Einstein's Intelligence Quiz ? [Archive]

recon

Oct15-03, 12:12 PM

I found the answer in around 30 minutes too. This was mostly due to mistakes I made (I kept thinking that Blue Master, Blend and Prince were Beers!). I think the test is a little(!) bit culture-biased as I have never heard of those cigars before, and since I am from far-away Borneo (the country Brunei to be exact), I obviously had a little difficulty. Then again, you could blame me for not having made up a proper list of the beverages, cigars, pets and Nationalities and scratch them of as I filled them into the table.

But apart from that, I don't think it was too challenging. If I, an ordinary 14-year-old, can do it, so can any adult. Einstein's assumption that only the top 2% of people can do it must be wrong! Here's a table of my results:

Yellow Blue Red Green White
Nationality Norwegian Dane British German Swede
Beverage Water Tea Milk Coffee Beer
Cigar Dunhill Blend Pall Mall Prince Blue Master
Pet Cat Horse Bird Fish Dog

recon

Oct15-03, 12:21 PM

Sorry about my table. Anyway, it is probably for the best as it would make it harder for you to read, thus encouraging you to tackle the problem yourself first!

Monique

Oct15-03, 12:43 PM

We have the same nationality for the fish, but my table is very different..

You say: blue norwegian water dunhill cat
I say: blue horse tea blend 2 dane
For the norwegian I DO have the same as you, just in the yellow house. I guess you didn't read the last clue correctly, the Norwegian lives NEXT to the blue house :) that is the mistake I made the first time around too :)

What do the others have for the blue house?

bogdan

Oct15-03, 01:01 PM

This is the answer...
http://www.astrohoroscopes.com/puzzles/logic/einsteinquizanswer.html

Njorl

Oct15-03, 01:06 PM

26 minutes

I replaced everything with numbers in an attempt to force more abstract reasoning, but it didn't work. I just filled in the table and looked for the next piece of "certain" information.

Njorl

Zantra

Oct15-03, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Monique
How much CPU do you've got?

huh? I'm not an einstein if that's what you mean...hehe

Monique

Oct15-03, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
huh? I'm not an einstein if that's what you mean...hehe That's what I meant [:D] proposing to solve the problem by a little abstract thinking, my system would overload :)

Gale

Oct15-03, 10:06 PM

well, my answers mathed that link. I solved for everything, it really wasn't that difficult. I'm pretty decent with logic puzzles so i just set up a sort of table thingie. Anyways, that link isn't the same as fz's or monique...

But yeah, i'd have to say that a lot more people can solve that problem than 2% or whatever.

Zantra

Oct15-03, 10:55 PM

I think a major factor is in the time it takes to solve it. Yes if you map it out pretty much anyone can solve it given enough time by deductive reasoning. I think the 2% are able to make some abstract short cut connection to solve it much quicker- just an educated guess.

Zeke

Oct15-03, 11:14 PM

a whole hour but give me some credit im in mid school

recon

Oct16-03, 01:09 AM

We have the same nationality for the fish, but my table is very different..

Monique, our answers are the same. You just misread my table, that's all! I checked out that website and both our answers are correct.

BTW, I did this when I was half-asleep (at Midnight Brunei Time) and had school the next day (today) so I did not bother with re-correcting it. Did anyone else do this half-asleep in less than 30 minutes?

I've only had 5 hours of sleep, so gotta catch up on some sleep now. Good luck to anyone who has not yet tried the puzzle. [zz)] [zz)]

RageSk8

Oct16-03, 01:48 AM

There are no abstract shorcuts for problems like these. Some people can keep track of more information at once than others and thus solve such problems more quickly. I highly doubt that only 2% of the population could solve this problem, but I think very few could solve it without the aid of pen and paper. Meh, I think people put too much value in intelligence quizes and IQ for that matter. Einstein himself did not have an amazingly high IQ (161 I believe).

jammieg

Oct16-03, 03:31 AM

It's a popular logic puzzle format these days and yes I think Einstein was trying to make people use their brains more by saying only 98% like some kind of double dare, but a fun way to solve them I've found although it takes a bit longer at first than drawing up the diagrams is to sit back and relax with some music and slowly read each factual and try to visualize everything like it was a real living neighborhood, the key isn't to force the information to fit but let each bit sink in for a moment and try to reason out what one can of each factual, then move on to read the next item and so on, after about a dozen read throughs and trying to reason each factual out a bit more than each time things naturally start to fall into place kind of like that game minesweep, but I think it's a lot funner without pencil and paper at least although my time on this one was well over an hour.
I'm sure anyone can solve them without pencil and paper if they practiced it this way, there's nothing special about it, it's method and practice.

