Nice one, Tia, I like it.
I think i 'll see about using it for interviews with job candidates. God help 'em if they trot out the cock jokes though.
What, did you solve it already? Boy, I feel dumb.
Hmm, this is like the one with the 12 coins, one is either heavier or lighter than all the rest, and the scale you can only use 3 times to find that one coin.
umm well, the German language has a saying that even a blind chicken finds a grain of corn occassionally. I was lucky. I was thinking about sets and mixing algorithms and such crap.. and it just hit. Like I said.. i really do like it.
[redacted for mystery preservation at the request of the author of the comment]
Except that there's no basis for distinguishing them. I'm terrible at this sort of puzzle, and for this one I'm frankly incredulous that there's a solution. (Other than "see if the doctor will buy them back, unidentified.) I'll be very impressed when the solution comes out.
Hey this isn't a two minute mystery. No asking questions of the non-naive.
There's a solution, LB. In fact, there's more than one. Mine wasn't actually as elegant as the real answer.
It really is hard to give a hint without giving it away, no?
5: Ah, yes, so it does. Never mind about the defeatism in my prior comment.
yeah, no hints yet. If you took, like, three minutes figuring it out then there's no reason everyone else won't be able to do it.
Or not. I know one answer, but it doesn't sound like it's Tia's 'elegant' answer.
Hey, how the hell does Digby rate higher than Unfogged when you google "cock jokes"?
yeah, several people have emailed me my answer. only Weiner emailed me the elegant answer.
No wait, that doesn't work. God dammit.
oh, Austro also had the "elegant" solution.
If, as stipulated, they are identical in every respect, they must be identical in respect of their effect on you; for that is a respect. (We will assume that the kind "A pills" and "B pills" are identical; if the pills themselves were identical in their haecceity, the problem would be inconsistent, for it is stated that there are at least two B pills.) Therefore, the effect of taking an A pill and a B pill is the same as the effect of taking two A pills. Which is to say, you die. Is this a contradiction? No, because the problem never says that you do not die if you do not take the pills. The answer, clearly, is that you die. And this is not surprising, for your condition is said to be terminal, which means it will kill you imminently anyway.
Fortunately, the problem does not say when you die if you do not take the pills. In the words of the old jump-rope rhyme, "Mother, Mother, I am ill, send for the doctor to give me a pill. Doctor, doctor, will I die? Yes, my child, and so will I." I conclude that Some Terminal Conditional is Life Itself, Pill A is sensual pleasure, and Pill B is worldly achievement, both of which we think we need, but neither of which staves off our inevitable end.
Having solved the puzzle, I now turn this thread to its other purpose: Cock.
"Cock" in that last comment did not refer to the purpose, it was the cock joke.
Dammit, that didn't work at all. I should leave the single-word "cock" posts to text, who is good at it. Where is he, anyway? I miss him.
Also, s/b "No, because the problem never says that you do not die if you do take the pills."
When the bomb goes of, some philosphers will be requiring of it a clarification of its terms of reference.
Mind you, they're probably at least as effective as the SDI.
I too am missing the cock jokes.
Dammit, that didn't work at all.
That will teach you to go off half-cocked.
How does the terminal condition taking two pills a day?
Also, it says 'a day', which can't mean 'once'. I don't buy it. If that's the answer the original author had in mind, I'm quite unimpressed.
How does the terminal condition *necessitate* taking two pills a day. God dammit.
Weiner was being silly, Weman. He knows the real answer.
I'm not being silly! I'm talking about the meaning of life!
Oh. Well, it's long established I don't have a sense of humor.
Tia, I just emailed you my guess. I feel very smart, unless I'm wrong, in which case I feel simultaneously very dumb and a little embarassed.
It takes wisdom to know that the first and fundamental cause of death is life. But you know, there are pills against that. Ask a Pope.
Wait, I know! Time travel! The doctor was the patient's mother! They are goldfish!
