|
Lateral Thinking - I think NOT!
|
Posted By:
Lord Lucan
in somewhere strange
Mar 31, 2005
|
At rec.puzzles we have for Paul Sloane's lateral thinking puzzle 13:
The Deadly Party
A man went to a party and drank some of the punch. He then left early. Everyone else at the party who drank the punch subsequently died of poisoning. Why did the man not die?
Paul Sloane's ‘solution’ (revealed later) is (apart from not supported by the puzzle wording) contrived and unsatisfying – or I think so, at least.
My solution/reasoning is:
Firstly, just because everybody who drank the punch subsequently died of poisoning doesn't mean that the punch was poisoned. In fact, the problem doesn’t say that only those who drank the punch died, the best that can be deduced is that some, but not necessarily all, of those who died had drunk the punch.
Secondly, that one person drank the punch and was not poisoned suggests that the punch did not contain poison.
The correct (i.e. my) solution is that the punch was not poisoned and that the other guests were poisoned by eating or drinking something else which was.
Paul Sloane's solution is:
The poison in the punch came from the ice cubes. When the man drank the punch the ice was fully frozen. Gradually it melted, poisoning the punch.
Hmmm… see what I mean by contrived? It’s bit like the denouement in those terrible police and detective dramas on afternoon TV, but in this case without the benefit of a gripping narrative.
The essence of many of these lateral thinking problems is to lay a false trail in order to mislead the unwary solver. In this case it seems that Paul apparently has followed his own false trail. And although he assumes that the poison was in the punch he seems then to miss the more likely possibility that it was the guest who left early who was the murderer and put the poison in the bowl after he had had his drink. (Or maybe the murderer waited until after the early leaver had had his drink before he poisoned the punch to throw suspicion elsewhere – but wait …. how did the murderer know that he would be leaving early?). Once you start along this road there are many possible ‘solutions’.
Of course, what has happened is that the problem has simply been poorly worded and should say something like "Everyone else at the party was poisoned by the punch".
Perhaps I just don’t understand how some these ‘lateral’ puzzles should ‘work’ and it’s my fault because my mind is just too logical? (I do think some of the puzzles are good - numbers 16 and 20, for example).
|
Comments
|
Page 2 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 > |
Sharruma
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 06:39 PM
Oh and if you really need it to add up to $30 try
$27 (the money they actually paid for the room) + $3 the money that was refunded = 30. |
Sharruma
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 06:41 PM
I just know I'm being hoaxed
I'm waiting for you to jump out and shout
'April Fool' at any moment. |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 06:43 PM
Sharruma,
Why do you go from tracking $30 before your "or" to $25 after your "or" choice.
You do because subtracting the 2 from the 27 conveniently for you equals 25. We're not tracking the cost of the room though... we're tracking the $30 spent by the 3 guys. YES, it works with addition of the factors to get the correct amount of 30. Point is that when you try to use subtraction (10 orinially spent - 1 rebate) with multiplication X 3 (total guys contributing) you get 27! Why do you all the suddent think it's appropriate to subtract the two the bell hop kept? It's still part of the original 30 spent... DON'T FORGET NOW... WE'RE NOT TRACKING ROOM COSTS HERE... BUT INSTEAD THE 30 SPENT BY THE 3 GUYS. |
Sharruma
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 06:44 PM
Sorry if I seem to be repeating what you're saying, but I don't know how else to describe it.
What you are saying works but you don't seem to accept these details and I'm trying to point out why they work.
No, I'm not trying to make you out to be an idiot. This sort of problem can be irritating when you don't see the mechanics of how it actually works and even in this case it took me a few minutes of thinking about the problem before I solved it. |
Sharruma
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 06:48 PM
Okay tracking from $30
3 guys walk in, each pays $10 for the room = $30
Bell hop returns $3 1 to each - 30-3 = 27
Bell hop keeps $2 for himself 27-2 = 25
Does that help? |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 06:51 PM
Oh I know you aren't making me out to be an idiot... even if you are trying. Because we're actually not even discussing the same "problem" here if you will... It's not that I don't believe you cant eventually get the right data. It's that I don't believe mathematics are perfect and all-knowing and there are little things that lead me to believe this. Are you from the U.S.? Just out of curiosity as this problem goes all the way back to Elementary school for me. It was used as an example by the teachers to show why using the right approach (formula) was important. That with the same factors (numbers) you could get different answers if you didn't apply the correct formula... which brings me back to my completely philosophical argument that numbers and their applications aren't perfect.
We should also keep in mind that this all sprang up because Matsuzdog (in the Time Travel) thread wanted to use the fact that faster than light travel will never happen because it's not mathematically possible... to which I replied that we don't yet begin to know EVERYTHING about mathematics.
Plus, sometimes I just like to keep rambling on, especially if I know I'm bugging someone. Jen scolds me all the time for flaming...
But conversing with you, about almost anything, is better than sitting here at work reading Snopes... ya know.  |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 06:55 PM
MarkNJen, you seem to be suggesting that math should work even when you don't know how to use it. In other words, you should be able to make a wedding cake just by throwing all the ingredients onto a table. |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 06:56 PM
Not that I don't agree with you, that's how it SHOULD be. Life would be a lot nicer then. |
Sharruma
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 07:05 PM
I know exactly what you mean
I like playing with mathematics, but I'm by no means an expert.
