Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brain teaser thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JohnM

    Your right, I see my mistake. I counted spammer/flammer twice when I also counted flammer/spammer...doh!

    For yours though how about:

    Apostrophe
    Catastrophe
    Monkey!!!

    Comment


    • oops, never mind. I read the question again
      Monkey!!!

      Comment


      • Headache.

        Uhmm.
        heartache?
        hemotrophe?
        "In some of its more lunatic aspects, political correctness is merely ridiculous. But in the thinking behind it, there is something more sinister which is shown by the fact that already there are certain areas and topics where freedom of speech, in the sense of the right to open and frank discussion, is being gradually but significantly eroded." -- Judge Neil Denison

        Comment


        • heterotrophe should be valid
          Concrete, Abstract, or Squoingy?
          "I don't believe in giving scripting languages because the only additional power they give users is the power to create bugs." - Mike Breitkreutz, Firaxis

          Comment


          • Yes, "headache" was one of the ones I was looking for.

            Those other words are certainly good answers, but I was looking for a different one. Hint: it's surprisingly short.
            "God is dead." - Nietzsche
            "Nietzsche is dead." - God

            Comment


            • Guess "he" fits the requirements too.
              Can't come up with anything else.
              "In some of its more lunatic aspects, political correctness is merely ridiculous. But in the thinking behind it, there is something more sinister which is shown by the fact that already there are certain areas and topics where freedom of speech, in the sense of the right to open and frank discussion, is being gradually but significantly eroded." -- Judge Neil Denison

              Comment


              • Hmm... maybe I'm getting a wee bit impatient, but being that I just noticed this thread now and Ignorance hasn't provided a new puzzle yet... a classic game theory one.

                MLeonard, Ming, and MtG, deciding to settle their differences once and for all, decide to have a truel (as opposed to a duel). MLenard is the worst shot and hits his target only 1/3 of the time, at least at the distance to be used for this truel (the men will stand in an equilateral triangle in an open field, with some witnesses & spectators from the OTF nearby). Ming still has his skills from the wild advertising world sharp, and hits his target 2/3 of the time. MtG has secretly refitted his duelling revolver into a tiny homing-missile launcher with a laser sight and GPS guidance to target, and like the FBI will always get his man. Sportingly, our three antagonists decide to let MLeonard shoot first, then Ming, then MtG, and go around in the circle so forth with any surviving members.

                Where would you advise MLeonard to shoot on the first "turn" so to speak? Assuming you want him to win, of course.
                Last edited by SnowFire; October 26, 2002, 00:00.
                All syllogisms have three parts.
                Therefore this is not a syllogism.

                Comment


                • Yes. He should shoot at MtG the first turn.

                  This gives him a 1/3 chance of hitting, and 2/3 chance of missing. If he hits, Ming will target him with a 2/3 chance of hitting. If he misses, Ming will target MtG because Ming knows MtG will try to take him out first as Matt is such a lousy shot.

                  So, first turn:

                  Matt hits MtG, Ming misses Matt : 1/9 (A)
                  Matt hits MtG, Ming hits Matt: 2/9 (B)
                  Matt misses MtG, Ming hits MtG: 4/9 (C)
                  Matt misses MtG, Ming misses MtG: 2/9 (D)

                  This gives Matt only a 2/9 chance of being eliminated the first round, but a 7/9 chance of surviving.

                  In cases (A) and (C), Matt gets a second chance of shooting at Ming, improving his odds to 2/3.

                  In case (D), it's just like everybody passes and back to square 1.

                  In case (B), oh well, you can't win them all.
                  (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                  (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                  (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                  Comment


                  • Urban Ranger: Incorrect. You didn't think it'd be that easy, now did you?
                    All syllogisms have three parts.
                    Therefore this is not a syllogism.

                    Comment


                    • Well then, it is the other choice.

                      Quick and dirty way of answering yes/no questions
                      Last edited by Urban Ranger; October 26, 2002, 01:40.
                      (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                      (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                      (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                      Comment


                      • Case (D) is wrong, as MtG would fire at (and hit) Ming.
                        Matt would then have a 1/3 chance of hitting MtG before he too would be taken out in round 2.
                        I'm building a wagon! On some other part of the internets, obviously (but not that other site).

                        Comment


                        • Well, a bit more specific than not shooting. I said there were spectators around. Do you want the cops called and all of you arrested for participating in a duel? Scare 'em off first by shooting at them so they know not to report it.

                          Let's look at it this way: Either wasting your shot -or- shooting at MtG and missing make no change whatsoever on the outcome of the duel. If that happens, MtG & Ming duke it out. Only one of them will be left for sure, given MtG's sure-shot. Then MLeonard will functionally have the first shot in a duel, with a 1/3 chance of winning outright (and if Ming won, then a slight chance of still winning if Ming misses and his second or third shot connects).

                          HOWEVER, if Matt hits MtG with his first shot... then what's Ming going to but start gunning at him! Now Ming has the first shot, and Matt will be gunned down quite likely. This is bad. You want to go first, not second. (you can see that shooting and hitting Ming is even more insane, it signs your death warrant).

                          If you want to look at it in terms of probabilities...

                          Miss/Intentionally Miss MtG: 33% chance of duel with MtG (Ming missed and MtG killed him), in which case there is 33% chance of success (hit with your first shot), for a total of 1/9 = .11 of a win; 66% chance of a duel with Ming, in which case there is a (1/3 + (2/3)(1/3)(1/3) + (2/3)(1/3)(2/3)(1/3)(1/3) + ... ) = 43% chance of victory, for a total of .28 of a win. Add the two together and you get 39% chance of victory.

                          Hit MtG: Well, chance of hitting first after Ming misses, plus the chance of hitting second, etc. We get
                          (1/3)(1/3) + (1/3)(2/3)(1/3)(1/3) + (1/3)(2/3)(1/3)(2/3)(1/3)(1/3) + .... = 14% chance of victory.

                          It's obvious that when you miss, you win more often. So why not do it intentionally?
                          All syllogisms have three parts.
                          Therefore this is not a syllogism.

                          Comment


                          • Bah, why do I always get here when the latest puzzle is already solved?
                            "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                            -Bokonon

                            Comment


                            • Now I'm here, I'll just add that JohnM2433 has indeed given the right answer to my riddle.
                              The long list of nonsense

                              Comment


                              • Okay, UR, you naughty boy. I wouldn't have given away the answer if you hadn't come up with your own bollocks calculations that needed refuting. What's this edit and this magical new "it must be the other one" thing?

                                Just so y'all know, UR originally said "Oh, I considered the shoot nowhere possibility, it just doesn't work as well!" and had some random probabilities from nowhere showing that somehow MLeonard dies more often from that. Which is why I responded.
                                All syllogisms have three parts.
                                Therefore this is not a syllogism.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X