...It's like memorizing a long poem, it seems impossible to memorize so many words as a child until one does it, only in this case we aren't trying to memorize and visualize the things so much themselves but rather the logical functions of those things and what really makes the puzzle fall into place, and so
by repetition and practice it is no different than doing a 3 factual problem or memorizing a single line of poetry, actually I don't know, if the initial question where who committed the murder and there were many more facts to choose from it could still be sorted through this way and I wonder how close Einstein's puzzle is to the essense of real life puzzles.

Doc

Oct16-03, 09:47 PM

I did it in less than half an hour but probably more than 5 minutes. It has been a while since I took this test. If I recall correctly, the key to doing it is to do it backwards. Everyone starts marking things down on a piece of paper with all of the houses marked as boxes, people matched up with animals and things like that. Then they concentrate on what they know to be true. Mark off what you know NOT TO BE TRUE. After that, with a little help from what you know to be true you will have it. I believe it is probably possible that a large percentage of people in the world could not solve it. I like to think that the people who frequent physics forums are above average intelligence. Remember there are alot of people out there that simply exist a life consisting of: Work, drink beer and party, sleep, over and over again.

Reddhawk

Oct23-03, 06:28 PM

I did it in about 30 minutes, but rather than use pen and paper, I put modern technology to use and typed the information into Notepad.[6)]

Anyway, it doesnt make any difference now but heres what I got:

1
yellow
Norwegian
water
Dunhill
cats

2
blue
Dane
tea
blend
horses

3
red
brit
milk
pall mall
bird

4
green
German
coffee
prince
fish

5
white
swede
beer
blue master
dogs

Well anyways the answer to the actual question is: the German

anyone else got a similar puzzle?
Reddhawk

jammieg

Oct23-03, 08:51 PM

I think this is partly what Plato might have meant about "true forms", I mean if one can observe the world long enough with logic and notice the cause and effects and pay attention to what people do and not what they say, and of these things be honest and objective with them then wouldn't the world seem to come together like a puzzle in those respects or in whatever intellectual respects one observed the world as their are likely many? I'm sure Plato thought he was in a whole different world and wanted to share it with others not because it was different but because logic works and it help to see how things work and fit together or theorize and try to fit them together in this manner.

1314920

Aug12-06, 06:58 PM

i have seen this riddle last year from a differnet forum:) really good quiz.. i wasn't able to solve it..but my cousin got it..and shockingly enough my dad too..

if you have good logic you can solve this riddle.. the 98% thing isn't really true . :rolleyes:

JamesU

Aug12-06, 07:00 PM

THis thread is three years old, and welcome to PF

end3r7

Aug12-06, 07:45 PM

Lol, I finished the puzzle in less than 10 mins, but I didn't see the question ("Who owns the fish?"). For about 5 minutes, I kept re-reading the page for mistakes or soemthing.

end3r7

Aug12-06, 07:49 PM

Einstein himself did not have an amazingly high IQ (161 I believe).

That's amazingly high to me. :P

jimmysnyder

Aug14-06, 03:53 PM

the 98% thing isn't really true.
Actually, I expect the 98% thing is true. No one in this thread got the right answer. A second thread with the same puzzle appeared in Physics Forums about a year or so ago with the correct answer which I repeat below:

No one has a fish. The only time a fish is mentioned is in the question. That is the 'Einstein' angle. Einstein's special theory requires you to abandon the unjustifiable assumption of absolute space and time, just as this puzzle requires you to abandon the unjustifiable assumption that one of the pets is a fish.

You are correct that as a straightforward logic puzzle, this one is not particularly difficult. That, together with the "98% thing" is in itself a clue.

daveb

Aug14-06, 04:37 PM

Actually it's a trick question. The text in the puzzle says that it is solvable. There are 4 pets mentioned in the clues. The 5th pet is not mentioned. Since the puzzle is solvable, there must be a fish as the 5th pet. If the 5th pet is something else, you cannot say who owns the fish, and the puzle is inherently not solvable.

turbo-1

Aug14-06, 05:06 PM

Thanks to 1314920 for resurrecting this thread. I took about 7-8 min with a pen and a 3x5" piece of scrap paper. I made two tables. One diagramming the houses and one listing the associations. Using a left to right convention, I got the Norwegian in the first house with a blue house next to him, and the rest of the stuff just fell together.

jimmysnyder

Aug15-06, 10:55 AM

The text in the puzzle says that it is solvable.
Yes. The solution is No one has a fish.

