Mental Nuts-- Can You Crack 'em?
Mental Nuts-- Can You Crack 'em?
This is a little book of puzzles, riddles, math problems and the like published in 1921 by Waltham Watch Co.
There are 100 Mental nuts, though the first two are just nifty number tricks. Pay careful attention to what is being asked, a number of these puzzles turn on verbal assumptions.
I will put up a new mental nut every day only if the previous nut is cracked or you all cry Uncle. From time to time I will also post some of the advertisements inside the book.
Here is the first (actually #3) Mental Nut:
Doesn't matter how I arrange them ... all whole numbers are divisible by seven ... doesn't say it has to be evenly divisible.
6 - 3 - 1
Except that #6 walks on his hands which forms the number 931.
931 / 7 = 133
This is an unsolvable problem.
We don't know how fast the trains are going.
Doesn't matter if they're on a treadmill.
Rhianne FTW!
6 - 3 - 1
Except that #6 walks on his hands which forms the number 931.
931 / 7 = 133
Rhianne wins this round. I will keep score.
I am way too distracted by that cover design to figure out teh puzzles. It's super modern for 1921!
I thought this was a thread about me. :(
MORE MENTAL NUTS! I can never get them but it's fun trying.
Today's Mental Nut. You are only allowed to google what currency was in circulation in 1921.
I would like a beautiful clock catalog mailed to me, please.
The conductor has only three-cent pieces, but he has lots of them. 165
three-cent pieces make change from a $5 bill for a $0.05 fare. This hoard of coins can't make the right change for a $1 bill though.
In circulation in 1921 US currency.
??
In the 40 years up to 1921, over a million of them were minted. Surely the conductor could have accumulated 165 of them.
I will recalculate with whatever was available starting in 1921, if that is what you're getting at.
The conductor has only three-cent pieces,
but he has lots of them. 165 three-cent pieces make change from a $5 bill for a $0.05 fare.
This hoard of coins can't make the right change for a $1 bill though.
V, that's a fascinating link. I didn't know trimes existed... but I have heard of tribles. ;)
Did you notice that back then postage rates were going down, not up ?
Maybe it was before businesses got the $ reduced junk mail rates. :eyebrow:
Was any currency in postage stamp form?
Was any currency in postage stamp form?
there was, but I can't "show my work" for the same kind of problem describe in footfootfoot's post for making change.
??
In the 40 years up to 1921, over a million of them were minted. Surely the conductor could have accumulated 165 of them.
I will recalculate with whatever was available starting in 1921, if that is what you're getting at.
In circulation, not,
in the conductor's pocketThomas Edison and Henry Ford proposed some kind of 'electric currency' in 1921. Supposedly.
Don't ask me, I don't understand the article:
http://eddiesblogonenergyandphysics.blogspot.com/2011/08/thomas-edison-on-electricity-backed.htmlIn circulation, not, in the conductor's pocket
coins minted thirty years earlier were almost certainly "in circulation". then you say "in 1921 currency". Are you saying the change was rendered in currency minted in 1921? We've strayed a bit from the paragraph in your book. I reckon there are multiple answers to the puzzle, I think I've offered one valid one, though perhaps not the one in your book. I'll hang on until I have an epiphany or you offer the / a different solution.
:)
The silver three cent piece (along with the silver dollar, the half dime, and the two cent piece) was discontinued by the Coinage Act of 1873.
However, production of the coin continued until 1889, 16 years after the three cent silver was discontinued. One reason often given for the discontinuation of the three cent nickel piece in 1889
...
The solution is a practical one, not relying on conductors carrying vast numbers of discontinued coinage.
Does it have something to do with the value of silver?
Just an aside (I am completely stumped by this) I remember using shilling and two shilling pieces as a child. They were accepted in lieu of 5p and 10p coins. But the country decimalised before I was born.
So I understand that the question has a more elegant answer than V suggested, but the words "in circulation" still include discontinued coinage in my head.
I know what you mean and what V means, and I have mosquitoes in my basement still but that doesn't make it summer.
Big V was very close with his wikipedia search, and apart from the coins being discontinued and British, Sundae is also close.
Out of the mouth of babes and fools....
A passenger on a trolley tendered a $1 bill in payment for his 5c. fare. The conductor said "I cannot make the change for a $1, but I can for a $5 bill." What money had he?
At first glance, I see this as a problem of how to make $4.95 change and not be able to make $0.95 change.
Some assumptions I make:
This transaction is being conducted (ha) in US money.
I am disregarding the idea that the "change being made" would be in some weird scrip from the trolley line, counting out a book of tickets equal to $4.95 for example. I don't count this as "money he had".
I'm assuming the passenger is only paying 5 cents for his ride. And that he does ride and he does pay and he does get change.
Hm, that's a lot of assumptions. Maybe the passenger says, "Ok, here's a nickel." But that doesn't answer the question "what money had he?". It makes the problem silly.
a passenger on a trolley (he has to pay). offers a $1, expecting 95c. change. conductor can't make 95c change. I hope this isn't part of the "trick". this sounds really plain. The conductor says he can make $4.95 change.... does he? he says he can make change for a $5 bill tendered for a 5c fare. Am I making an unfair assumption? I am not being literal in the recounting of the parameters, but that's where the cleverness of the puzzles hides...
It's a good puzzle.
to my mind, discontinued in the wiki article means no longer minted. not out of circulation.
Now I sound snippy. I'm not, I'm just wrestling with this one.
I know what you mean and what V means, and I have mosquitoes in my basement still but that doesn't make it summer.
Big V was very close with his wikipedia search, and apart from the coins being discontinued and British, Sundae is also close.
So it has nothing to do with the value of silver.
OK, thanks.
I know what you mean and what V means, and I have mosquitoes in my basement still but that doesn't make it summer.
Now I sound snippy. I'm not, I'm just wrestling with this one.
I didn't mean to challenge the answer - it's a good question that needs thinking. V is thinking, I was rambling.
I call Uncle, but I'm impatient.
I'd expect you to ask for a quorum of at least five (shillings).
Could the answer involve the phrase "I cannot make the change"?
The passenger is attempting to exchange Canadian Dollars for US ones - the fee for which is more than $1?
If so, then the answer to the actual question asked would be: Canadian money.
Answer here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarter_eagle
The quarter eagle denomination was officially discontinued in 1933 with the removal of the United States from the Gold Standard, although the last date of issue was 1929.
Answer here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarter_eagle
ORLY?
Show your work, please.
eta:
Meaning he has coins only to change $5 bills and multiples thereof? Ok, I see that. But that's not really the plain meaning of making change for a dollar (or five dollars) when tendered for a fare. If I've dramatically missed the emphasis, tell me. Was the question, what can make change for 5s and not 1s?
So, the Quarter Eagle is $2.50, meaning the conductor must still produce $2.45. Two $1 bills, four dimes and a nickle, and being a ratshit conductor that is all he has.
That looks good to me ZG.
I agree, tha's change for $5, and not for $1. So is my answer, too.
I'm calling that last nut unsolved. And V, I'll tell you the same thing I told my students: If you put half the effort into finding the correct answer that you put into defending your incorrect answer you'd be at the top of the class.
Technically, perhaps correct, but Occam's Razor says "BZZZZZZ! Thank you for playing."
Here are 5 and 6 since I was out deer hunting all day yesterday. (No)
I'm calling that last nut unsolved. And V, I'll tell you the same thing I told my students: If you put half the effort into finding the correct answer that you put into defending your incorrect answer you'd be at the top of the class.
Technically, perhaps correct, but Occam's Razor says "BZZZZZZ! Thank you for playing."
Here are 5 and 6 since I was out deer hunting all day yesterday. (No)
DOMFCOTL,ISN.
If the answers to number 5 all have to be whole numbers, then:
Dad = 35
Ma = 30
Bro. = 8
Me = 10
If fractional ages can be included (and why couldn't they?), then dad can be anywhere between about 31.5 and 38.5.
The answer to number 6 depends on whether B gets his first increase after 6 months or after 1 year.
The answer to number 6 depends on whether B gets his first increase after 6 months or after 1 year.
What? Maybe I'm missing some glaring issue, but this one doesn't even seem like a puzzle to me...
..................A.........B
At hire:....$500....$500
6 mos:....$500....$525
1 year:....$600....$550
1.5 yr:....$600....$575
2 year:....$700....$600
...There are no percentages to contend with, B is just getting less money.
The guy getting 25 every six months is receiving more INCREASES. ;)
Sure, I suppose B could have been hired decades ago, so at any single given point in time he will still be making more than A. But that's dumb.
It doesn't ask who gets more money. It just asks who receives the most.
The most increases is B with two increases every year followed by A who only gets one increase per year.
Clerk B gets most money in the first year but after that Clerk A takes the lead. I think I must be missing some point.
Assume both A and B get paid half a year's salary at the end of every 6 months; here's the totals for 3 years:
Assume both A and B get paid half a year's salary at the end of every 6 months; here's the totals for 3 years:
I was thinking along those lines, but remember, B's increase is $25 per year, received every six months. So for the second half of the first year B gets an annual rate of 525, which when /2 is 262.50, not 275.
ETA:
[ATTACH]36035[/ATTACH]
After 6 months they are even. After 12 months B is ahead. After 18 months A takes the lead and stays there.
I was thinking along those lines, but remember, B's increase is $25 per year, received every six months. So for the second half of the first year B gets an annual rate of 525, which when /2 is 262.50, not 275.
I thought about that, but it's not clear from the wording.
True, there is ambiguity, but I think this is the most natural interpretation. Your sums are consistent with the other interpretation.
...I have mosquitoes in my basement still but that doesn't make it summer.
Yeah. Dammit.
You can put a cat in the oven, but, that don't make it a biscuit.
[SIZE="1"]I don't know what that means, I just wanted to toss out another clever phrase.[/SIZE]
OK, HLJ gets the various family member's ages right. The question of the two clerks has me a bit stumped and I have the answer from the book, but not the explanation.
The Answer is that "B receives $25 more per year than A"
I think part of the nut is remembering that you aren't paid before you work. And the other part is the somewhat sneaky wording "and B gets a $25 increase every six months" That doesn't mean that B is earning .5*500 for the first six months, then .5*525 for the next six months, while A earned 1*500 for 12 months.
It means that B gets 250 and then 275 as HLJ shows.
So I'm going to give him the points for this one.
The scores so far
Rhianne:1
HLJ: 2
Next nut coming up shortly.
My answer is better.
Now I just have to fit it in the box. ;)
$14.00
Bad $10 bill and a $4 pair of shoes
Infi wins this one.
$4 shoes
$6 change
$10 make good on bad bill
$20.
Butt the shoes sold for $4.00. Surely they didn't actually cost him that much.
There would have been profit involved for the shoemaker.
Then again I guess we are talking opportunity cost ...
just bustin' on ya.
Infi wins this one.
$4 shoes
$6 change
$10 make good on bad bill
$20.
I say $16. All of what you have above, and including the $4 the shoemaker gets to keep from the original change for the bad bill.
Orange you glad he didn't say banana?
Orange you glad he didn't say banana?
Oh, no!!! I love
BANANAS!There was no loss to the boy.
Well the boy is up a pair of shoes and six bucks, but down a fake tenner.
The neighbour is par - gave change for a fake tenner, but got a real tenner later on.
The shoemaker is therefore down by the same amount the boy is up - one pair boots, six bucks.
Give me as much as I have?
what is this i don't even
The man has 8 3/4 cents.
8.75 plus 8.75 equals 17.5 ; 17.5 minus 10 equals 7.5
7.5 plus 7.5 equals 15 ; 15 minus 10 equals 5
5 plus 5 equals 10 ; 10 minus 10 equals 0
I assume it means he started with 8.75c and the first store owner gives him 8.75c. He then spends 10c, leaving him with 7.5c, and so on.
Edit: Woops! BigV beat me.