There are many good answers to this kind of question hereHit control A to see the answers.
Wait, I know! Time travel! The doctor was the patient's mother! They are goldfish!
Awesome.
So does the answer involve some sort of "lateral thinking" insight? Or some unstated assumption that can be riddled out of the description with enough ingenuity? Or is it a simple matter of probability theory?
The first. I would have sat, snarling at the problem, pretty much forever without a hint -- once you get that hint, it's very straightforward.
It's not a "lateral thinking" two minute mystery type thing, and I was going to suggest we keep the two separate in our minds before w-lfs-n blows a gasket.
38: except oddly enough, last night when I was thinking about it I came up with that category of solution really quickly, and then couldn't see how to work it out, and rejected it, until a couple hours later.
Well, I've got one obvious, foolproof answer, which took only a few minutes to come up with. I don't know if it's elegant, so I'm looking forward to finding out what are the elegant and inelegant answers.
Do the pills react chemically when mixed together?
I feel like I'm the only one who's still stumped.
Oh, I have to disagree about it being like the one with the twelve coins. That one took me around half an hour to figure out. So this one is, by my calculation, only 1/10 as hard.
43 -- Nope, me too. I had a solution I thought was an ok one, Tia told me it wass not. So I'm back in the dark.
Haha! I think I got it. I just had to keep rereading the problem statement over again. It gives you ideas about new ways to think about the problem that you wouldn't get if you didn't reread it.
TMK, I might have misled you. Your solution is probably trending towards right, it just seemed more elaborate, in a way, than necessary.
41: I got an inelegant solution -- the elegant solution is a slight mathematical improvement, but basically the same idea, not a different approach.
40, yes, me too. I hope I'm not being too farberesque now, but if I would had spent hours thinking about it, (never an option) I would have been pretty disappointed by the answer. I liked my answer better, and I didn't like that one.
Wait, what? What's wrong with the answer?
51: It doesn't take Jesus into account.
" I didn't like that one" s/b "I didn't even like that one that much either".
47 -- in that case I think I have got an inelegant solution of my very own, distinct from the inelegant solutions that various posters and commenters have bandied about here. I still want to know what the elegant solution is.
But now people are talking like they know what the elegant solution is. Did I miss something? Have people been exchanging notes behind my back? Did Tia put an update on the front page and me not go look at it yet?
Well, I wasn't expecting that category of answer, which isn't too interesting. I'm probably just grumpy b/c I didn't get to feel smart. To be clear, I looked it up.
Don't worry about it, Weman. It took me several hours, and several of the people here who got it quickly did so because of a now redacted hint in 5.
Both Pill A and Pill B are in fact pdf23ds.
59: Now I feel bad. Being responsible for keeping some terminally ill soul alive by being consumned once daily in exact preportions. I have failed. Unless, of course, I figure out this riddle.
Having not read the above thread, my quick answer is:
- Set the 3 indistinguishable pills aside.
- Take an A pill from the A bottle.
- Take a B pill from the B bottle.
- Take them together.
- Call a chemist to solve the which expensive pill is which problem.
I predict that my solution is too simple to be correct. I await Tia's email.
You're not supposed to reveal anything yet, I think.
That's presumably he answer that everyone except Weiner and Austro gave. I like it much better than the 'elegant' answer. (it's just c uvwrkf ocvj problem. I don't like ocvju.)
How about just throwing all three into the B bottle and shaking it up really well and hoping for the best? If you get to the end of the A bottle and there are only two pills left in the B bottle, then you're set! Then it just a simple matter of getting to that point!
The exclamation marks are for sarcasm.
I think I have it, but I don't see how there's a more or less elegant solution to the one I proposed via e-mail.
63 to 61? But 61 violates "without wasting any pills (either today or in the future)".
Well, I guess technically not, but...
Or if your a gambler,
- Set the 3 mixed pills aside.