Mickey

Aug15-06, 11:40 PM

What a fun quiz! I got halfway by thinking rationally, and then the rest just started falling into place like guesswork.

Actually it's a trick question. The text in the puzzle says that it is solvable. There are 4 pets mentioned in the clues. The 5th pet is not mentioned. Since the puzzle is solvable, there must be a fish as the 5th pet. If the 5th pet is something else, you cannot say who owns the fish, and the puzle is inherently not solvable.

Sure it is! I actually skipped over the fish question and went straight to the clues. I ended up with a configuration that fit the clues but had one empty spot. Obviously, that empty spot is for the fish.

A fish named "empty." :smile:

daveb

Aug16-06, 08:18 AM

Yes. The solution is No one has a fish.
But that's my point. You can't specifically say that no one has a fish since the clues do not mention that there is no fish. There either could be or couldn't be a fish - you can't determine which (sounds vaguely similar to a possibly dead cat in a box....) Since the puzzle says that it is solvable, the only logical conclusion is that there must be a fish present.

jimmysnyder

Aug16-06, 11:46 AM

There either could be or couldn't be a fish - you can't determine which.
That's not so. If it were, then the problem would indeed be unsolvable. Therefore, there is no fish.
To sum up of the three possibilies:
1) Could be a fish or could be no fish: Wrong, ambiguous, violating the solvability clue
2) Is a fish: Wrong, too easy, violating the 98% clue.
3) Is no fish: Right, satisfies all clues.

davee123

Aug16-06, 12:28 PM

The best answer possible is to encompass the uncertainty:

"If any of the 5 people own fish, the German is the one that owns them."

However, if the problem is guaranteed solvable, which it states it is (at least in this particular quotation of the puzzle-- I expect that the original problem did NOT state this), then daveb is correct, the German necessarily has the fish.

However, if the problem ONLY stated that 98% could *NOT* solve the problem (which I expect Einstein directly stated), and did NOT state that the problem was definitely solvable, then the answer could be that nobody owns the fish, and that the problem is unsolvable, because the statement does not reference whether the remaining 2% could solve the problem.

And, because Einstein said it, and such a percentage is wildly stupid to even bother attempting to approximate, the liklihood is that the problem is NOT solveable, therefore meaning that there are two possible solutions, equally valid, either no fish, or a German-owned fish.

DaveE

davee123

Aug16-06, 12:42 PM

That's not so. If it were, then the problem would indeed be unsolvable. Therefore, there is no fish.
To sum up of the three possibilies:
1) Could be a fish or could be no fish: Wrong, ambiguous, violating the solvability clue
2) Is a fish: Wrong, too easy, violating the 98% clue.
3) Is no fish: Right, satisfies all clues.

Sorry, that's rather flawed, thanks to 2). Stating "too easy" is an assumption on your part with no basis in logic, but instead on qualitative analysis which is uncertain. "Easy" is not a quantifiable factor.

Your assumption is likely based on the small group of people you have seen attempt to tackle the problem, which hardly constitutes a fair distribution of population. Further, there's other implications that may result that you're not considering, like:
- Language - Can someone who doesn't speak English solve the problem?
- Education - How has education changed in the world since Einstein's time?

If you're going to state that it's "too easy", that's fine, but that immediately invalidates the certainty of your claim, unless you can back that up with significant numbers. And even *then* it's still only "probable" unless you can actually test at least 100% of all humans on the planet. And even *then* it's invalid, unless you can test 100% of all humans on the planet as of when Einstein made the assumption.

DaveE

jimmysnyder

Aug16-06, 12:50 PM

The problem doesn't say that you will like the solution, only that it has one. By the way, I seriously doubt that Einstein created the puzzle or even heard of it. Rather, I think his name is an extra clue about making unjustifiable assumptions. In my opinion, the puzzle is not the easy one that you can find in booklets at the checkout counter of your local supermarket and which a large percentage of people can solve. It is more subtle (and therefore more interesting) than that.

davee123

Aug16-06, 02:18 PM

The problem doesn't say that you will like the solution, only that it has one.