Beat you? Bah. You are my colleague--footfootfoot is the designated beater in this thread.
I see you also corrected the 2 with a 7. :)
Well the maths works, but how does he have 8.75 cents?
????
three cent nickels, quarter eagles, all these nuts are cracked. Where is your suspension of disbelief???
I'm starting to suspect the person who wrote this book was both mental AND nuts.
might not have happened in US currency. I found a link to a quarter-cent minted in ... Fiji? somewhere...
Malaysia Straits.Well the boy is up a pair of shoes and six bucks, but down a fake tenner.
The neighbour is par - gave change for a fake tenner, but got a real tenner later on.
The shoemaker is therefore down by the same amount the boy is up - one pair boots, six bucks.
Zen gets this one. I misread the answer earlier.
The man has 8 3/4 cents.
8.75 plus 8.75 equals 17.5 ; 17.5 minus 10 equals 7.5
7.5 plus 7.5 equals 15 ; 15 minus 10 equals 5
5 plus 5 equals 10 ; 10 minus 10 equals 0
Big V is right. I have no idea about how one gets 8 3/4 cents, but no less unlikely than finding a merchant who will give you matching funds to spend at his store. Let's assume the transactions were credit transactions on paper.
Scores so far:
Mental Nuts:
Rhianne = 1
HLJ = 2
Zen = 1
BigV =1
Wait, you're keeping score?
[/perks up]
[SIZE="1"](not really)[/SIZE]
Wait, you're keeping score?
[/perks up]
[SIZE="1"](not really)[/SIZE]
get busy!
Farm A is worth $4,800 and farm B is worth $1,200.
Wait, you're keeping score?
[/perks up]
[SIZE="1"](not really)[/SIZE]
Shirley, you jest.
Mental Nuts:
Rhianne = 1
HLJ = 2
Zen = 1
BigV =1
Glatt = 1
It was easy. I was doubting myself as I was punching numbers into the calculator because it was too easy.
There is a trap in the question - that we might mistake "one-half mile square" for half a square mile, when of course a square half a mile on each side is a quarter of a square mile.
Glatt was way too smart for that. Pfft.
ETA, For this New Years Eve, I'd like to meet a girl as easy as this puzzle. :)
They try to get you all confused with the illustration. I didn't fall for it, nosirree.
;)
But that's only $7.50 per acre! Now I have to figure out how to go back to 1921 to buy some land.
But that's only $7.50 per acre! Now I have to figure out how to go back to 1921 to buy some land.
Be sure to take 1,000 3/4 cent pieces with you. :right:
There is a trap in the question - that we might mistake "one-half mile square" for half a square mile, when of course a square half a mile on each side is a quarter of a square mile.
Glatt was way too smart for that. Pfft.
ETA, For this New Years Eve, I'd like to meet a girl as easy as this puzzle. :)
eta: usually, if you can find that button, it's pretty easy from there.
Do I have to give back my trophy?
Do I have to give back my trophy?
You got a trophy? I'm still waiting for the free circus ticket I was told I'd receive for getting the first one right.
But Rhianne, y'are at the circus, y'are! It's called "The Cellar" :lol:
There's no shortage of clowns, that's for sure!
Send in me, there's got to be me [/judycollins]
Here is nut # 10 which is more of an origami thing. I suppose for some people this sort of thing is a challenge.
I am also putting up #11, a proper mental nut.
And Rhianne, I forgot to mention shipping and handling and a 2.5% ticketmaster surcharge is not included in that free ticket.
I'm not sure I get the question, but I'll guess the answer is 128.
If the answer can be a fraction, then it should be 4.766.
I'm not sure I get the question, but I'll guess the answer is 128.
That may be the answer to #10, but not #11.
I think the question is asking if you had a cube made of cubic blocks (the size is irrelevant as long as they are all the same size cubes) and you surrounded the cube with more of the same sized blocks, so that the same number of blocks were in the large cube as in the surrounding square, how many cubic blocks would you have?
I was thinking what number has a square root and a cube root that are both whole numbers. That's where I came up with 128.
If the square has to be touching the cube, the answer would be 4.766.
If the square could be much larger than the cube, than there could be many answers.
Edit: I'm re-thinking this.
Well that's not the answer either and I can't really figure out how they got the answer they did.
Okay, the stuff about pumpkin seeds is distraction.
I want to start by understanding the question. Here are some clear points for starters:
1. We take blocks of a regular size, 1x1x1.
2. We arrange some into a perfect cube.
3. We arrange others into a perfect square. *see post 105
4. The number of blocks used to make the cube must be equal to the number of blocks used to make the square.
5. Adding these numbers together is the final answer.
6. The cube must be able to fit inside the square.
Now for some less certain parts of the question:
7. There is exactly one correct answer.
8. This must be an integer.
Now for some assumptions which are not stipulated. The solution probably lies in challenging one or more of these:
9. The square must touch the cube at at least one point.
10. The square must abut the cube along all of the cube's faces.
11. The square is only one layer high.
12. The square is only one layer thick.
13. The square is on the same alignment as the cube.
Violating 10 makes it fairly easy. You could have a cube 4x4x4, having 64 blocks, and make a square 16 blocks each side around it, thus using 16x4 = 64 blocks, thus reaching HLJ's answer of 128. Or you could make the square double height, 8 blocks per side, and still use 64 blocks. *see post 105
This does not deliver a uniquely correct answer, since other combinatiosn work with this.
You could have a cube of 6x6x6 = 216 blocks, and a square 8 blocks per side and 6 blocks high (8x4)x6 =216 blocks.
Or a cube 100x100x100 = 1,000,000 and a square 250 long and 1,000 high (250x4)x1000 = 1,000,000.
If you reject 10 and 13 you can play around with Pythagorean triads, but I had a look and couldn't find anything promising.
What the hell kind of pumpkin has cubic seeds, anyway?
Perhaps this pumpkin math fact will help:
Do you know the ratio between a pumpkin's circumference and a pumpkin's radius?
[SIZE="4"]Pumpkin[/SIZE][ATTACH]36198[/ATTACH]
3. We arrange others into a perfect square.
Violating 10 makes it fairly easy. You could have a cube 4x4x4, having 64 blocks, and make a square 16 blocks each side around it, thus using 16x4 = 64 blocks, thus reaching HLJ's answer of 128. Or you could make the square double height, 8 blocks per side, and still use 64 blocks.
If we keep 10 but tinker with 3 and define a square as a line formed by one edge of a row of blocks, we get another option.
Think of a cube 4x4x4. Then wall this in with a ring 4 cubes on each side, i.e.
leave the corners unfilled. Make the ring four blocks high. The square is the inside edge of the outer lines of blocks.
[ATTACH]36199[/ATTACH]
Then you think the total number of seeds is 16!?
Oh, no, 128, as you said earlier - that pic is a top view, the whole thing is 4 layers high. So there are 64 in the cube, 64 in the wall which defines the square.
I was just showing this could be made to work and still have the square touching the faces of the cube.
Yet FFF says this is not the answer. :eyebrow:
FFF, when people are done, please post the official answer and we can have another puzzle trying to figure out how they reached it.
I really should go do stuff. See all yall later.
Hmm, what if it were a square wall around it? i.e. a hollow cube?
For that matter does the cube have to be solid?
if the number were 16, you could make a cube by stacking 2x2x2 = 8, then a ring of 2,2,2,2 = 8
That's true, but that's not very many seeds for a prize-winning pumpkin.
yeah, well... The whole pumpkin with 1ft cubic seeds thing is a bit of a mind fuck anyway....
I mean.... Where the hell did they come up with that shit? They could have used hay bales or coal or...fuck...anything else.
My answer works, so I'm claiming victory for this one. Put me on the list of geniuses.
Then you think the total number of seeds is 16!?
On second thoughts, yes.
if the number were 16, you could make a cube by stacking 2x2x2 = 8, then a ring of 2,2,2,2 = 8
Yeah, this.
The answer, mysteriously enough (they don't give an explanation) is 1024.
if 1024 is the answer,
then the answer is that the cube is 8x8x8 and the square around the cube is 8 layers deep on each side. And the corners are filled in. So each side ends up with 128 cubes.
I guess they wanted the sides to be as thick as the cube.
Today's nut without seminal obfuscation:
[COLOR=White][COLOR=Black]>>[/COLOR]4x40 acres = 160 acres[/COLOR]
i wanna say 60 without doing any math or thinking about it at all.
It doesn't say the acres have to be square. So I assumed the fence is a circle, and was going to do the math with Area=pi*r(squared) and circumference=2*pi*r
But I decided to google it and found that HLJ is correct and they are talking about square plots.
if 1024 is the answer,
then the answer is that the cube is 8x8x8 and the square around the cube is 8 layers deep on each side. And the corners are filled in. So each side ends up with 128 cubes.
I guess they wanted the sides to be as thick as the cube.
I think we, the Cellar, have come up with several answers that meet the requirements as well as this.
A slightly simpler way to do the maths for this answer would be to imagine the 8x8x8 cube in the middle, then image 8 8x8 flat squares abuting each side and filling the corners. 8 sets of 64 = 512.
i wanna say 60 without doing any math or thinking about it at all.
Hand back your genius card, sir!
It doesn't say the acres have to be square. So I assumed the fence is a circle, and was going to do the math with Area=pi*r(squared) and circumference=2*pi*r
The starting phrase "if one mile of fencing encloses 40 acres ... " fairly strongly implies square fields (although not necessarily).
Clear communication is not the strong point of our nut-setter.
#10, part one of two:
[ATTACH]36239[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]36240[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]36241[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]36242[/ATTACH]
#10 part two of two:
[ATTACH]36243[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]36244[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]36245[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]36246[/ATTACH]
"FIRST!"
That wins you points, sir!
And Zen, let's not forget that the nutsetter wrote this at the dawn of the roaring 20's god knows what type of bathtub gin they were into then, not to mention the hangover from all the Victorian sex abstinence.
foot, perhaps you should post the new puzzles at a specific time of day - say 10 am Eastern time.
foot, perhaps you should post the new puzzles at a specific time of day - say 10 am Eastern time.
I'm BigV and I endorse this statement!
eta:
Or... like the radio promotions that urge you to listen (through the endless commercials) for a specific song, a range in which the nut would be posted. That might be an easier target to hit. I do feel a certain timezone disadvantage here for when you rise and post early. Let's call it a handicap. hahhahahhahaha!
I like the random timings, it gives different people the chance to have first go.
I'm with Zen and Rhianne. I post them when I can get to the computer w/o SWMBO chewing my ass out.
So that being written, here are nuts 13 & 14. Someone wisely crossed out 13 since it is way too easy and involves currency. At least the denominations are stated.
#14: $2.00.
That's the pro rated cost for a trip that is $4 / 24 miles. The passenger is picked up at mile 6, travels 6 miles to the city, and 6 miles back to the crossroads, for a total of 12 miles.
Of course, an infinite number of other answers could be given, with other equally valid justifications.
eta: I'm with footfootfoot, who is with Zen and Rhianne. Random's fine. I love this thread.
#14. $1.
The team costs $1 per six mile stage, which IMHO should be shared equally between all those on board.
First stage - 6 miles, $1, author alone = author pays $1.
Second stage - 6 miles, $1, author and passenger, each pay 50 cents.
Third stage - 6 miles, $1, author and passenger, each pay 50 cents.
Fourth stage - 6 miles, $1, author alone = author pays $1.
#13 ...
There are one, five and ten cent pieces...
Notice that it doesn't say that there are 25 cent pieces.
If the list is supposed to be exhaustive, then there are no quarters and thus they cannot be changed.
If the list is
not exhaustive, then nothing rules out there being two and three cent pieces as well. Or even 8.75 cent pieces...
#14. $1.
The team costs $1 per six mile stage, which IMHO should be shared equally between all those on board.
First stage - 6 miles, $1, author alone = author pays $1.