- Continue to take a pill from each bottle each day until: You have an empty B bottle and an A bottle with one pill.
- Take the known A pill and one unknown (of the 3).
Chances are 2/3 you will live and take the remaining A+B tomorrow.
67: No, it doesn't. In my version I just asked the doctor, but a chemist is better. After you've gotten your answer you can use the 3 pills again.
To be honest, I read the puzzle, thought about it for a few seconds, and then decided it would be more fun to google for the solution, which didn't take long to find. I figure if I can afford $10,000,000 million per pill, if this kind of situation comes up, I can just get someone to solve it for me.
Or,
- Set aside the 3 pills, never waste them.
- Take pills from the bottles daily until you need to buy new bottles of pills.
- Buy new bottles of pills.
I think I got it, but I don't think my solution is exactly elegant. I feel like there's some deductive route I'm not picking up on.
Don't get hung up on elegance -- the elegant solution isn't all that elegant.
I have to say: 76 comments into this, I'm a little disappointed with the cock jokes.
Mebbe we could try to come up with a solution which was itself an elaborate cock jock! Or an elegant one.
(or, one neither elaborate nor elegant.)
I suppose the word "pill" in "pill A" and "pill B" could be replaced by another word of four letters ending in "ll" but the thought of the probable solution to such a set up is too painful to bear.
I read the solution at Mr. Yeti's but I have to say I prefer Weiner's.
I prefer Weiner's.
The first cock joke!
The real solution: flush your pills down the toilet and bathe in the healing light of my cock.
The elegant answer potentially endangers your health.
I came up with a solution pretty quickly, but the jury's still out on its elegance, I guess. Roughly along Mr. B's, but with a suprising twist at the end. Tune in next week and see Mo say, "I sure blew through that donut hole fast."
Also: how believable is it that you would just be carelessly tipping these very expensive and life-saving or -endangering pills out of the bottle like that? I reckon in such a situation you would have a daily pill delivery system like the birth control thingy.
I think the coin problem is fairly complicated. A more restricted one that I like, because there's really one key move that makes the whole thing fall into place, is the problem with the three cannibals and three missionaries with a two-person boat crossing a river.
I can see from the above that I totally I am not figuring out the answer you have in mind, so let me propose a non-elegant way to look at this that is suggested by other above:
Given that it's a terminal disease, why don't you set aside the three pills, continue to take one pill from each bottle, buy refills if you need them, and not worry about it. The pills are a sunk cost--it matters not that you waste these three pills, because unless you time your death perfectly, pills will be left over when you die anyway.
You're dying. Worry about something else.
Hmm. I solved the farmer, fox, hen and grain one once, but I don't think I've ever solved the missionaries and cannibals. What's the whole scenario? I also don't think I've done the coin one, but I can't really concentrate on this stuff while I'm at work.
Don't post any answers to those questions guy?
81: It was something of a tribute to you. (I started off intending to claim that the premises were inconsistent, but while typing realized that they were consistent in a way that made it much better.)
? s/b s.
Also, I had a dream last night that I was secretly a cannibal, and was carrying around a flank steak of human meat that various people were trying to sniff out at different points, and I think I confessed it at one point on an Unfogged thread, but then a commenter from I Blame the Patriarchy linked to it, and then it was front paged, alongside a picture that they said was of me of a stockinged and high heeled woman lying in the supine (that's on your stomach right?) position, the camera angle low enough so that you could only see her legs. And I tried to protest that it wasn't me, but they were too busy denouncing my cannibalism to listen.
I think this dream was rather straightforwardly about feminist guilt, though Graham is always trying to look for deeper psychodynamics of dreams than whatever I say I think they're about.
It occurs to me that how much medication one has taken in one's life may affect how quickly the answer leaps to mind. Is that too much of a hint?
supine (that's on your stomach right?)
No.
I am so glad to see that your unconscious has conceded my point that vegans are no less likely to become cannibals!
