If it wasn’t for the limit on weigh ins, it’s easy. That’s where I get stumped. This riddle seems like a Sherlock Holmes mystery to me. I know there has to be some sort of assumption/deducing made with such a small limit on scale use. The logical process of elimination. So I refuse to google or give up.
As for the murdering girl, Bloke nailed it. And Pelagic answered the tribe one very quickly. But ChrisinHove’s guess is pure comedy gold
Thanks for posting that, Lance, and the trip down memory lane. I encountered that one about fifty years ago among many wonderful interactions with other puzzlers. (Martin Gardner was always delightful to correspond with, via letters. A different time, then. Pre ARPA )
I suspect you and most others are deriving the solution via sequential dependent weighings, but a further challenge is to solve by pre-set weighings. That was the followup challenge I was tasked with after I presented the typical solution to one of my mentors.
Knowing that a solution exists doesn't always make it easier to find, but it can spur efforts. I'll give a hint less abstruse than the one I enjoyed , actually the linchpin of that solution: 1, 3, 3 squared.
Good luck.
PS: The puzzle presentation and first solution was equally memorable to me. Not during a surf lift in a JW van, but helping a mentor wax his car with Johnson and Johnson liquid wax, as in floor wax!
Thanks for posting that, Lance, and the trip down memory lane. I encountered that one about fifty years ago among many wonderful interactions with other puzzlers. (Martin Gardner was always delightful to correspond with, via letters. A different time, then. Pre ARPA )
I suspect you and most others are deriving the solution via sequential dependent weighings, but a further challenge is to solve by pre-set weighings. That was the followup challenge I was tasked with after I presented the typical solution to one of my mentors.
Knowing that a solution exists doesn't always make it easier to find, but it can spur efforts. I'll give a hint less abstruse than the one I enjoyed , actually the linchpin of that solution: 1, 3, 3 squared.
Good luck.
PS: The puzzle presentation and first solution was equally memorable to me. Not during a surf lift in a JW van, but helping a mentor wax his car with Johnson and Johnson liquid wax, as in floor wax!
Could you please explain what you mean by this?
Edit: upon re-reading, I assume you mean a set sequence of the same exact three weighings that will give you the solution regardless of where the odd puck is placed? That too is possible and only a minor deviation from the result dependent weighings. That’s a fairly easy step once you’ve worked out the solution. Thanks for the extra credit work! :D
Thanks for posting that, Lance, and the trip down memory lane. I encountered that one about fifty years ago among many wonderful interactions with other puzzlers. (Martin Gardner was always delightful to correspond with, via letters. A different time, then. Pre ARPA )
I suspect you and most others are deriving the solution via sequential dependent weighings, but a further challenge is to solve by pre-set weighings. That was the followup challenge I was tasked with after I presented the typical solution to one of my mentors.
Knowing that a solution exists doesn't always make it easier to find, but it can spur efforts. I'll give a hint less abstruse than the one I enjoyed , actually the linchpin of that solution: 1, 3, 3 squared.
Good luck.
PS: The puzzle presentation and first solution was equally memorable to me. Not during a surf lift in a JW van, but helping a mentor wax his car with Johnson and Johnson liquid wax, as in floor wax!
Could you please explain what you mean by this?
Edit: upon re-reading, I assume you mean a set sequence of the same exact three weighings that will give you the solution regardless of where the odd puck is placed? That too is possible and only a minor deviation from the result dependent weighings. That’s a fairly easy step once you’ve worked out the solution. Thanks for the extra credit work! :D
The three weighings are set , pre-determined, independent of order, and will work regardless of coin number chosen or heavy v. light, with no change in the template of weighings.
Not a minor deviation, nor trivial solution, and does not follow nor derived from the the dependent sequential weighings method. It does require numerical sums, but they can be done by inspection once the formula and method is derived.
Thanks for posting that, Lance, and the trip down memory lane. I encountered that one about fifty years ago among many wonderful interactions with other puzzlers. (Martin Gardner was always delightful to correspond with, via letters. A different time, then. Pre ARPA )
I suspect you and most others are deriving the solution via sequential dependent weighings, but a further challenge is to solve by pre-set weighings. That was the followup challenge I was tasked with after I presented the typical solution to one of my mentors.
Knowing that a solution exists doesn't always make it easier to find, but it can spur efforts. I'll give a hint less abstruse than the one I enjoyed , actually the linchpin of that solution: 1, 3, 3 squared.
Good luck.
PS: The puzzle presentation and first solution was equally memorable to me. Not during a surf lift in a JW van, but helping a mentor wax his car with Johnson and Johnson liquid wax, as in floor wax!
Could you please explain what you mean by this?