Second stage - 6 miles, $1, author and passenger, each pay 50 cents.
Third stage - 6 miles, $1, author and passenger, each pay 50 cents.
Fourth stage - 6 miles, $1, author alone = author pays $1.
do bus fares where you live cost less when they're more crowded?
when you share a cab do you split the ticket this way?
I, myself, am not in the habit of picking up hitchhikers, but when I do, I never charge them for the ride. My trip was already a sunk cost, and the extra expense of stopping one extra time to pick them up and once more to drop them off is negligible.
This isn't a bus, it's a hired "team".
Yeah, if I shared a cab under those circumstances, that is what I would consider fair.
What is this crazy talk about "dropping off" hitchhikers? :devil:
The answer to #13 is 12 ways (like wonder bread)
The answer to #14 is (verbatim) $1 partners 1/2 trip
At first I thought it should be $2. Thinking as though I were the owner of the team, upon reading the answer I realized that I was splitting the cost per mile with the other passenger.
New nuts coming shortly.
There may or may not be a Christmas nut.
Here is #15:
Be careful.
>>[COLOR=White]The bottle was $1.05, and the cork was $0.05 -[/COLOR] both of which seem extremely expensive considering you could get land for $7.50 an acre.
Bottle and cork costs aside, the whiskey, apparently, was free, very free, else I'd have risen sooner to take a crack at this nut. Nice one, HungLikeJesus. :)
So that's 0.14 acres for a bottle and 0.0027 acres for a cork.
How far will an acre take you in Zen's hired team?
Good point. Land was cheap and everything else was expensive. I think that led directly to the collapse of the housing bubble.
Good King Mental Nut looked out on the feast of Stephen...
Tomorrow's nut today!
"all sold their corn at the same prices" ... same price per bushel or same price for a year's production of corn regardless of volume?
"each received the same amount of money for his corn" ... same as each other, or the same meaning "same as previously mentioned".
Either of these allows a solution.
Or it could be that A really sucks at business and/or maths.
Or they're running a co-op. Damn commies.
hence the mental nut which needs cracking, so get cracking!
Farm subsidies.
Next question?
A was using little bushels, B medium and C giant bushels.
Or maybe A's bushels weren't very full, etc.
I was here on time, no clue. Slept on it, no clue. How about this: A's corn was popped popcorn, B's corn was fresh corn, and C's corn was dried corn. The different *densities* would account for the differing volumes. This presumes that the corn was selling for the same price per pound (?). Because it seems that the corn isn't selling for the same price per bushel (volume).
Somehow, different numbers of bushels are worth equal amounts of money. What varies? The quality of the corn? The quantity of the corn? Wait. Perhaps they all gave their corn away for free, and consequently each received the same amount of money, zero.
That's my answer. The corn was worthless, and they're taking it to the town corn dump. They're being paid *nothing*, equally.
sold 49, 28, and 7 bushels @7/$1
1,2, and 3 bushels @1/$3
Nuts.
:eyebrow:
:right:
:headshake:
I liked Bigv's answer of zero better.
When I was a lad, I remember the older generation deriding what we were being taught as the "new math." Like math could somehow change from one generation to the next. But obviously it did.
The corn was worthless, and they're taking it to the town corn dump.
We might have a butter mountain. But every town has its own corn dump?!
Wow, you guys know how to live ;)
If the 2012 asteroid hits just right, we could get some awesome popcorn!
sold 49, 28, and 7 bushels @7/$1
1,2, and 3 bushels @1/$3
I have to assume that this answer involves some inherent cultural knowledge of the time, like bushels of corn are
always sold either singly or in groups of 7. Because otherwise, it's just retarded.
I think it is a bit of both. and now for the next nut:
(Chrome crashed when I was loading yesterday's nut, so here are two)
#17 started with[COLOR="LemonChiffon"] 15 cents.[/COLOR]
For #18, >> [COLOR=White]you have to rent a sheep to get twenty; the first guy gets 10, second 5, third 4, then return the rental sheep[/COLOR].
#18[COLOR="LemonChiffon"]Get one of the sheep knocked up?
With the ram, ya pervert[/COLOR]
#18
[COLOR="White"]
1/2 plus 1/4 plus 1/5 does not equal 1, it equals .95. So 19 is the actual number he left them, not the number he started with. The total number he had was (.95)(x) = 19, so x=20.[/COLOR]
A man left nineteen sheep to three heirs. One to get one-half, one one-quarter, and one one-fifth. No sheep were to be killed, and all to be dealt fairly with.
I see how the math works out when you add one sheep to make the total twenty. But why just add one to do that, why not add eighty-one and distribute 50 and 25 and 20 then return 5? This better not be the answer, adding one...
Still, very creative friends I have here!
****
A man left nineteen sheep to three heirs.
Ok, fine. This seems very straightforward. 19 sheep, heirs. Pretty unambiguous.
One to get one-half, one one-quarter, and one one-fifth.
Here's the nut that needs cracking. Half of what? A quarter of what?, a fifth of what? As y'all have pointed out, this doesn't "add up". What's missing? Or what is to be left out? How can these work out... What about half of ... the weight? Regardless, those fractions will never add up to 1, the presumptive "whole". As long as we're talking about only one kind of thing (a group of 19 sheep for example) those pieces will leave some left over.
Nothing in this nut says that 1/2 and 1/4 and 1/5 is the complete list of what was "to get".
Nothing says that the "one" who gets is a different heir. I can imagine that the same "one gets" 1/2, and 1/4, and 1/5 (of the sheep??) so this heir gets 19 sheep. Still leaves 1/20th of 19 sheep unallocated. Grrrrrrr...
Maybe these "fractions" aren't talking about fractions of the flock of sheep. What about one heir getting half the sheep, another heir getting a quarter (a twenty five cent piece or a $2.50 coin, take your pick) and another gets a jug of shine (a fifth). ... ... What am I gonna do about the other "half of nineteen sheep" (ha fucking ha)??
A man left nineteen sheep to three heirs. One to get one-half, one one-quarter, and one one-fifth. No sheep were to be killed, and all to be dealt fairly with.
still thinking...
15 cents
Borrow or rent a sheep
Moving on, a very easy one!
pour three gallons from 8gal cask into 3gal jug leaving five gallons in the 8gal cask
now pour three gallons from the 3gal jug into the 5gal carboy
now pour three gallons from the 8gal cask into the 3gal jug leaving 2 gallons in the 8
shit
three columns, representing three vessels, 8gal cask, 5gal carboy, 3gal jug
each row will always add up to 8 gallons, and the changes, the pours should be obvious.
8--5--3
--------
8--0--0 (pour 3 from cask to jug, filling jug, to get to the next line)
5--0--3 (pour 3 from jug to carboy, emptying jug, to get to the next line)
5--3--0 (pour 3 from cask to jug, filling jug, to get to the next line)
2--3--3 (pour 2 from jug to carboy, filling carboy, leaving 1 in jug, to get to the next line)
2--5--1 (pour 5 from carboy to cask, emptying carboy, to get to the next line)
7--0--1 (pour 1 from jug to carboy, emptying jug, to get to the next line)
7--1--0 (pour 3 from cask to jug, filling jug, to get to the next line)
4--1--3 (pour 3 from jug to carboy, emptying jug, to get to the next line)
4--4--0 (ta-da!)
Fill the 5 from the 8 (3/8) (5/5) (0/3)
Fill the 3 from the five (3/8) (2/5) (3/3)
Pour 3 into 8 (6/8) (2/5) (0/3)
Pour (2/5) into 3 (6/8) (0/5) (2/3)
Pour 5/8 into 5 (1/8) (5/5) (2/3)
Pour 1/5 into 3 (1/8) 4/5) (3/3)
Pour 3/3 into 1/8 (4/8) 4/5) (0/3)
Borrow or rent a sheep
That's not an answer. This book sucks, foot.
this requires some knowledge of horses and their shoes.
Is this a four-legged horse?
My google image search showed that most horse shoes take 6 nails. So Imma say $3 for the 24 nails needed.
Thanks glatt. I'll say the total cost is [COLOR=White]2^(n-1), where n = 6*4, for a total cost of $83,886.08[/COLOR]
Close, 8 nails is more common, re-figure.
Ok, revised to: [COLOR=Black]total cost [COLOR=White]is [/COLOR][/COLOR][COLOR=White]2^(n-1), where n = 8*4, for a total cost of $21,474,836.48[/COLOR]
"four for the third"
I missed that part. It's exponential, and my answer is way off the mark. It's not in the same ball park, and not even in the same city. $3, hah!
Don't forget that you have to add up the price for all the individual nails. So your calculation is correct for finding the price of the final nail. I don't remember if there is a formula for doing a sum of numerous equations. There must be, and I just can't remember it.
When I break out my calculator and do a tedious 3 minutes of punching numbers in, I get a total of $42,949,652.95
Mental Nuts-- Can You Crack 'em?
--snip--
I will put up a new mental nut every day only if the previous nut is cracked exactly how it is printed in the answer key in the back of this little gem or you all cry Uncle. --snip
FTFY
I see how the math works out when you add one sheep --snip-- This better not be the answer, adding one...
--snip
That's not an answer. This book sucks, foot.
Here's one for you, Clod
Hiya Clod! Plenty of room in my bitter barn, pull up a stump. Or a stack of numismatic catalogs, or a partially filled wine jug of either 8, 5, or 3 gallon capacity. Mind the pile of pebbles there, we'll be needing them later to drown our sorrows.
Don't forget that you have to add each nail together. So your calculation is correct for finding the price of the final nail. I don't remember if there is a formula for doing a sum of numerous equations. There must be, and I just can't remember it.
When I break out my calculator and do a tedious 3 minutes of punching numbers in, I get a total of $42,949,652.95
Good point. I think the easy way to do it would be to double the cost of the last and subtract one.
(2^(n-1) * 2)-1 = (2^n) -1
(2^32) -1 = 4294967295 (cents)
$42,949,672.95, which agrees with your results.
Edit: I made a typo.
$42,949,672.95
That's more like it. This is reminiscent of the puzzler about the wise ass who had some king pay him a penny for the first square on a chess board and two pennies for the second, four for the next, and so on doubling the amount until the King figured out what was going on and had the guy beheaded.
You will have to wait for another nut until tomorrow, but I will off this little puzzle from another, unrelated book.
"How I need a drink, alcoholic in nature, after the tough chapters involving quantum mechanics!"
Glatt, a heroic calculation !
But the answer depends on your assumption about "first nail"
1st leg: 1st nail = $0.01 ... 6 nails per shoe = $0.63
2nd leg: 1st nail = $0.01 ... 6 nails per shoe = $0.63
3rd leg: 1st nail = $0.01 ... 6 nails per shoe = $0.63
4th leg: 1st nail = $0.01 ... 6 nails per shoe = $0.63
Total: $2.52
Time to calculate: 15 seconds :D
4 hooves, 8 nails per hoof = 32 nails
2 to the 32 = $42,949,672.95
2 to the 32
that's embarrassingly easy. I'm ashamed that I pulled out my calculator to add all those nails up. I should know better.
Edit: Wait a second. That's wrong.
[ATTACH]36375[/ATTACH]
He left out the "minus 1."
An my plan would have worked if it hadn't been for that meddling Jesus!
Today's nut brought to you by Squirell Nutkin!
The squirrel is on the tree, and he went around the tree, so yes, he went around the squirrel.
Does Jupiter go around the Earth?
Is there a treadmill involved?
Does Dark Matter surround Uranus?
This one messes with my space/time/direction dyslexia. I'm sure this ties into my objection to the 'lefty loosy righty tighty' adage, too.
If the squirrel were avoiding the dude in the same direction around the tree, how is he going around the squirrel?
The squirrel is not part of the tree, he's just on the tree.
What if it's a really big tree and the hunter is on the inside?
That hunter's so fat that when he sits around a squirrel, he really sits around a squirrel!