There are two problems with the missionaries and cannibals scenario:
1. It does not take into account the possibility of conversion.
2. It doesn't usually specify if the missionaries are Catholic.
Can someone explain the missionaries and cannibals?
Oh, that's right; it was some guy named Osner. If he were around, his unconscious would be vibrating in sympathetic concession, I'm sure.
91 - Oh! I just remembered! I had a dream this morning after I snoozed my alarm that I had to represent myself in court for some reason and Idealist gave me legal advice for how to fake it but it turned out his advice was B ad and I was about to get sent to jail but it was OK because the Batmobile showed up and everyone got distracted and decided to oooh and aaah about that instead and I was able to slip out the back and escape unnoticed. For real. Odd that out of all of the commenters on Unfogged, Idealist was the one who showed up in my dream considering he's not one of the people I have recently met and not someone I usually get in discussions with.
And his legal advice is always superb.
I think this is it:
Three cannibals and three missionaries want to cross a river in a canoe which
only holds two people. Someone has to bring the boat back. The trouble is, if
there are ever more cannibals than missionaries the cannibals will eat the
missionaries. How can the six get safely across?
To add some details-
It's ok for you to have only cannibals with no missionaries- they won't run away, and there's no one to eat. It's only if you have 2C 1M, 3C1M, or 3C2M that you have a problem.
The boat can not cross the river alone, someone must be in it.
People can not swim, be in the water holding the boat, etc. Only one or two crossing at a time.
There's another puzzle called "Petals around the rose" that's a dice game- you're supposed to do it in real life, but I'm sure we could simulate something here. Given five dice, for certain rolls there is a certain count, you need to figure out the rules so that you can confidently tell the count when you see subsequent rolls.
The cannibals are willing to row the boat themselves, aren't they?
(As part of a Miami Herald puzzle challenge, Dave Barry set this up as follows: "...but if two missionaries are ever left alone with a cannibal they will start explaining the missionary position and the cannibals are bored sick of it. If the boat has 36 horsepower, how many horsepower does the boat have?")
Well, here's a petals around the rose flash version, so that was easy.
Yes, the cannibals are very trustworthy except that if they outnumber the missionaries they will eat them.
But what if the missionaries outnumber the cannibals on one side and become so persuasive that the cannibals convert? And what if, in converting to Catholicism, the cannibals ask detailed questions about communion?
As I say, there are problems with the scenario.
(101 - I'm sure he is. I actually felt kind of guilty for dreaming otherwise when I woke up, which just added to the weirdness of the whole thing.)
It's a game, not Napoleon Chagnon's data set, people.
PATR is much more fun in real life because you can really mess with people's heads, making them think that irrelevant details are actually very important. That's kind of lost in the computer version.
"...but if two missionaries are ever left alone with a cannibal they will start explaining the missionary position and the cannibals are bored sick of it.
A misogynist (and moderately racist) joke: A missionary is walking through the jungle with a Polynesian chieftain, teaching him English. The missionary points to a tree, and says 'Tree'. The chieftain repeats, "Tree." The missionary points to the men with nets on the beach and says "Men fishing." The chieftain repeats, "Men fishing." The missionary sees a rock and says "Rock"; the chieftain repeats "Rock."
They walk around a bush, and see a man and a woman making love. Stricken with embarassment, the missionary can't make himself describe their activity, and says "Man, um, riding a bicycle." The chieftain takes his spear and stabs the man through the heart, and turns to the missionary, saying, "Man riding my bicycle."
What if an ethnographer observes the whole situation and then writes it up? Would such an account reflect an objective understanding of the events taking place or would the biases, explicit and implicit, conscious and unconscious, of such an outsider inevitably shine through, making the account not a description of the cultural interactions of others, but merely the reflection of the observer's cultural prejudices?