Ok... so... you agree that the only distinct solution is that the German owns the fish then, and that by allowing the possibility of "no fish" makes for an unsolvable puzzle?

By the way, I seriously doubt that Einstein created the puzzle or even heard of it.

Yeah, that seems to be true. Googling for the answer appears to give lots of restatements of the puzzle, each stating that it's possibly attributed to Einstein, but nobody seems to give a reference. I'd imagine that Einstein's works are well documented enough so that somebody out there would have given a direct quote if it did in fact exist.

Rather, I think his name is an extra clue about making unjustifiable assumptions. In my opinion, the puzzle is not the easy one that you can find in booklets at the checkout counter of your local supermarket and which a large percentage of people can solve. It is more subtle (and therefore more interesting) than that.

Yes, I agree, which is why I think the answer is "If any one of the 5 specified people owns a fish, it is the German". It's a non-traditional answer that most people who could manage to untagle the logic wouldn't jump to, because they'll assume that the fish exists.

In truth, it's unstated. The existance of the fish is ambiguous, which actually *does* make the problem unsolvable if, by "solvable" you mean a being able to ascribe a individual to fish ownership unambiguously and verifiably, or verifiably proving that no individual owns a fish.

DaveE

end3r7

Aug16-06, 06:32 PM

Has it occurred to anyone that this problem may have not been in fact designed by Einstein and the 98% thing is... well... BS?

mattmns

Aug16-06, 07:05 PM

Has it occurred to anyone that this problem may have not been in fact designed by Einstein and the 98% thing is... well... BS?
Nooo! Really? :rolleyes:

sebas531

Aug16-06, 10:19 PM

I am not satisfied after solving this puzzle. Perhaps I did it wrong. I paid attention to some parts but then I just started to kind of guess??. Like the house for the Swede, I just guessed that and I made some sence. I just tried something and it worked out. Am I the only one that feels this way?

end3r7

Aug16-06, 11:20 PM

I didn't have to "guess", everything worked out.

jimmysnyder

Aug17-06, 08:18 AM

"If any one of the 5 specified people owns a fish, it is the German".
I don't see how "If I only had one more clue I could impose my favorite solution on this thing." can be the answer. You don't have that one more clue.

Mickey

Aug17-06, 09:10 AM

I don't see how "If I only had one more clue I could impose my favorite solution on this thing." can be the answer. You don't have that one more clue.
In the quiz, there are only five animals, as given by the rules. If the quiz asks for fish, when four other animals are known, fish is the fifth animal, because the quiz only knows five animals. The quiz cannot ask for a sixth or a seventh.

davee123

Aug17-06, 10:26 AM

I don't see how "If I only had one more clue I could impose my favorite solution on this thing." can be the answer. You don't have that one more clue.

Well, because it covers the flaw inherent in the problem, which is that the existance of a fish is implied, not explicitly defined. Your personal interpretation of whether or not a fish actually exists within the scope of the problem may be different than someone else's. That's why word problems can be phenomenally difficult to write.

Anyway, if you're unwilling to accept the conditional as an answer, then the answer must be that the problem is NOT solvable, OR that the German definitely owns the fish. In order to determin which is the case, you have to define "solvable" and establish whether "no fish" is a valid possibility, each of which are variable based on the reader, I would think.

DaveE

jimmysnyder

Aug17-06, 10:47 AM

it covers the flaw inherent in the problem
There is no flaw in the problem.

the answer must be that the problem is NOT solvable, OR that the German definitely owns the fish.
The answer is No one owns a fish.

davee123

Aug17-06, 02:14 PM

There is no flaw in the problem.

The answer is No one owns a fish.

Can you logically justify that answer? The only justification that I've seen you give is:

If the answer were "The German owns the fish", I believe, based on my personal experience, but not on any logical grounds, that many more than 2% of the population of humans on Earth would be able to solve the problem. Therefore, because 98% is a given and undisputable *fact* stated within the problem, the solution must be something more uncommon than "The German owns the fish".

Because we can prove logically that none of the other characters involved owns the fish as it would create a logical fallacy, the only remaining solution is that none of the characters involved owns a fish. Hence, because I *feel* that a solution in this case cannot reference any degree of ambiguity, the answer must be limited solely to nobody owning a fish.

But that reasoning isn't based on verifiable logic, it's based on experience.