Edit: upon re-reading, I assume you mean a set sequence of the same exact three weighings that will give you the solution regardless of where the odd puck is placed? That too is possible and only a minor deviation from the result dependent weighings. That’s a fairly easy step once you’ve worked out the solution. Thanks for the extra credit work! :D
The three weighings are set , pre-determined, independent of order, and will work regardless of coin number chosen or heavy v. light, with no change in the template of weighings.
Not a minor deviation, nor trivial solution, and does not follow nor derived from the the dependent sequential weighings method. It does require numerical sums, but they can be done by inspection once the formula and method is derived.
Yes, I understand and I agree that it is not a trivial solution but the pre set weighings is the only way I know how to solve it. That’s the way I figured out in the back of that van. If there is a simpler method then THAT is the one that I never figured out. I can pm you the solution later but as you know, it’s not that simple to write out. That’s why I raised my eyebrows when Naperville said he had this in 30 seconds. I can’t even verbalize the solution, (much less write it out) in 30 seconds.
Edit: My aplogies, there is a bit more to work out than I first saw...that's the way it goes with this one. :rolleyes: I'm hard at work though...I'll get there.
Last edited by Surfingringo on Thu Aug 22, 2019 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And I too also got coins out, and am not giving up on solving which puck is different. If my head doesn’t implode first....
Took me like 30sec to figure it out.
You got that one in 30 seconds? Sir, if that is true you possess an elite intellect. I’d be interested to hear your method if you want to pm me.
Number of pucks to weigh on scale 12. Now I take it as a balance scale like Lady Liberty holds....two pans where you place objects.
6 pucks on left, 6 on right, ...lightest stack moves on
3 and 3, ...lightest stack moves on
1 and 1, ...lightest is the winner or if they weigh the same, then the puck not on a scale is the lightest.
And I too also got coins out, and am not giving up on solving which puck is different. If my head doesn’t implode first....
Took me like 30sec to figure it out.
You got that one in 30 seconds? Sir, if that is true you possess an elite intellect. I’d be interested to hear your method if you want to pm me.
Number of pucks to weigh on scale 12. Now I take it as a balance scale like Lady Liberty holds....two pans where you place objects.
6 pucks on left, 6 on right, ...lightest stack moves on
3 and 3, ...lightest stack moves on
1 and 1, ...lightest is the winner or if they weigh the same, then the puck not on a scale is the lightest.
Why would the lighter stack move on? What if one of the six pucks on the other side was the odd puck...but heavier. The plot thickens.
Any method which works is praiseworthy, Lance. And while satori may flash in 30 seconds, it takes longer than that to write the three weighings grid. It's all good fun.
Meanwhile, here's a cross discipline puzzle I just cobbled for the forum:
Sal, I gave a Salsa purchased at online forum for inlaw surprise; certainty spawned delighted shy or coy laughter. That should do superb cuts for her blossoms and my eclairs.
-30-
Based on the above paragraph, what else should it cut well?
Any method which works is praiseworthy, Lance. And while satori may flash in 30 seconds, it takes longer than that to write the three weighings grid. It's all good fun.
Meanwhile, here's a cross discipline puzzle I just cobbled for the forum:
Sal, I gave a Salsa purchased at online forum for inlaw surprise; certainty spawned delighted shy or coy laughter. That should do superb cuts for her blossoms and my eclairs.
-30-
Based on the above paragraph, what else should it cut well?
good luck
Done and pm’d. Universal set of 3 that should work for any scenario. It did indeed turn out to be quite close to how I originally approached the solution. I had to make a few minor adaptations to accommodate every possible scenario.
Hi Lance, I'll take a look on a computer screen. Even with readers I can't see it that clearly on this old phone. Old and slow, just like....What were we talking about?
Oooh I love these. My favourite one is the Monty Hall problem:
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?
Oooh I love these. My favourite one is the Monty Hall problem:
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?
This is a wonderful brain bending riddle. One of my favorites.
There’s a jungle. In this jungle lives two tribes. One tribe are all lying cannibals. They will NOT truthfully answer any question regardless of what it is. They will lie to you and eat you if they see you. The other tribe are all honest vegetarians. They CANNOT lie no matter what you ask them. They are peaceful will actually protect you from any danger. Got it?
So you’re being chased down a trail in this jungle by a tiger. You then come to a fork. You know at the end of one trail is the cannibal village, the other trail ends at the vegetarian village. But you’ve lost your map and don’t know which one is which. In the middle of the fork is a native from one of the villages. But which village you don’t know. You have time to ask them one question before the tiger reaches you and you die.
What question do you ask them to guarantee you take the correct path and end up in the vegetarian village, and not be eaten by cannibals or the tiger?
I'd take my chances with the tiger.. seems entirely preferable to spending time in a village full of honest vegetarians.
Lol! This should be in the jokes thread!!!
Hah, yeah sorry, I've always been more of a smart@ss than a riddler..