Why is skwirl so hard to spell correctly?
Yes, the hunter goes around the squirrel. The two of them make concentric circles around the tree, with the hunter's circle completely enclosing the squirrel's circle.
eta: I missed glatt's answer. wtg glatt! twelve minutes, dang. I was sleeping!
B.S.
Squirrel goes around the tree. Dude is going around the tree, in his larger concentric circle, always opposite the squirrel.
He never goes around the squirrel.
He goes around the tree, which the squirrel happens to be on.
Of course I'll bow to your far superior minds. I did say that I have direction dyslexia and space/time continuum problems. Best to ignore me and don't explain it to me. I'll go away.
In about 30 years.
B.S.
Squirrel goes around the tree. Dude is going around the tree, in his larger concentric circle, always opposite the squirrel.
He never goes around the squirrel.
He goes around the tree, which the squirrel happens to be on.
Of course I'll bow to your far superior minds. I did say that I have direction dyslexia and space/time continuum problems. Best to ignore me and don't explain it to me. I'll go away.
In about 30 years.
is this part in earnest?
rsvp
it goes around it as much as an electron goes around a proton.
the hunter completes a circle which the squirl never leaves. he may never get 'behind' the skwurl, but he does go around it foshizzel. old wrong book.
Infi wins this one.
Is that what the Book says?
Infi wins this one.
What does the book say?
Because either I'm actually right and these geniuses are wrong (in which case they'll debate heavily, having never BEEN wrong) or I'm wrong and you'll tell me later that I'm wrong as you did when you accidentally thought I was right, or you're saying I'm right just to appease me.
I was asking an honest question, or giving my version of an answer (admittedly at a level far beneath some of you.) Watching you Einsteins do brain cartwheels AROUND me (because I'm not ON the tree) teaches me nothing, makes me feel stupid, and makes you look like jerks.
Is that what the Book says?
HEY. don't go giving that damned thing any more Capitalization Credibility than it already has.
Hunter =outside circle.
Squirrel = Brown circle
Tree = Black circle.
I agree, the hunter does circle the squirrel
(Thanks for trying to explain your reasoning to me, instead of dismissing my answer outright.)
The sqwirllll is not part of the tree. Here be my picture of the man walking around the squirrel. If the squirrel was advancing in circles opposite the man, in his bigger concentric circles, the man is not walking AROUND the squirrel because the squirrel isn't PART OF THE TREE. If the squirrel stayed there like an idiot, I'd change my answer. But that wasn't the question.
(Tree be round part in brown. Sqweeereeeel ees star. Man is explanatory. The Squirrel Not Part of Tree is before I found the text box.)
I don't see how having a divergent opinion makes ME a jerk, infi. if anything, your blubbering makes YOU look like one.
I'm not talking about a divergent opinion I'm talking about dismissiveness, and I wasn't necessarily talking to YOU.
So go fuck yourself jim, I'll just keep blubbering. You make baby monkey cry.
MOther fuckers, I'm just trying to participate. some of you are dismissive fucking know-it-alls and THEY can go fuck themselves too.
You try being treated like a second class serf by your 'friends' here and see how you feel. Kinder, gentler, jim.
GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE.
Thanks, really, thanks. This new nice jim sure does understand the heart of others. When he feels like it.
that's nice.
So, because I have tried to be more considerate lately, I should go fuck myself if I tell it to you straight?
You were overreacting to imagined slights. now you're having a meltdown. I'm sorry if I set you off. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings when I stated my opinion about this answer. I never said anything to or about you until you began splashing the sarcasm around and calling us ALL jerks.
Go take a deep breath.
and there's no new jim. same guy. different experience. I try to learn from my mistakes. this has gotta be the 11th time you've flown off the fucking handle over nothing. maybe you should try to be the new calmer monkey.
No. No I won't.
I'm sick of it, and I'm done. I'm not your whipping boy, or anyone elses.
No one gives a fuck what I have to say until they see they're getting under my skin, then it becomes a joke to push me til I blow.
And I"m powerless to just walk away. Like I need something from ehre. Like I keep thinking I belong somehow.
You want nice? I sure have tried, but I am NOTHING here, and I don't need it.
Tell me again how I imagine and how I melt down. I hope your psychiatry online degree comes in the mail soon. Hopefully before you kill someone.
Deep breath. Fuck taht.
fucking made me double post and look crazy, you twat... so here's a triple post just so you can be SURE I'm as nutty as you are, squirrel turd!
HAGGIS THESE NVTS!
cmere... gimme a hug, you dirty bitch
Fuck yourself jim.
FUCK YOURSELF. HYPOCRITE.
But before you do please to enumerate all my faults. I'm not sure I know every single last one of them.
Dismissive.
cmon now... before you say something you'll regret....
let me hold you
and I NEVER said i was kinder... or any of that. you people said that.
Oh, I like the new nice jim... which is fine.... whatever... The only REAL difference is that it usually doesn't occur to me to pick on someone. jinx used to point stupid shit out, and wind me up... I had the capacity to flame them unmerciful. I still do. I just don't bother all that much anymore.
Are you smiling? I DO really love you, you know. for serious.
okie dokie... Sorry if I offended somehow. I was trying to explain my opinion which I thought was the same as IM's...
The part that I believe we differ upon is this (from the original)
"A hunter sees a squirrel on the trunk of a tree" (bold mine)
Perhaps the squirrel doesn't stay ON the tree. However, I thought that was the implication. As you were, I'm out.
Does the hunter go around the muzzle of his gun?
yes! and he goes around the end of his nose, and he goes around all of the air between him and the tree, and he goes around the worms in the apples on the ground near the tree, and he goes right round, baby right round.
Irrelevant question.
Is the hunter holding the gun or is the gun stationary or is the squirrel holding it?
Irrelevant question.
Is the hunter holding the gun or is the gun stationary or is the squirrel holding it?
It's relevant to me. If you find it irrelevant, why bother mentioning it? I'm imagining a scenario like the illustration that accompanied this nut originally. You can scroll back for reference.
Ok, well then tell me how an inanimate object HELD BY THE HUNTER is
remotely related to a live squirrel intentionally moving opposite the hunter.
Does the hunter circle the squirrel?
Does the hunter circle the tree?
What else, the muzzle of his gun for example, does the hunter circle?
What does it mean for the hunter to circle something?
It is necessary to know the answer to this last question if you're going to be able to answer the first question. I often move from the general to the specific when solving puzzles. This is one such example.
We're all drawing the same diagrams. I think we all picture it perfectly. What we disagree on is what it means to go around something. It's all relative. The skwirlell might think it's going around the guy.
Relative to the ground, the guy is going around the sqirelle. See the diagram cm drew and the one footsie drew in the bottom corner..
And the hunter does go around the muzzle of his gun.
Edit: And if I edit infinite Monkey's picture, it's showing how the man is going around the squerl.
It might help if you ignore the tree. The hunter circles the tree, not the squiwwel.
Dear disappoint footfootfoot:
Does the hunter in your diagram circle the tree?
It might help if you ignore the tree. The hunter circles the tree, not the squiwwel.
like this?
Okay, now move the hunter closer to the tree-rat, really close.
like this?
Yes that is what I was thinking. Again the issue is "Perhaps the squirrel doesn't stay ON the tree. However, I thought that was the implication. "
Okay, now move the hunter closer to the tree-rat, really close.
Why does distance matter? The hunter isn't on the tree.
If someone is at home with you right now then try it.
Stand up facing each other and 'circle' around as if you are wrestlers about to grapple, one in a slightly tighter arc. Is the one on the outside circling the other?
Why does distance matter? The hunter isn't on the tree.
It doesn't, that's what I was trying to say in a rather awkward way!
The squirrel is making a circular path whose center point is the center of the tree. And the hunter is making a circular path with a center point that's the center of the tree. The hunter's circle is larger than the squirrel's circle. The squirrel's circle is entirely inside the hunter's circle. We agree on this, right?
If the squirrel made a circle that was so small, the center point was inside the body of the squirrel, would the hunter be circling the squirrel then? For example, say the squirrel had its paw resting on the top of the tree as it was running around the other side. Is the hunter going around the squirrel then?
What about if the squirrel is standing on the top of the tree and rotating so it was always facing the hunter? Is the hunter going around the squirrel then?
At some point, the hunter has to be going around the squirrel. When is that point?
What if the hunter and the squirrel are always on the same side of the tree - does that change anyone's answer?
I'm with IM on this one.
glatt, my illustration sucks, but in my mind both the man and the squirrel are circling the tree. I guess what I was showing was what it would take for the man to walk around the squirrel.
And I'm sorry for losing it earlier. A lot on my plate, and a trigger word. Jim and I have spoken, but I wanted to say I'm sorry to everyone. :(
"Sorry for ruining your black panther thread" foot.
I like footfootfoot's illustration. I don't agree with his conclusion because I don't agree with his reasoning.
What if the tree in his picture were a lazy susan in the middle of a round table. As the hunter walks around the table, does he walk around the lazy susan? What if the lazy susan is rotating in the same direction and at the same speed as the hunter? What if the lazy susan is stopped?
HLJ, do you believe the hunter has circled the tree?
If I walk around your house when you're home, have I circled your house? Have I circled you? In what way does it matter how you're moving inside your house as I circle it with respect to my circling you?
ps, please don't shoot me, I'm just trying to make a point, not looking for a way into your house.
As Deming would say, we can't agree on an answer without appropriate operational definitions.
Ok, fair enough.
What does it mean to circle a tree? To you, that is.
And I'm sorry for losing it earlier.
It's all good. I understand what you are saying about the skwerl. I just have a different perspective.
If I walk around your house when you're home, have I circled your house? Have I circled you? In what way does it matter how you're moving inside your house as I circle it with respect to my circling you?
this
As Deming would say, we can't agree on an answer without appropriate operational definitions.
I get so excited when you get all QA on me. ;)
And always keeps the tree between himself and the hunter
This is the crucial bit of information.
Consider a bicycle wheel for example. The hole in the rim for the valve stem is opposite the seam of the rim. The wheel revolves around the axle. The valve stem and seam each go around the axle every revolution. They do not go around each other. They do go around the position the other previously occupied however. Compare this to a ratchet wrench. The socket is the axis, the handle goes around the axis, but the handle does not go around itself.
The squirrel always keeps the tree between himself and the hunter. The tree is the axis, the squirrel is the seam on the rim and the hunter is the valve stem.
No, the hunter does not walk around his gun. His gun is not stationary, it moves with him. He may walk around the location his gun used to be, but that is not the same as walking around his gun. Unless he has one of those special mag-lev guns that just hangs in mid air while you circumambulate around it. Otherwise, if it is a normal gun then he will be taking it with him when he walks around the tree.
FFS here's the next one: (I have updated it so you modern "new math" educated folks can understand it.
Setting aside their differences, Classicman and Infinite Monkey pool their money and invest in some very tiny houses on very tiny lots in a very sketchy neighborhood.
Classic invests $5000. and Infi invests $3000 and they buy three identical houses. Classic and Infi each choose a home for them own selfs. They then sell the remaining house to some complete rube for $8000. How should they divvy the cash?
Classic owns 5/8ths of the company stock, Infi owns 3/8ths. So the dividends go 5/8ths to Classic ($5,000) and 3/8ths to Infi ($3,000.)
It should also be noted that when they sell Infi's house, she will owe 5/8ths of those proceeds to Classic as well.
Is the understanding that they are each to own their own house after the transaction? If so, they should divide the money as clod says then infi should give classic $2,000 so he will end up with $7,000 and a house and she will end up with $1000 and a house (he owns 5/8 of her shouse, she owns 3/8 of his, assume all three houses worth 8,000 at that time, so the difference is 2/8)
But that was too easy so it must be wrong.
You forgot to factor in the divorce attorneys cut. They both get zilch.
I get all the money - That way I 'll have a down payment on a new Maxima.