Why this passion for ordering society, for enforcing the boundaries of Enlightenment taxonomies - "cannibal" versus "missionary"? Why can't we recognize the fluidity of identity? Perhaps under different social conditions the cannibals would eat grains and not people. Perhaps under different conditions the missionaries would not be so focused on proselytizing. Why must they cross the river? Why must they reinscribe the existing social relations through the process of ferrying?
Why not sit on the shore, under the shade of a tree and reflect on the uniqueness, of each individual human life? Why not solve the puzzles within?
Here is a fun Petals Around The Rose story.
Why not solve the puzzles within?
Jonah had the same idea.
It was great fun when I solved it in two rolls and pissed off people who had been playing for half an hour.
SP -- cool! I just figured it out.
PATR -- got it! And I have the missionaries and cannibals thing to, though I think that the ethnography of the joke may be equally interesting.
From a philosophical point of view: Is it that the cannibals are cooperative but weak-willed, in that they just can't help themselves when they outnumber the missionaries? Or is it, my preferred version, that they would rather eat the missionaries than anything else, but if they can't eat the missionaries they'd rather that all six cross the river, and the missionaries won't cooperate until a plan has been produced that will get them across without being eaten? Might it be simpler for the cannibals to incapacitate themselves so the missionaries don't have to worry about them as in Ulysses and the Sirens? But perhaps the cannibals quite reasonably don't trust the missionaries.
Hmm, that PATR is much like a game I know called "Who Has the Hat?" No dice, but the whole thing of trying to figure out how the game is played. I have a hat. I give the hat to Tia, who gives it to w-lfs-n, who gives it to eb. Who has the hat?
It works better sitting around a table though.
Having now seen the answer, I'm mad at myself for not getting that, since I have in the past gotten the 12 coins one. I'm just not patient enough anymore, I guess. I also really liked this black hat/red hat riddle.
Coming soon, Weiner's commentary on Lord of the Rings.
118 -- is the answer to "who has the hat?" not eb?
The cannibals don't reasonably trust the testimony of the missionaries because they have no reliable evidence of the character of the missionaries.
I make the trek home, cook, put the kids to bed, plough through the post and finally with free time on my hands pounce with anticipation on the post. What do I find? No cock jokes to repeat at job interviews and a story about a cannibal, which owing to skimming, I dont understand and shall have to go back and read before attempting to play.
I have issues.
121: No, eb does not have the hat in this case, although he could in others. It's difficult to say who does have the hat right now. I'm not sure how to interpret the rules on the web.
Oh my god. I forgot about "who's got the hat?" When I was a camp counselor, we used to torture the campers with that game all summer long.
Austro's back. I guess I can't try some unfunny joke like "wer hat den hat" because I'm sure my grammar's going to be all wrong.
Well, did the cannibals in a few minutes, but I'm sure I've heard it before so I don't know if I'm remembering or solving. Irritated that I figured out an answer to PATR, and only then figured out why it's called PATR.
When do we hear the two solutions on the pill? I can still only figure out one. And why must people keep forcing me to waste time here? (Don't bother claiming I'm here of my own free will; I'll just introduce you to a proof that there is no free will.)
I have just noticed the unfortunate repitition of the word "post" in my previous. The first "post" should be "mail," versteht sich.
eb: I don't think I'm in a postition to w-lfs-nise anyone on this site. Most certainly not if they're playing away, so to speak. I still haven't got to the bit about the hat yet, by the way. I read slowly.
I don't know the hat at all, and after Becks' comment I don't want to know. [whine]I'm not a little kid anymore.[/whine]
Dissolve them in water, add an A pill and drink half today and half tomorrow? If they don't dissolve, I suppose do something by grinding them to a powder and getting a microbalance.
Oooh! sorry! I thought I was just being facetious but now I think that might actually be something close to the answer.
Pretty much. Although the dissolving is a neat trick -- I wonder if anyone else thought of that.
What a solution!
(let the banning come down!)