DaveE

jimmysnyder

Aug17-06, 03:22 PM

[QUOTE=davee123]The only justification that I've seen you give is: /QUOTE]
Perhaps you missed my post #30 in this thread.

davee123

Aug17-06, 04:34 PM

Perhaps you missed my post #30 in this thread.

Not at all. But I was referring more to post #36. Let's look at them both, then.

Post #30:

Actually, I expect the 98% thing is true. No one in this thread got the right answer. A second thread with the same puzzle appeared in Physics Forums about a year or so ago with the correct answer which I repeat below:

No one has a fish. The only time a fish is mentioned is in the question. That is the 'Einstein' angle. Einstein's special theory requires you to abandon the unjustifiable assumption of absolute space and time, just as this puzzle requires you to abandon the unjustifiable assumption that one of the pets is a fish.

You are correct that as a straightforward logic puzzle, this one is not particularly difficult. That, together with the "98% thing" is in itself a clue.

This post references almost no logic whatsoever with regard to the puzzle at hand. It instead references the "Einstein angle" which is a "hint" at a possible interpretation of the style of the method of obtaining a solution. It says nothing about the solution itself and how to obtain said solution uniquely and verifiably using such a hint.

It does reference logic insofar as it addresses the fact that "The only time a fish is mentioned is in the question." Which does point out the flaw in the wording of the problem, hence pointing at the ambiguity.

But your post #36 is by far a better attempt to explain your position logically. As I've pointed out, it's not entirely based in logic, it's partially based in experience which is unverifiable, and hence cannot be accepted as a solution. But for reference's sake, post #36:

That's not so. If it were, then the problem would indeed be unsolvable. Therefore, there is no fish.
To sum up of the three possibilies:
1) Could be a fish or could be no fish: Wrong, ambiguous, violating the solvability clue
2) Is a fish: Wrong, too easy, violating the 98% clue.
3) Is no fish: Right, satisfies all clues.

Now, you've analyzed the possibilities totally correctly:
1) A fish may or may not exist, if it exists, the German owns it
2) The German owns the fish
3) There is no fish

And, you've already stated that you are unwilling to accept the ambiguity of #1 as a solution, which is totally within your rights, although my personal and also unverifiable feeling on that would be to allow it.

And you're correct by allowing #3, as it does not explicitly violate any clues explained in the puzzle.

But the sticky bit is that you're claiming that #2 is not a valid solution, but you don't give a verifiable, logical explanation as to why. You claim "too easy", which is an arbitrary judgement call on your part, based on your experience with people's abilities to solve these sorts of problems.

Daveb's solution was a valid interpretation, if, as both you and he agree, you don't want to allow any ambiguity in the solution. But there's really only one way to approach the problem after that assumption is made. Either #2 or #3 is correct, but not both, and there can be no ambiguity.

But to make such a conclusion, we have to look at the question. "Who owns the fish?" Now, if the question were instead "Who owns a fish?", the "a" is a nondescript object, allowing the potential for no fish to actually exist. But by specifying "THE fish", there's a definite article, which, if you're a lawyer, you would probably agree implies (if not explicitly defines) the existance of a fish. Hence, the fish MUST exist, and it must be owned by the German.

DaveE

daveb

Aug17-06, 04:59 PM

Also, the 98% is not under the clues to the puzzle, it is contained outside the puzzle. For that matter, so is the claim that is solvable, as is the mention of the fish. Taking the 15 clues by themselves, the puzzle is not solvable. If you assume that the solvability part is a clue, you also have to assume the other two are also clues. This means there is a fish, and only 2% of people get it right. Each of these two is in contradiction to the other. You cannot assign weight to one more than the other.

based on this, I would have to say the puzzle is NOT solvable, since you can only take the 15 clues.

Mickey

Aug18-06, 01:47 AM

Umm.

In the quiz, there are only five animals, as given by the rules. If the quiz asks for fish, when four other animals are known, fish is the fifth animal, because the quiz only knows five animals. The quiz cannot ask for a sixth or a seventh.