Is the understanding that they are each to own their own house after the transaction? If so, they should divide the money as clod says then infi should give classic $2,000 so he will end up with $7,000 and a house and she will end up with $1000 and a house (he owns 5/8 of her shouse, she owns 3/8 of his, assume all three houses worth 8,000 at that time, so the difference is 2/8)
But that was too easy so it must be wrong.
You are wrong; your answer was right.
You are wrong about being wrong so your answer is correct.
And now for something completely different:
1.111111111111 bushels
total minus 10 percent equals 90 percent.
90 percent (what the miller gave the customer) equals one bushel.
.9*total = 1 bushel
(.9*total)/.9 = (1 bushel)/.9
total == 1.11111111111 bushels
Oh no, I think we've established that when you are giving part of something to someone, the answer is to borrow some extra so you don't have to work in decimals.
1.111111111111 bushels
total minus 10 percent equals 90 percent.
90 percent (what the miller gave the customer) equals one bushel.
.9*total = 1 bushel
(.9*total)/.9 = (1 bushel)/.9
total == 1.11111111111 bushels
please state your answer as a fraction in order to claim your point for the winning answer.
Oh no, I think we've established that when you are giving part of something to someone, the answer is to borrow some extra so you don't have to work in decimals.
Wise ass.
When you are dividing an entire living creature that may be the case as a fractional piece of livestock is a) of limited value and b) more than likely no longer living and therefore no longer
livestock.
Bushels of grain can be divided fractionally so there is no need to borrow anything. However it is a pain in the ass to measure out 1/9 of a bushel.
1/9 of 8 gallons is .888888888888889 gallons...
No, the grain comes to the mill in a different form. We have to know the reduction in volume that occurs during the milling.
Happy Mental Nut Year!
Think carefully on this one.
Unknown ...Which transaction? Or all three combined?
Since we don't know what he paid originally (before he sold for $90)
then we can only assume
It doesn't make any sense, so I'll say $190. That's probably this book's answer.:p:
Depends how much he bought the whore for in the first place
"The hunter walked around the tree"
Was he on horseback? Did he get the horse from this guy?
Of course (a horse a horse) we could wonder about any original price, but I don't think you're supposed to add elements to a story problem. Maybe he got a horse for his birthday...this book isn't the SATs. There's an answer.
Any simple math I do agrees with BigV...110, but then we get into the "too easy" category.
$20. Had $90 at first, $110 last.
He would have $110 if he also still had the horse.
See, I only learned opposite math! :blush:
I'm dumb.
$20. Had $90 at first, $110 last.
He would have $110 if he also still had the horse.
But what did he pay for it initially?
And I'm still not done with that circular squirrel yet....
I think he woke up one morning and it was in his barn.
Yeah, yeah, tell it to the Judge.:rolleyes:
:)
The horse or the squirrel?
This was a good idea for a thread.
The next several nuts are just math tricks or as the Brits like to say maths trick,
whatever. I am putting all of them up along with the advertisements and then the nut nut proper.
One has to remember things were different in 1921. No calculators for instance.
But what did he pay for it initially?
And I'm still not done with that circular squirrel yet....
The tree is only the existential quantifier of your circular squirrel.
Take it out of the equation and the logic is obvious. ;)
I thought so as well, but I thought the answer was no he does not.
Hence the repeated question.
Yes. The hunter does not go around the squirrel. They both go around the tree but the squirrel always keeps the tree between himself and the hunter. For the hunter to go around the squirrel it would need to stay in one place on the tree.
Why? If the squirrel is ALWAYS on the tree and the hunter circles the tree ...
This must be a matter of semantics or definitions.
Yes. The hunter does not go around the squirrel. They both go around the tree but the squirrel always keeps the tree between himself and the hunter. For the hunter to go around the squirrel it would need to stay in one place on the tree.
Well you know what else? Heisenberg says both are orbiting the tree, and you can't say for certain where either one is in their orbital path at a given time. But you do know that the hunter is in a higher orbital than the squirrel, and the higher orbital plane does encircle the lower orbital plane. The more time that passes, the higher the statistical probability that the hunter has orbited the squirrel. Nyeah.
Well you know what else? Heisenberg says both are orbiting the tree, and you can't say for certain where either one is in their orbital path at a given time. But you do know that the hunter is in a higher orbital than the squirrel, and the higher orbital plane does encircle the lower orbital plane. The more time that passes, the higher the statistical probability that the hunter has orbited the squirrel. Nyeah.
NO, you have to re-read the question. There is no treadmill involved. They are moving at the same rate around the same axis. The squirrel will never be encircled by the hunter. The spot where the squirrel had been will be encircled, but not the squirrel itself.
Consider a bicycle wheel for example. The hole in the rim for the valve stem is opposite the seam of the rim. The wheel revolves around the axle. The valve stem and seam each go around the axle every revolution. They do not go around each other. They do go around the position the other previously occupied however. Compare this to a ratchet wrench. The socket is the axis, the handle goes around the axis, but the handle does not go around itself.
The squirrel always keeps the tree between himself and the hunter. The tree is the axis, the squirrel is the seam on the rim and the hunter is the valve stem.
No, the hunter does not walk around his gun. His gun is not stationary, it moves with him. He may walk around the location his gun used to be, but that is not the same as walking around his gun. Unless he has one of those special mag-lev guns that just hangs in mid air while you circumambulate around it. Otherwise, if it is a normal gun then he will be taking it with him when he walks around the tree.
And another thing, you all avoided
How I need a drink, alcoholic in nature, after the tough chapters involving quantum mechanics!
Cipher - I like that. Isn't that what Jethro Bodine used to say?
Yes, but did he affix them? Another cromulent word that is under-used these days.
and can you affix nothing to something?
The answer to #33 is yes.[COLOR=Black]
[/COLOR][COLOR=White]The force on the pulley will be the same with two equal weights (W+W) or with a weight (W) on one side and the second side anchored to the floor.[/COLOR]
Why? If the squirrel is ALWAYS on the tree and the hunter circles the tree ...
This must be a matter of semantics or definitions.
No, it's geometry.
No, it's geometry.
I assume you mean squirlomatree.
Yes. And it's really non-debateable. ;)
No, it's geometry.
If the hunter circles the tree and the squirrel is ON the tree, then the hunter circles the squirrel.
$20. Had $90 at first, $110 last.
He would have $110 if he also still had the horse.
If he got the horse for free....
selling for 90, he has 90....
buying it for 80, leaves him 10 from his 90
selling for 100 .... he has 110.
what am i missing?
If he got the horse for free....
selling for 90, he has 90....
buying it for 80, leaves him 10 from his 90
selling for 100 .... he has 110.
what am i missing?
I think this must be a linguistic thing, "how much did he make on the transaction?" I think is meant to mean how much
more did he make on the
second transaction.
Just be glad this isn't 1921
If the hunter circles the tree and the squirrel is STATIONARY ON the tree, then the hunter circles the squirrel.
The earth does not orbit mercury
Maybe this experiment will help: you will need someone to play the squirrel and you will need a piece of rope.
Premise: If you go around someone or something with a piece of rope (with one end of the rope affixed to the someone or something, the other end in your hand) then when you have made a complete circle they will have one turn of rope wrapped around them. Do you agree?
If you do not encircle them then there will be no rope wrapped around them. Do you agree?
Now, try going around your pretend squirrel with one end of the rope in your hand and the other affixed to the squirrel. If the squirrel is stationary you will encircle the squirrel with the rope.
Now try the same thing only this time, the squirrel always turns in the same direction as you. For added realism you can do this outside around a tree. See how many times you managed to encircle the squirrel with the rope.
Have someone record a video of it and put it up on youtube.
I assume you mean squirlomatree.
No, she means squirrelonatree
The earth does not orbit mercury
but it does circle it
No, she means squirrelonatree
Which is a branch of geonatree.
And what about #33?
Foot, would you be willing to scan the Book's answers too?
Foot, would you be willing to scan the Book's answers too?
What, and ruin all the fun?
Oh all right. There aren't many explanations however.
but it does circle it
How about the moon, does the earth circle that?
(She moves in circles, and those circles move.)
Which is a branch of geonatree.
And what about #33?
I know what you mean, can you believe it? Or are you referring to your answer to #33? Or would you like another Rolling Rock?
so, No. Yes. Yes.
It really does say borrow 1 sheep. Not that I didn't believe, but man. There it is.
They were practical in those days. In those days it was nothing to be ashamed of to borrow a sheep. Folks helped each other out, you know, it takes a viking to raze a village.
If I could borrow a few sheep, I wouldn't need to mow our lawn. It's not such a bad idea.
There are people up here who lend out their goats for that purpose. True.
ok - I went looking for answers elsewhere and found this ...
Clearly, both the hunter and the squirrel went around the tree,
but did the hunter go around the squirrel?
Well, he orbited the tree in a larger orbit, but he never went around the squirrel
and saw his back, his side, his belly, etc.
What’s the answer? Smart guy William James said that the argument is meaningless
because there is no objective difference that can be defined as to
“did go around squirrel” vs “did not”.
That’s the essence of his theory of Pragmatism.
So in a sense, we are all right. He did and yet did not.
Semantics, not geometry - whatev.
The earth does not orbit mercury
Maybe this experiment will help: you will need someone to play the squirrel and you will need a piece of rope.
Premise: If you go around someone or something with a piece of rope (with one end of the rope affixed to the someone or something, the other end in your hand) then when you have made a complete circle they will have one turn of rope wrapped around them. Do you agree?
If you do not encircle them then there will be no rope wrapped around them. Do you agree?
Now, try going around your pretend squirrel with one end of the rope in your hand and the other affixed to the squirrel. If the squirrel is stationary you will encircle the squirrel with the rope.
Now try the same thing only this time, the squirrel always turns in the same direction as you. For added realism you can do this outside around a tree. See how many times you managed to encircle the squirrel with the rope.
Have someone record a video of it and put it up on youtube.
But no one, except you, perhaps, define how to make a circle this way, where both ends are moving.
I, and some others, I daresay, define a circle (in this vernacular, vulgar example) as a closed path lying in a plane, with a center and a stationary radius. The area swept by the radius is "inside" the circle, the path traced by the other end of the radius not at the center "is" the circle and everything else beyond the distance of the radius is "outside" the circle.
Stuff inside the circle has been circled.
In your illustration, there are an infinite number of ways to get a turn of rope around the squirrel. And, yes, I can clearly see the situation you describe, and the squirrel won't be encircled. I see that. In your illustration NOTHING will have been encircled, not even the tree. Are you saying that by "attaching one end of the rope to the squirrel" that the tree escapes too?
The original question says "go around"
Well, he orbited the tree in a larger orbit, but he never went around the squirrel
If the earth "goes around" the moon, then why do we always see the same face of the moon? IF you "go around" the outside of your house you see the front, sides and back, becasue you went around it. If your house were to turn with you similar to the way the moon and earth turn, would you still say you went "around" your house if you didn't see the sides or the back?
Walking up and down the street isn't walking around the block.
Now, about those other answers you've all been avoiding.
The earth does not orbit mercury
Maybe this experiment will help: you will need someone to play the squirrel and you will need a piece of rope.
Premise: If you go around someone or something with a piece of rope (with one end of the rope affixed to the someone or something, the other end in your hand) then when you have made a complete circle they will have one turn of rope wrapped around them. Do you agree?
If you do not encircle them then there will be no rope wrapped around them. Do you agree?
Now, try going around your pretend squirrel with one end of the rope in your hand and the other affixed to the squirrel. If the squirrel is stationary you will encircle the squirrel with the rope.
Now try the same thing only this time, the squirrel always turns in the same direction as you. For added realism you can do this outside around a tree. See how many times you managed to encircle the squirrel with the rope.
Have someone record a video of it and put it up on youtube.
this is a bit of a straw man. you would need to anchor the other end of the rope to the tree in order to be analogous to the problem at hand.
