keaz
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere in south Texas
Posted: 19th Jul 2005 16:02 Edited at: 19th Jul 2005 16:52
Link
I'm slowly working through the logic the same way I would a bug in my software just give me a few moments and I will slowly put it together and verify logically that 4 is the only possible conclusion.

[edit] read post above it's flawed.

Breaking Stuff=Fun!,Bug Testing<>Fun!, Bug Testing=Breaking Stuff, so...
Bug Testing=Fun! Hmmmm....
DOES NOT COMPUTE! SYSTEM MALFUNTION!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Keaz
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere in south Texas
Posted: 19th Jul 2005 16:53
Link
Finished

Breaking Stuff=Fun!,Bug Testing<>Fun!, Bug Testing=Breaking Stuff, so...
Bug Testing=Fun! Hmmmm....
DOES NOT COMPUTE! SYSTEM MALFUNTION!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Keaz
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere in south Texas
Posted: 19th Jul 2005 16:55 Edited at: 19th Jul 2005 16:56
Link
To fix it. It's only possible in none shook 9 an everyone shook at least one. therefore the couples throw in is the only fix.

The riddler got his riddle wrong.

Breaking Stuff=Fun!,Bug Testing<>Fun!, Bug Testing=Breaking Stuff, so...
Bug Testing=Fun! Hmmmm....
DOES NOT COMPUTE! SYSTEM MALFUNTION!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Lost in Thought
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2004
Location: U.S.A. : Douglas, Georgia
Posted: 19th Jul 2005 17:40
Link
Actually in that riddle the number of hands shaken are like in Lays's drawing. 9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,5(you are 5) and she has to be 1-4, but there is no information to tell you which of the 4 she is.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Keaz
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere in south Texas
Posted: 19th Jul 2005 18:36
Link
To get to the final answer a separate logic has to take place. Start by excluding yourself and your girlfriend and complete the shakes and you get
7,6,5,4,4,3,2,1. 9 shakes are missing from the total of
9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,5
2,2,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,5 or 18 half shakes
since you know you are 5 that leaves 4 shakes for your girlfriend. This is probably the logic used by the riddler, but it is flawed and LiT is correct that you can not get it beyond 1-4, because the exclusions of the girlfriend from the 8 aren't possible exclude someone else and she has to be less than 4. The riddle is flawed.

P.S. It may have taken me a while and a few drawings of my own, but it can not be determined beyond 1-4. (without saying she went last.)

Breaking Stuff=Fun!,Bug Testing<>Fun!, Bug Testing=Breaking Stuff, so...
Bug Testing=Fun! Hmmmm....
DOES NOT COMPUTE! SYSTEM MALFUNTION!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Merranvo
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th May 2005
Location: That ^ is a Orange
Posted: 20th Jul 2005 13:11
Link
I have no clue what you were "logicing" up there.

Leys. you promised to "beat the logic" out of the riddler. You've had 10 witnesses. Now provide me with a propper mathamatical proof. Numbers don't lie, words do.

Blasting, Shooting, and Maiming. Aspects of Modern Gamming.
Back to top
Profile PM
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 20th Jul 2005 13:15
Link
Quote: "Numbers don't lie, words do."


7 + 3 = 467

hmm, numbers just lied

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Merranvo
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th May 2005
Location: That ^ is a Orange
Posted: 20th Jul 2005 13:19
Link
no... your LOGIC lied...

7 + 3 = 467 is true

7 base x + 3 base y = 467 base z



Blasting, Shooting, and Maiming. Aspects of Modern Gamming.
Back to top
Profile PM
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 20th Jul 2005 13:20
Link
Quote: "7 base x + 3 base y = 467 base z
"


did i say anything about base's being involved? NO!

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Merranvo
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th May 2005
Location: That ^ is a Orange
Posted: 20th Jul 2005 13:24
Link
did you not? This is the "Riddlers" logic. Unless something is said otherwise, it is true.

And THAT is good logic. It makes EVERY answer right until proven wrong.

Blasting, Shooting, and Maiming. Aspects of Modern Gamming.
Back to top
Profile PM
RiiDii
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2005
Location: Inatincan
Posted: 23rd Jul 2005 09:27 Edited at: 23rd Jul 2005 09:54
Link
This is what I get. Unless you make some assumtions about the girlfriend, such as she knows the people you know, or you met your girlfriend at the very same party while shaking her hand, or whatever, you cannot break this down beyond 1 to 4. It's not possible. I can validate that "I" in the puzzle shook 5 hands, but which one of the 4 remaining people I did not shake hands with is "my girlfriend" is purely speculative. This is what Merranvo has been saying all along in this thread.



Edit:
7 + 3 = 467

Since we are playing with meanings here: Isn't this false? Not a lie.

"Droids don't rip your arms off when they lose." -H. Solo
REALITY II
Back to top
Profile PM Email
robo cat
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2004
Location: In a cat litter tray, near you...
Posted: 24th Jul 2005 03:19 Edited at: 24th Jul 2005 03:21
Link
The answer is 0.

The task is pointless. People you don't know will just ignore you for suggesting such a pointless task. They would have to know you to pay any attention and perform the task. You also wouldn't say the task upon arriving; you wouldn't turn up and say "Heres an idea... lets shake the hands of people we don't know and count how many times we shake! ". Therfore you would have been there a while and introduced your girl friend to those you know - making her know them - unless they have met before, in which case she knows them anyway. Upon stating the task, those you know, know your girl friend and thus don't shake her hand. Those you don't know, don't know your girl friend, but would ignore such a boring and silly task and thus don't shake her hand either. Therefore neither you nor your girl friend shake anyone's hand and the answer is 0!

Am I right?

Simple... yet fun!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Merranvo
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th May 2005
Location: That ^ is a Orange
Posted: 24th Jul 2005 08:19
Link
YES... the answer is that the coefficant of the dependent variable is inversly related to the improbibility of "you being gay thus killing all the non-gay people" which is 0.

Blasting, Shooting, and Maiming. Aspects of Modern Gamming.
Back to top
Profile PM
Keemo1000
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2005
Location: 28th Dimension
Posted: 25th Jul 2005 00:38
Link
argh ! I better get my math tutor

http://69.44.157.152/rendered/cooltext7449016.png
Back to top
Profile PM Email
indi
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Earth, Brisbane, Australia
Posted: 28th Jul 2005 21:00
Link
i shoulda locked it ages ago, here we go turning the key now

If no-one gives your an answer to a question you have asked, consider:- Is your question clear.- Did you ask nicely.- Are you showing any effort to solve the problem yourself &#63743;
Back to top
Profile PM Email
CattleRustler
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2003
Location: case modding at overclock.net
Posted: 29th Jul 2005 05:23
Link
couldnt resist...

from reading this I gather one thing, that girlfriend chick is a slut.

thank you.

DBP Plugins Latest: MSAccess, SQLServer, MySQL plugins for DBP
Back to top
Profile PM
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-27 23:30:35
Your offset time is: 2024-11-27 23:30:35