It's like the speed of light. We know it is possible because light does it all the time
Can you go faster than light?
Well if it ever was possible you wouldn't be able to see anything becasue you'd be outpacing light.
I've often wondered about light, after all if you have a object sending beams of light in opposite directions, then beam A's speed in relation to beam B's speed is actually twice the speed of light.
this may sound wrong, but everything is based on what it's relative to. for example, if I get stopped by cop for doing 60 in a 30 mile per hour area the cop isn't going to take the rotational speed of the earth into account. Know what I mean.
Actually it's probably wrong anyway, but I find the idea interesting  |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 07:07 PM
Actually, if a cop stops you for speeding, and he's got you on radar, he knowsyou were speeding. The speed of light is constant, regardless of how fast you're going. If you drive into a beam of light at the speed of light, you'll still see it hit you at c.
And here's a 'lateral' question that just started bugging me: What time is it at the north pole? |
Sharruma
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 07:10 PM
Q: What time is it at the north pole?
A: Lunchtime |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 07:26 PM
Now this conversation is getting DEEP!
Sharruma, you stated that..."Can you go faster than light?
Well if it ever was possible you wouldn't be able to see anything becasue you'd be outpacing light."
Well, you wouldn't be able to see anything ONLY if ALL the light in existence had the same origin and was traveling in the same direction as you. Then you might not see anything, but since that's clearly not the case, you're likely to see something. I would think...
Your next statement brings up another point addressed in that other thread I mentioned... like your statement says... light speed has already been broken (relatively) routinely, by nature itself.
As for the cop... I don't think his measurements require the input of Earth's rotational speed to be accurate because he, like you, are traveling with the same factor (rotational speed) therefore it would be added (factored) into both sides of the equation... thereby nullifying itself and making it irrelevant. Right? Hell I don't know... my degree is Biology and the four math classes I did have to take were pure HELL! Not that I'm stating that place exists outside my on conscience of being...
As for Citizens question of time at the North pole... that's a good one. How can it be all times, in one place, at the same time? If you're standing on exactly the geographical North or South pole. Bet I can use that one to get tons of "chores" out of the kids.
|
Sharruma
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 07:34 PM
Well, you wouldn't be able to see anything ONLY if ALL the light in existence had the same origin and was traveling in the same direction as you. Then you might not see anything, but since that's clearly not the case, you're likely to see something. I would think... -
Very true but I wasn't sure how to handle that part.
After all, what we see now is all in the past, if we passed the speed of light would we then see the future. - I sorta dicided to ignore this bit rather than use my limited brain power to fail to explain it. |
Sharruma
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 07:36 PM
hmm, in my previous post I shoulda put the quoted bits in quotes, now it just looks bad :( |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 07:51 PM
No Sharruma,
Don't quit now, this is shit that's fun to discuss...
You said..."After all, what we see now is all in the past, if we passed the speed of light would we then see the future."
If we passed the speed of light going towards these things, no we wouldn't see the future, what we would see would be like a fast forward reel getting closer to what's actually the "present." At least that's what I think. When we see a Supernovae 10,000 light years away we know that the explosion / event happened 10,000 years ago and the light is just now getting here. If we head for it at light speed (or any speed for that matter) you would be "fast-forwarding" towards their present. The faster you were going the faster the "picture" of what you were seeing would speed up in order that when you reached the appropriate place your present would match their present. If you head away, faster than light, from the Supernovae then what you would see would actually be a "rewind" into the past, would it not? You would be required to go faster than light in order to "view" the past, but if you travel towards something then what you would see would actually be a sped up version of real-time because you're actually encountering / seeing this light at a rate greater than just it coming to you at C. Even if it's just C + 18,000 mph you would still be observing the event at greater than real time.
So no, I don't think you could "see" into the future that way... just closer to present than what we currently do. But you could "see" into the past it would seem... if you could first outrun the light and then stop to observe it again as it catches back up... |
Sharruma
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 08:01 PM
Shame, I'd like to see into the future
But I think you're probably right, at least it makes sense.
As it was the more I thought about it the more it seemed to me it would still be the past you were seeing.
So yep, what you say makes a great deal of sense. |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 08:42 PM
It's sad that the majority of those lateral puzzles involve death. Hmmm...some of the riddles are interesting. |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 08:53 PM
Mark-N-Jen, the website has this puzzle. It's the first on the list under the logic puzzles. Their answer still doesn't make much sense though.  |
ED
in NZ
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 09:29 PM
What a load of crap, the only option is that the man placed the poison then left |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 09:30 PM
I just realized what "lateral puzzle" means. It means the puzzle is a piece of a story; and even though there are numerous working answers, there is only one true answer. They make more sense when one person is asking the question and letting you ask questions than when you read it alone.
The puzzle is plucked, laterally, out of a story. You can derive the answer linearly, though, but only by checking the results. Like some math problems, incorrect numbers are bound to be generated. |
|
Page 2 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 > |
In order to post comments you have to register as a member of the site. We were forced to restrict commenting because spammers were flooding the comment form with spam and crashing the server.
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