The original question says "go around"
If the earth "goes around" the moon, then why do we always see the same face of the moon? IF you "go around" the outside of your house you see the front, sides and back, because you went around it. If your house were to turn with you similar to the way the moon and earth turn, would you still say you went "around" your house if you didn't see the sides or the back?
Walking up and down the street isn't walking around the block.
Now, about those other answers you've all been avoiding.
But, the Earth doesn't go around the moon. The moon goes around the Earth. and if the house was rotating in place as i walked around it, always presenting the front... yes. i would still say i went around it....as long as the ground were stationary...
i know, infi... we're ridiculous.
The original question says "go around"
If the earth "goes around" the moon, then why do we always see the same face of the moon? IF you "go around" the outside of your house you see the front, sides and back, becasue you went around it. If your house were to turn with you similar to the way the moon and earth turn, would you still say you went "around" your house if you didn't see the sides or the back?
Walking up and down the street isn't walking around the block.
Now, about those other answers you've all been avoiding.
Hey, if we configure the rope and the hunter and the squirrel and the tree like you describe, send the hunter on his path, like you describe, all that. You're saying the answer to the question "did he go around the squirrel?" is No. I ask you this question: at the end of that exercise "did he go around the tree?"
As I see it, there would be no turn of rope around the tree.
*****
If you're saying a concept of "facing" is the geometrical key here, what if the squirrel takes the rope, the hunter stands in one place holding the other end of the rope, the squirrel spins around once wrapping the rope around him, changing the "facing", the squirrel has revealed all his sides to the hunter, there's a rope encircling him, but the hunter hasn't moved. Has the hunter encircled him? Has the hunter gone around the squirrel? If it's the rope test you apply, then the answer would be yes, right?
Different question--you've shown us the booklet's "answer": "no". Is this how you, footfootfoot, would answer this question as well?
There would be no turn of rope around the tree because the rope was attached to the moving squirrel. The object of the question. If you made the tree the object of the question and attached the rope to the stationary tree there would be a turn of rope around it.
THAT is precisely the point. It is about the relative positions of the hunter and squirrel. If the squirrel stayed in one spot then the hunter would have gone around the squirrel.
I claim that the man has most positively gone around the squirrel,
just as the rim of a wheel goes around the hub which turns on the axle;
just as the earth goes around the sun, which has a lesser orbit proportional to their difference in weight.
Classic, in this case the the hub of the wheel is the tree and the squirrel is the opposite side of the rim.
MOVING RIGHT ALONG:
I'm posting two today since the first one is an old, very easy one.
35) Three, three ducks! [/The Count]
Classic, in this case the the hub of the wheel is the tree and the squirrel is the opposite side of the rim.
I know this is getting tired, but I think a good analogy is a bolo being thrown, where the two balls aren't spinning perfectly around the center of the rope, but instead both are spinning around a point closer to one of the balls.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/bolo-toss-an-example-of-center-of-mass-motion/#35 is any odd number equal to or greater than three.
MR DUCKS
MR KNOTT
C.M. WANGS?
YIB!
MR DUCKS!
#35 is any odd number equal to or greater than three.
Not if you consider that article "a" to mean ONLY one duck.
Not if you consider that article "a" to mean ONLY one duck.
But it could be any duck, right?
[YOUTUBE]ogPZ5CY9KoM[/YOUTUBE]
34...I don't remember it that way. The way it's written why can't he just take the goose over, then go get the fox and take him over, take the goose back with him and leave it while he takes the corn over, then go back and get the goose?
What am I missing? Who's getting et?
Who will answer 34?
Ok, I will.
****
West bank of river is starting point,
East bank of river is destination point.
WEST ----------- EAST
-----------------------
F G C ------------ xxx
------> G goes east making:
F x C ------------ x G x
<----- empty boat goes west making:
F -- C ------------ x G x
------> F goes east making:
x x C -------------- F G x
<------- G goes west making:
x G C -------------- F x x
--------> C goes east making:
x G x --------------- F x C
<-------- empty boat goes west making:
x G x ------------- F x C
---------> G goes east making:
x x x --------------- F G C
Done.
34...I don't remember it that way. The way it's written why can't he just take the goose over, then go get the fox and take him over, take the goose back with him and leave it while he takes the corn over, then go back and get the goose?
What am I missing? Who's getting et?
You could suggest that the boat driver invent Foosorn (tm) and just make the one trip.
Not if you consider that article "a" to mean ONLY one duck.
True. True. But it doesn't say "only" it says "a." One of us should be right, and I'm betting it's you, because it's a neater answer.
@ V: So your answer and my answer are the same. My answer is just easier to read. ;)
True. True. But it doesn't say "only" it says "a." One of us should be right, and I'm betting it's you, because it's a neater answer.
I'm just assuming that's why it's supposed to be a "mental nut." First number I thought of was 5, then I thought
A duck...no it's only three. That's supposed to be the tricky part, methinks.
@footfootfoot --
Relative positions, eh? Because their relative positions never change, the hunter does not go around the squirrel. That's your story? Please note that the relative positions of the hunter and the tree are also unchanging, yet, the tree is "gone around". The "object of the question" doesn't define the circle.
How do you make a circle? How do you go around something?
@glatt --
I skimmed your link, interesting.
Yaknow, I didn't bother with the whole plane on a treadmill kerfuffle. I found it a bit irritating. I get it now. :facepalm:
It's not a story.
It's simple geometry.
@ V: So your answer and my answer are the same. My answer is just easier to read. ;)
Prolly. but who knows what evil lurks in the index of his little book.
I wasn't trying to outdo your answer, I just took a LONG time formatting my charty thingy and the posts landed accordingly.
I knew dat. I had to double check mine to see that it matched yours. Wanted to make sure I'd said it right.
@glatt --
I skimmed your link, interesting.
And it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the hunter goes around the squirrel.
And it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the hunter goes around the squirrel.
You can put a pig in a dinner jacket but it's still a pig.
Infi gets #34 right, BigV gets #35 right.
Glatt and Classic are on probation.
You can put a pig in a dinner jacket but it's still a pig.
You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but a bird in the hand is worth a silk purse.
On probation? For what? Being correct? Ya Cock!
he's a German Purse
[COLOR="White"]Deutch Bag [/COLOR]
Classic, in this case the the hub of the wheel is the tree and the squirrel is the opposite side of the rim.
No, not from my perspective. The axle is the tree, the squirrel is the hub and the hunter is the outside of the rim.
This whole thing is dependent upon the definition of "
go around"
This is where the dispute comes in. Depending upon one's definition of that either answer is correct. I'm out.
ETA - again semantics, NOT geometry. :p:
No, again. It's GEOMETRY. NOT semantics.
You. Are. Wrong.
kthxbai :p
My new favorite obsession. It really is about geometry. When the puzzle says circle the tree, that's geometry. There's a plain unambiguous definition of a circle, likewise what is inside and what is outside the circle.
I'd love to understand the reasoning behind this different conclusion, really. I've heard lots of justifications, facing, semantics, parallel paths, ropes, turning, not turning, tree, etc etc. None of them stand up, or at least none have been convincing to me. I would like to be convinced, if it is really what you believe, that the squirrel has not been gone around. But nothing has done that yet.
Until then, the geometry of a circle, the semantic definition of a circle, remains the most convincing, truest answer.
Parallel planes never intersect. Geometry.
;)
What if you laid out the circumference of the path of the squirrel and the circumference of the path of the hunter into straight lines?
Parallel lines.
You can lead a horse to water...
And now for some more algebra, which some people find easier to understand:
If you change the problem so the hunter doesn't go around the squirrel, then I would agree that the hunter doesn't go around the squirrel. Until then...
OK, V...
The hunter goes around a circle.
The circle has a center.
The center is a point.
A point has zero dimensions.
Ibso Santorum, the hunter goes around nothing.
:rolleyes:
What if the squirrel is above the hunter's head? Then the circles are even in different planes.
Imma write a song:
You and I
We come from different worlds
You and and your semantics
Do nothing for the squirrel.
You've got it in your head
That going 'round a tree
Means you go around everything
All the time. Even me.
(music swells)
But though you couldn't see logic
If it bit you in the asssssssssssss
I'll love you 'til the day I die
Because, this too, like aeroplanes,
Shall passssssssssssssssssssss.
Parallel planes never intersect. Geometry.
;)
What if you laid out the circumference of the path of the squirrel and the circumference of the path of the hunter into straight lines?
Parallel lines.
Parallel planes don't intersect, true. that's a geometrical fact. Ok, but it has nothing to do with circles. Maybe there's more there, but by itself, it's ... nothing.
circumference is the distance around something, usually a circle and that applies here. It's a distance. We don't know what either distance is for the squirrel or for the hunter, except because we know how a circumference is defined, we know that the circumference of the path of the hunter is greater than the circumference of the path of the squirrel, since the radius, the distance from the center to the edge, is greater for the hunter than for the squirrel. The radius in this mental nut is the center of the tree, the point about which each "goes around".
So, we have circumferences. One's bigger than the other. But distances are scalar values, they have a quantity only. They're not vector quantities which have direction. If you measure the distance around something, its circumference, it's a value, and it has that same value regardless of direction. Actually, direction is meaningless in the context of a circumference.
So, I'm still stuck, there's no such thing as a parallel circumference, even ones that have been unwound into straight line segments.
Please continue.
footfootfoot, if you can quench my thirst, I'd be much obliged. If you can't, just toss out another nut, willya?
Yeah all that crap don't make no sense to me, so argue away Mr Wordy Man. That's why I didn't elaborate, just throwing it out there. I thought maybe a smarty pants could make something of it.
Still don't make it so, hunter don't circle no squirrel, though I am starting to wish he'd circle some of y'all. And REAL soon-like. :)
A'yup.
What does "paying 10 per cent. advance to the party" mean? Is it a political party? The Hindustani party?
What if the squirrel is above the hunter's head? Then the circles are even in different planes.
I thought of this. I make a big circle here. A squirrel makes a smaller circle over there or down there. The planes could be parallel. In this case, I don't think that the hunter has gone around the squirrel.
But the graphic and the commonsense illustration seemed to give the impression that both the hunter and the squirrel were at about the same height above the ground, and thus, in the same plane.
What does "paying 10 per cent. advance to the party" mean? Is it a political party? The Hindustani party?
No fair asking questions!
You can lead a horse to water...
And now for some more algebra, which some people find easier to understand:
Love the "per cent."- 1921, hah!
The hunter goes around the sqkewrll.
that latest nut isn't written in any English I understand.
#36 ... The cow originally cost $30.
Does anyone else notice that Zen conveniently was on vacation during the whole squirrel debacle?
1.5 hen-days are required per egg,: 7*6/1.5 = 28
We always asked If a hen and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, then how long does it take a cricket with a wooden leg to kick all the seeds from a dill pickle? I never knew there was a real 1.5 hen question.
Bonus Nut:
If it takes 4 men 3 days to dig 2 holes, how long does it take one man to dig half a hole?
The man runs around the tree while the squirrel digs the half a-hole.
Bonus Nut:
If it takes 4 men 3 days to dig 2 holes, how long does it take one man to dig half a hole?
Since it takes six man-days to dig a hole, it should take one man three days to dig half a hole, but you might object that you can't dig "half a hole", because that would still be a hole. However, a man can dig half a hole, it all depends on someone else digging the
other half of the hole. And since you stipulated one man, he'll have to come back and do the other half himself. So it turns out it takes six days after all. First three days for the half he is digging, and then another three days to make the first half, well, a half.
Since it takes six man-days to dig a hole, it should take one man three days to dig half a hole, but you might object that you can't dig "half a hole", because that would still be a hole. However, a man can dig half a hole, it all depends on someone else digging the other half of the hole. And since you stipulated one man, he'll have to come back and do the other half himself. So it turns out it takes six days after all. First three days for the half he is digging, and then another three days to make the first half, [COLOR="Red"]well[/COLOR], a half.