The problem with this solution (and its elegant variant): how to arrive at perfect halves? I think on that account dsquared's solution does an even better job.
I guess it is a question of how precisely the doses must match. In a solution one could get a good match pretty quickly with pipettes and the like.
135 being written before seeing that 134 was there first.
Of course I was going with the cutting in halves solution. If you can't do that, then I think the problem is unsolvable, and that solution seemed obvious to me because so many prescription medications are in fact conveniently scored to make them easy to split if you need to take half doses for any reason. What's the difference between the elegant and inelegant variant?
This mixing/dissolving stuff is just crazy, given how critical the doses are under the terms. I'm w/ Mr. B.: start over, take the the 3 you can't identify to be assayed.
Other people, in fact, have thought of dissolving and grinding.
What's the difference between the elegant and inelegant variant?
Being somewhat dim, I came up with thirds, rather than halves.
Cutting pills into thirds would be pretty difficult.
I looked up the answer to the Terminal condition puzzle. Oh well.
I just got PATR. I was aware right off how the name was significant, but couldn't figure out exactly how for a couple minutes.
Thirds was my answer too. Hey, the halves answer is better because it's simpler, but I say in Puzzle World you can achieve a mathematical exactitude with your actions that you can't in the real one.
Hey, let's play Mornington Crescent.
Being somewhat dim, I came up with thirds
Being somewhat dim myself, I can't see how cutting the pills into thirds (assuming it could be done) works as a solution to the problem.
You lay all the pills together. You move the top thirds of the pills over one, the bottom thirds over one the other way. You know have three pills that are two-thirds B and one third A, and you can construct complementary proportions from pills in the bottle. Why I could come up with that and not halves, I dunno.
Anyway, if you have money to spend 10 million dollars on a pill, you have money for the microscale or whatever you would need to divide the pills correctly into thirds. You don't have to get this done today; you can take whole pills set these pills aside, go shopping for your laser, or whatever else you need to divide the pills exactly into thirds.
And the pills said unto her, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt divide us twice.
Tia said unto them, Though I could die with thee, yet will I divide thee.
Let's see if everyone else can figure out the rules without clicking the links in 151.
Charing Cross.
Yes it is... oh good move to Kings Cross...
but... Elephant and Castle!
I have no idea if I understand the rules. Austro's comment makes me think there should be some logic to the geography.
The original (in) joke was that listeners were not told what the rules were so had no idea what was going on. Later the panellists realised that since nobody knew what the rules were there was no point sticking to them - so they didn't.
The game became a bit of a free for all and players like Willie Rushton invented gambits to justify their departure from the straight and narrow - or should that be the Circle Line. Eventually the rules were so often ignored that they fell into total disuse and the game became somewhat surreal.
Recently the idea that there are no rules has gained ground amongst some listeners so someone, possibly Jon Naismith, is insisting that some sort of rules be followed, if not quite the original rules - yet. So latterly, in an attempt to bring some structure back to the game, the panellists have agreed (loose) rules that govern each playing of the game.
mwahahaha. Elephant and Castle, that's good.
Actually this is pretty hard for me. I may have to start cheating w/Google soon.
Maida Vale.
Actually, I'm seriously impressed. I doubt i could play this if I had not spent more years in London than I care to think about.
Queensbury.
Oh, you're going to play like that? Revere.
People People.. keep it civilised.. there was no call for a move like that!
I rode out to Epping once, just to see what it was like at the end of one of the lines.
I used to ride to the end of the Jubilee line every bloody day... God I'm glad I moved.
Huh, a Google-proprietary phrase, though I've heard of it before.
That makes me suspicious of my memory, and I'm not finding any mention in my (unindexed) Yukon history reference, so I move to substitute "Sourdough Junction" with "Whiskey Flats."
Or rather, should I say, Nation?
"Mountain Station" is a straddle. You can't straddle at this point in the game, so you need to take that move back.
the answer seems simple - because it is!