Hole in the ground...deep subject!
If it takes 4 men 3 days to dig 2 holes, how long does it take one man to dig half a hole?
Three of those men are shovel leaners, and the 4th does about 90% of the digging. Unfortunately one of the shovel leaners is the man that got assigned to dig alone, and while he is digging harder than usual, it's still never going to get done because he finds an excuse to do something else.
City employees, eh? ;)
No, Bank of America executives.
In order to dig half a hole, he first has to dig a quarter of a hole.
In order to dig a quarter of a hole, he first has to dig an eighth of a hole.
In order to dig eighth of a hole, he first has to dig 1/16 of a hole.
.
.
In order to dig 1/N of a hole, he first has to dig 1/2xN of a hole.
IOW, he can not even leave home, let alone find a shovel, or walk to the work site.
If he walks all the way around the hole, does he go around tha hole?
He goes around A Hole. Get it? A hole? ;)
Did we ever get correct answers for #36 and 37?
What if the hole digger was a shitman?
Did we ever get correct answers for #36 and 37?
No, but you did get a correct answer to #21 though no one seemed to like it.
Also I am still waiting for an answer to the riddle
here are more answers:
I don't understand what the answer for #37 says. Is the answer 24 eggs?
Last weekend I bought a chemistry book like that - it's full of errors.
HLJ is correct. The book answer is in error.
I found a simple explanation elsewhere.
Given the initial statement:
3 hens can lay 3 eggs in 1.5 days
therefore
6 hens can lay 6 eggs in 1.5 days
and
6 hens can lay 4 eggs in 1 day
therefore
6 hens can lay 24 eggs in 6 days (already we see the error)
and
6 hens can lay 28 eggs in 7 days
In order to dig half a hole, he first has to dig a quarter of a hole.
In order to dig a quarter of a hole, he first has to dig an eighth of a hole.
In order to dig eighth of a hole, he first has to dig 1/16 of a hole.
.
.
In order to dig 1/N of a hole, he first has to dig 1/2xN of a hole.
IOW, he can not even leave home, let alone find a shovel, or walk to the work site.
A local college was looking for a way to help students decide between math and engineering majors. They headed the students to the large gym and lined up the girls on one side and the boys on the other. Then they told the students that they could walk half the distance to the other side every 15 seconds. When they reached their opposite number they could give them a kiss.
The mathematicians left knowing they would never reach the center. The engineers stayed knowing they would get close enough for practical purposes.
But wouldn't they reach each other after the first iteration (or were the girls chained to the wall)?
But wouldn't they reach each other after the first iteration (or were the girls chained to the wall)?
Oops, should have said half the distance to the center of the gym.
I don't understand what the answer for #37 says. Is the answer 24 eggs?
Last weekend I bought a chemistry book like that - it's full of errors.
The 7th day is zero eggs, it is not until the half aste the 7th day are any eggs laid. Similar to the one where you don't count your wages until you've worked, you don't count your eggs until they are laid.
I don't buy it foot. It's cheating. It doesn't say "on the seventh day". It says "in seven days". Anyone reading that would clearly see it as a duration. Otherwise the original "in a day and a half" would have a different meaning.
Pfui.
That hen and a half thing ... I'm used to hearing that end "how long will it take a monkey with a wooden leg to kick the seeds out of a dill pickle."
Mental Nuts == Argument Seeds?
Perhaps, but entertaining. Look at the number of posts in this thread. We're eating this stuff up.
That hen and a half thing ... I'm used to hearing that end "how long will it take a monkey with a wooden leg to kick the seeds out of a dill pickle."
Or an elephant with a wooden leg to bore a hole in a bar of soap.
I've taught them to my kids.
Perhaps, but entertaining. Look at the number of posts in this thread. We're eating this stuff up.
nom nom nom:
Is the wall above ground or underground, relative to the ground?
Does the frog go aground the well?
30
Assuming that every jump is a 3 foot jump.
It's obvious... the frog is losing a foot with each jump
After 4 jumps, the frog has no feet left.
Just like the eggs and four of their friends, yes. The frog escapes on his 28th jump and therefore does not slide back down the well.
The eggs? I'm not so sure about them. Maybe eggs were smaller in 1921.
If a hen and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many and a half that lay better by half will lay half a score and a half in a week and a half?
It's obvious... the frog is losing a foot with each jump
After 4 jumps, the frog has no feet left.
LOL
Frogs only have two feet. Those other things are arms.
...and you know two eggs are better than one...
Is that the answer to tomorrow's puzzle?
How many trees were there? Were the slaves allowed to go around the trees? Was the guy below one of the slaves?
The worst part of that is that it was homework from a school.
It's absolutely shocking that a school would set that as a puzzle.
I mean, oranges are a countable noun, so the question should be "... how many..." not "...how much...".
:headshake
Oh and they spelled "Mexicans" wrong.
Re the slaves picking oranges.... Another 3rd grade homework on that test was:
"If Frederick got two beatings per day, how many beatings did he get in 1 week?"
The Principal is collecting the homework and destroying it, and looking for a teacher named Fred.
A high-school science teacher in Western Australia got in hot water a while back.
Use "problem-based" teaching, they had told him. Make it interesting, they had told him.
Assignment: design a terror attack using the WMD of your choice - chemical, biological or nuclear. Your goal is to inflict maximum causalties
Apply for a new job, they told him...
Finish the sequences below
A E F H I K L M N T....
B C D G J O P Q R S...
two new nuts since I didn't post yesterday
#39 depends on whether James and William share their sandwiches with each other as well, i.e. form a pool of eight sangers shared among three eaters. I interpret this nut as NOT being like this.
I take it that stranger eats 2.5 of James' sangers, and 1.5 of William's sangers.
Assuming equal value of sandwiches, stranger should pay [COLOR="LemonChiffon"]James 5 cents and William 3 cents[/COLOR].
Five and eight sandwiches! That must have been the beginning of the obesity epidemic. These problems don't show up until 50 or 60 years later.
#39 depends on whether James and William share their sandwiches with each other as well,
i.e. form a pool of eight sangers shared among three eaters. I interpret this nut as NOT being like this.
I take it that stranger eats 2.5 of James' sangers, and 1.5 of William's sangers.
Assuming equal value of sandwiches, stranger should pay [COLOR="LemonChiffon"]James 5 cents and William 3 cents[/COLOR].
The stranger shared equally (50 %) and so paid 4 cents to each.
It's the law of supply and demand.
It just happened that William's were just worth more per sandwich
Or, maybe William's sandwich had squirrel meat, which is harder to come by :rolleyes:
Finish the sequences below
A E F H I K L M N T....
B C D G J O P Q R S...
A E F H I K L M N T....[COLOR="Red"]VWXYZ[/COLOR]
B C D G J O P Q R S...[COLOR="red"]U[/COLOR]
Yes? No?
I'm so proud of myself too. Must be a left brain/right brain thing. Except for the hunter/squirrel/tree one I've hardly gotten any of these puzzles. :)
Yes IM, very good !
Most people try working out an arithmetic code or something.
Very young kids usually get it right away, but they don't yet know anything about arithmetic.
Hey, now you wait a daggone minute, you. Are you saying I have the I have the brain of a very young kid? :mad:
(I don't mind. It's quite true.) :lol:
A E F H I K L M N T....[COLOR="Red"]VWXYZ[/COLOR]
B C D G J O P Q R S...[COLOR="red"]U[/COLOR]
Yes? No?
Show your work. In other words, how the hell did you figure that out?
I looked at the letters. ;)
Here is the answer if you want it, hidden for those who don't:
[COLOR="White"]I noticed right away that all the first letters could be made with straight lines.[/COLOR]
I don't think like earthlings. You make everything so complicated. Like hunters/squirrels/trees. ;)
Are you saying I have the I have the brain of a very young kid?
I have the heart of a small boy ... in a jar on my desk.
I have the heart of a small boy ... in a jar on my desk.
:)
First I was laughing really hard then I realized, through your quote of my post, that I put too many words in that sentence. Too late to edit. :blush:
OK, lets' try to keep things on track here:
Some answers and a new nut:
Note about #39 This is one of those things where there was a pool of 8 sangers that were split 3 ways (3/8 each) The guest only pays for his repast and he pays Jim and Bill back at a rate proportionally equal to their investments. I think.
I didn't have time to read the apple question so I hope the answer suits (most of) you
The stranger shared equally (50 %) and so paid 4 cents to each.
It's the law of supply and demand.
It just happened that William's were just worth more per sandwich
Or, maybe William's sandwich had squirrel meat, which is harder to come by :rolleyes:
There is ambiguity in "shared equally".
Stranger shared equally with James.
Stranger shared equally with William.
It does not follow that James, William and Stranger shared equally with each other.
Infi - nice work on the letters - I "got it" once I saw your post.
Regarding nut #40:
The discrepancy arises because you can't buy 12 cents worth of apples from the lady who sells them at three for a cent, because she only has 30 apples which is 10 cents worth.
You have to buy 10 cents worth from her and 15 cents worth from the lady who charges 1 cent per two apples. The greedy bitch.
I think it is stretching it to call it a loss, though.
I think it is stretching it to call it a loss, though.
Profligate.
As I recall there was a shortfall recently at your Uni, was there not?
Coincidence?
OK, lets' try to keep things on track here:
Nut Nazi!:D
Some of the "answers" are as difficult as the questions.
Some of the "answers" are as difficult as the questions.
Agreed. Hence "Mental Nuts" and not "Mental Taking Candy From a Baby"
;)
Have you ever actually tried taking candy from a baby? WWIII, man.
It's all about distraction.
"OOH look! a backhoe!" (boy)
"OOH look! a horse!" (girl)
There was orange juice in the cupboard!
WW11
I'm sorry, did I get off track?
Waiting for an answer to the cost of the suit.
Focus, people, FOCUS!
What is 1-6? Don't get that part.
What is 1-6? Don't get that part.
Yeah, neither do I and I have the answer key. I was hoping one of you smarty-pantses would know.:o
I'm looking at the answers and it seems that there is a typo in the question. It should read 1/6 (C+P)
1/6?
Not having 1/6 available on the type?
What does "the Coat costs as much as P and V" mean? It's equal to the sum of those two, or all three are equal to one another?
They can't be all three equal to one another. I'd say the coat costs as much as pants plus vest.
Jesus Christ, you people.
C=P+V
P= .5* (C+V)
V= 1/6 (C+P)
:(
that's what I said.
Oh...you said PEOPLE.
He means me.
I'm being intentionally obtuse. :p:
No need, glatt. There is plenty of obtuse around here. The place is lousy with obtuse. ;)
Jesus Christ, you people.
C=P+V
P= .5* (C+V)
V= 1/6 (C+P)
should have read:
C=P+V
P= .5* (C+V)
V= 1/6 (C+P) + 1.25
[CODE]Coat costs $22.50
Pants cost 15.00
Vest costs 7.50
------------------
Suit costs $45.00[/CODE]
[ATTACH]36637[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]36638[/ATTACH]
Right V,
Right Glatt,
Right Infi
#42 Weights = 1/2, 1+1/2, 4+1/2, 13+1/2
Rhianne wins this round. I will keep score.
Score, please.
#42 Weights = 1/2, 1+1/2, 4+1/2, 13+1/2
I just realized, the key is that you can put a weight on the opposite side of the scale. So if I want to weigh out one pound of green beans, I put the 1-1/2 on one side, the 1/2 on the other side, and add green beans until it balances. Very clever.
I was wondering if I had to specify a balance scale as opposed to a spring scale.
Very Clever...
Notice that if you changed it to whole numbers (1 to 40 pounds) the weights would be 1, 3, 9, 27 (3^0, 3^1, etc.)
I was thinking about this last night while I was sleeping.
What does the following cyclic pattern of numbers represent?
0
1
3
2
6
7
5
4
0
Starting with the top number, it's how many steps forward I take, followed by how many backward, how many forward again, backward...etc and so on.
So you always end up back where you started!
I KNEW this looked familiar.
I want there to be a reason that the first letters of the number names are in a pattern as well (z, o, t, t, s, s, f, f, z)... But it's not reverse alphabetical order, because 3/2 and 5/4 would be out of place.
000 001 011 110 111 101 100 000
000
001
011
110
111
101
100
000
uh?
000 001 011 110 111 101 100 000
000
001
011
110
111
101
100
000
uh?
You made a small error (you skipped 2).
It should be:
0 000
1 001
3 011
2 010
6 110
7 111
5 101
4 100
0 000
... ...
There's no I in team. But there is an i in meat pie. And meat is an anagram of team.
8 in binary is 1000.
This one is interesting and relies on powers of observation, note that the four trianlges are re-arranged into two different rectangles, one square the other oblong with different numbers of squares.
'splain.
@BigV: Scores at halftime.
There's no I in team. But there is an i in meat pie. And meat is an anagram of team.
8 in binary is 1000.
But you're not supposed to eat your team right?
Is this implying that if you cut up the one on the right you could re-arrange the pieces to make the one on the left?
yes, and vice versa. Note the bold vertical line on the left is now two offset shorter vertical lines on the right. flopping the triangles is part of it.
Because you can't actually cut the pieces like that, though it's close. The angle of the triangles doesn't match the angle of the rectangles with slanted tops.
Rise over run of triangles = 3/8 = 15/40
Rise over run of angled pieces = 2/5 = 16/40
There would be a sliver of a gap along the main diagonal in the right-hand picture, enough to add up to one square's worth.
God, you are so hot when you terms like rise over run. But it's 3/8 and 3/5.
But it's 3/8 and 3/5.
You're nuts. In your second picture, look at the diagonal on the right. Count the squares. Up
two, over five.
It's even hotter when you point out my obvious mistakes.
In my defense, I was thinking about other things when I was counting those squares.
In your defense, you did call this a mental nuts thread.
Mental Nuts is taking a few days off to deal with some pressing issues IRL.
You made a small error (you skipped 2).
It should be:
0 000
1 001
3 011
2 010
6 110
7 111
5 101
4 100
0 000
... ...
The answer is that each number only changes a single digit from the previous number.
And for bonus points, what is this pattern called, and what is it used for?
Mental Nuts is taking a few days off to deal with some pressing issues IRL.
*cough*
That did literally make me snort with laughter.
A real in-and-out snuffly-grunt.
It's not even that funny.
But it really hit the spot right then and there.
Thank you.
Figured this was a good place for it.
I couldn't find anything with a squirrel and a tree ;)
Well, the thing is I have to find some full time work asap, as we are headed into foreclosure right now and are about 2 or 3 months behind on all our utilities. That is the big mental nut I need to be cracking right now.
Things are grim, but not yet dire. Plus I am still living in crazy town, I'm gonna leave out some of the latest stories in order to protect what little remains of my so called sanity.
I'd be willing to scan the entire book and email the file to anyone who'd like to take this over.
Shit, Foot.
I always feel I win in the pity stakes because I only work part-time and not by choice.
And I'm nearly 40 and live with the 'rents and not by choice.
And I have no partner to share things with... ah, who knows there.
But I am supported.
I have no further to fall.
And I have no dependents; it would distress me enormously, but Diz could be adopted or even put down if I reached the end of my resources. I'd fight it of course. Still, you could never even reach that possibility about a child.
I feel for the desperation you have.
Damn fff... so sorry to hear that.
Is there any help for you in this latest bank/mortgage settlement?
Foot! I'm sorry to hear this. Please ignore my earlier coughing fit.
I'm sorry, foot. I wish I had work to send you. If you don't have anything else to do all day anyway, maybe you could go to small businesses and convince them to get a website done by UT, and then be his remote photographer for these places? Sales commission plus photo pay, eh?
Thanks folks. That would be sweet, Clod. I actually spent a lot of time last year with SCORE researching a business plan like that. For various reasons (I think my surgery) I dropped it.
At some point I realized I am completely burnt out on photography, and want to do almost anything but that.
I may work up a whine thread. I have emailed my new resume to 3 places I'd like to work (so far) and had a f/u call with one and was very warmly received. I need to keep my positive mental attitude and keep calling.
Let's write a sitcom. I have ideas!
I'm burnt out too.
Let's write a sitcom. I have ideas!
I'm burnt out too.
That would be cool. We must know someone who could sell it for us.
A nut to crack:
A man is sitting in a bar feeling rather poor. He sees the man next to him pull a wad of 100 dollar bills out of his wallet.
He turns to the rich man and says to him,
"I have an amazing talent; I know almost every song that has ever existed."
The rich man laughs.
The poor man says, "I am willing to bet you all the money you have in your wallet that I can sing a genuine song with a lady's name of your choice in it."
The rich man laughs again and says, "OK, how about my daughter's name, Joanna Armstrong-Miller?"
The rich man goes home poor. The poor man goes home rich.
What song did he sing?
Happy Birthday, dear
Joanna Armstrong-Miller
Happy Birthday to youUUUUUUUUU!
Had you already heard that, or did it just come to you? Thought it might be an oldie, but I'm easily stumped on things like that.
I am familiar with that song, yes.
*chuckle*
To answer your question, I did just "figure it out"; I had never heard that mental nut before. I like it, thanks!
Why you, you...
(who you calling a you you?)
;)
By the way, hanging out with me is to suffer these kinds of attempts at humor on a regular basis; to deliberately respond to an unintended alternate meaning (some would say deliberate misinterpretation, but not in a hostile way) as a way of displaying my cleverness.
You've been warned.
Oh, I'm good with that. I'm constantly displaying my cleverness. :D
Not me. I usually get it caught on the edge of my pocket or something and drop it, or when I show it, it's upside down or something.
I gather it's still entertaining. :eyebrow:
Like a clown? Entertaining like a clown?
Decapitate me and all becomes equal. Then truncate me and I become second. Cut me front and back and I become two less than I started.
What am I?
Is it some kind of insignia a military person of one kind or another might wear on their sleeve or hat?
(Sorry, not good on military terms)
Is it some kind of insignia a military person of one kind or another might wear on their sleeve or hat?
(Sorry, not good on military terms)
No. And no worries, either am I, and for that, I salute you! Major Depressive! (Please to refer to my general update thread if this makes no sense!) ;)
A hobo?
No, but thanks for reminding me I have a hobo trunk thawing for dinner. :yum:
HINT: BigV was on the right track.
HINT: BigV was on the right track.
[shame] I looked it up [/shame]
I wouldn't have worked it out.
No shame in looking it up if you're not pretending you guessed it, silly girl. ;)
This is a good puzzle. I don't have the answer yet, but it's percolating in my head. :D
No shame in looking it up if you're not pretending you guessed it, silly girl. ;)
It's called being intellectually lazy :blush:
It's called being intellectually lazy :blush:
So, by extension, since I am actively working on this puzzle, but not solving it, I am not lazy. But my failure means that I'm intellectually inadequate?
Who exactly are you calling stupid?
Decapitate me and all becomes equal. Then truncate me and I become second. Cut me front and back and I become two less than I started.
What am I?
Still thinking about this one.
Let me know when y'all want to cry uncle.
give me a moment to think about this
It has to do with words, not symbols, but I'm stumped at how ALL can contain EQUAL and then become second...
(I cheated.) Unless I missed something in the explanation, I don't think ALL is relevant. I also got hung up on that, which contributed to me looking it up.
The puzzle again, for convenience:
Decapitate me and all becomes equal. Then truncate me and I become second. Cut me front and back and I become two less than I started.
What am I?
The official answer from braingle.com:
[COLOR="White"]The word Seven.
seven
even (equal)
eve (2nd person, according to the Bible)
v (Roman numeral five; two less than seven)[/COLOR]
Ahh, I'd figured out the steps, but not the starting point, and had gone down the same blind alley as HM. Nice.
that was good! Thank you im. I liked that one, though I was unable to figure it out.
More, please.
Try this one:
A man worked for a high-security institution, and one day he went in to work only to find that he could not log in to his computer terminal. His password wouldn't work. Then he remembered that the passwords are reset every month for security purposes. So he went to his boss and they had this conversation:
Man-"Hey boss, my password is out of date."
Boss-"Yes, that's right. The password is different, but if you listen carefully you should be able to figure out the new one: It has the same amount of letters as your old password, but only four of the letters are the same."
Man: "Thanks boss."
With that, he went and correctly logged into his station.
What was the new password?
BONUS: What was his old password?
The new password is "different"
i forfeit the bonus
Decapitate me and all becomes equal. Then truncate me and I become second. Cut me front and back and I become two less than I started.
I liked this too. Disappointed I didn't get a bit closer.
You're right, UT and Rhianne.
New one:
Joesph walked Chuck, a potential new employee, through his company. He briefly went over the safety precautions of a couple machines used, their uses, and regular day-to-day activity. Joseph was very impressed with Chuck's qualifications and knowledge on the workings of his business. Chuck was applying for a position in shipping. Joseph took him by the wall with a single dollar hung up. He proudly explained that it was the first dollar he ever made almost 20 years ago, when the business first started. Finally Joseph brought the man outside and showed him his parking spot. Chuck thanked Joseph for the tour, but then directed Joseph to put his hands over his head.
What happened?
You know this one too?
ARGHHHH.
I don't know which ones are well known or easy or hard...
Is Joseph a counterfeiter, and the machines are all printing presses, and the dollar was the first bogus bill he printed?
Yes.
I'll try to find trickier ones. They're all tricky to me.
;)
You are on your way to visit your Grandma, who lives at the end of the valley. It's her birthday, and you want to give her the cakes you've made.
Between your house and her house, you have to cross 7 bridges, and as it goes in the land of make believe, there is a troll under every bridge! Each troll, quite rightly, insists that you pay a troll toll. Before you can cross their bridge, you have to give them half of the cakes you are carrying, but as they are kind trolls, they each give you back a single cake.
How many cakes do you have to leave home with to make sure that you arrive at Grandma's with exactly 2 cakes?
Another one:
A palindrome is a word that reads the same when spelled backwards (eg rotavator).
How could the following word be considered a palindrome?
FOOTSTOOL
;)
You are on your way to visit your Grandma, who lives at the end of the valley. It's her birthday, and you want to give her the cakes you've made.
Between your house and her house, you have to cross 7 bridges, and as it goes in the land of make believe, there is a troll under every bridge! Each troll, quite rightly, insists that you pay a troll toll. Before you can cross their bridge, you have to give them half of the cakes you are carrying, but as they are kind trolls, they each give you back a single cake.
How many cakes do you have to leave home with to make sure that you arrive at Grandma's with exactly 2 cakes?
2
Yes. :D
and I didn't even cheat. I started thinking I'd go backwards from the last troll... and then oh, duh.
What's funny is I would've been stumped for hours. My mind isn't even remotely logical. :)
Another one:
A palindrome is a word that reads the same when spelled backwards (eg rotavator).
How could the following word be considered a palindrome?
FOOTSTOOL
FOOTSTOO╘
...that's probably wrong
I know this one but I'm not gonna give an answer. My parents sprung this one on me a couple of months ago. It'd feel like cheating.
Who exactly are you calling stupid?
Top Management?
What's funny is I would've been stumped for hours. My mind isn't even remotely logical. :)
Wish I'd had the chance on the logic ones :(
But I am willing to admit I cannot think outside the box.
Originally Posted by infinite monkey View Post
Another one:
A palindrome is a word that reads the same when spelled backwards (eg rotavator).
How could the following word be considered a palindrome?
FOOTSTOOL
When written in morse code?
..-. --- --- - ... - --- --- .-..
DING!