Yeah, I don't know if they're listening to you.

jimmysnyder

Aug18-06, 06:35 AM

Also, the 98% is not under the clues to the puzzle, it is contained outside the puzzle. For that matter, so is the claim that is solvable, as is the mention of the fish.
If you take the puzzle to be no more than the 15 clues, then there is no answer as there is no question.

jimmysnyder

Aug18-06, 09:20 AM

In the quiz, there are only five animals, as given by the rules.
The idea that the unnamed pet need not be a fish is the crux of the puzzle. It is the reason most people get it wrong. If that were not the case, then most people would get it right as we see before our eyes. The 98% clamor to be the 2%. Go ahead, pat yourself on the back.

alias25

Aug20-06, 10:40 AM

hey i did it in 30 mins....whoohoooo
i seen this this puzzle before, but i've never tackled it because i was scared i wouldn't be able to do it, and ultimately realise how stupid i am. wow i feel good.

I made a table....for nat, pet, sm, dr, house no., colour

and also below that drew out the houses(boxes) next to each other.

davee123

Aug21-06, 10:16 AM

Go ahead, pat yourself on the back.

Do I even have to comment on how rude that was? And are you still intent on illogically believing that the answer is definitively "there is no fish"? I responded point-for-point on your posts showing why your conclusion is inaccurate. Are you even reading my posts beyond the fact that I disagree with you?

DaveE

jimmysnyder

Aug21-06, 11:50 AM

Are you even reading my posts beyond the fact that I disagree with you?
Yes.

Since there is no clue telling you that anyone has a fish, the best I could do for you is: "There is not enough information to know if anyone owns a fish or not." However, since this answer violates one of the clues, I cannot accept it as the answer myself.

The 98% thing and the Einstein thing are just extra clues. The puzzle and its solution stand without them.

alias25

Aug21-06, 12:56 PM

o i understand what u mean, Because its not stated that one of these five own a fish? just says who owns a fish. and we're assuming theres someone within the five owns the fish.?
no i don't get it.

davee123

Aug21-06, 01:17 PM

Yes.

Since there is no clue telling you that anyone has a fish, the best I could do for you is: "There is not enough information to know if anyone owns a fish or not." However, since this answer violates one of the clues, I cannot accept it as the answer myself.

The 98% thing and the Einstein thing are just extra clues. The puzzle and its solution stand without them.

So... now you're saying that the puzzle has no solution? (Which I would agree is a correct possible interpretation)

DaveE

jimmysnyder

Aug21-06, 01:34 PM

So... now you're saying that the puzzle has no solution?
This is the second time you have put words in my mouth. That is rude too. The puzzle has a solution. Are you reading my posts? The solution is No one has a fish. It fits all of the clues. No other solution has been proposed that does so.

davee123

Aug21-06, 02:48 PM

This is the second time you have put words in my mouth. That is rude too.

Well, sorry, it's just that you aren't addressing my points, or answering my questions, so I have to make assumptions.

The puzzle has a solution. Are you reading my posts? The solution is No one has a fish. It fits all of the clues. No other solution has been proposed that does so.

Ok, you've answered that:

1) The solution can't be ambiguous

Fine.

2) "No one has a fish" does not violate any clues.

Fine, I accept that. It's certainly possible depending on your interpretation of the English language and the definite article "the" which is explicitly stated in the question.

But what you have NOT answered (in any logical way) is why you seem to think that "The German owns the fish" violates the clues. It's extraordinarily clear that such a statement does NOT violate ANY of the clues given, regardless of your interpretation (unless you play devil's advocate and claim a wildly stupid interpretation of various words within the clues, such as "fish" is a type of beverage, or "Brit" is someone who raises horses).

So. Again, because you have thus far refused to answer, except in post #36, which I've already addressed, I'll ask very explicitly:

Why do you hold that "The German owns the fish" is an unacceptable answer?

Note that responses such as "because that would be too easy" or "that's too obvious of an answer" or "because it's not thinking outside the box" are not quantifiable and are therefore dismissable.

The valid answers to this problem ARE, quite definitively one of:
A) The German owns the fish
B) If any one of the 5 people does own the fish, it is the German
C) There is no solution

The solution "there is no fish" is NOT a possible *solution*, it is only a *part* of a solution, viable within answers B) or C).

DaveE

jimmysnyder

Aug21-06, 03:10 PM

Why do you hold that "The German owns the fish" is an unacceptable answer?
Because it assumes a clue that isn't stated in the puzzle.

davee123

Aug21-06, 03:14 PM

Because it assumes a clue that isn't stated in the puzzle.

But stating that "there is no fish" makes an EQUAL assumption! If you can't assume that there IS a fish, you CANNOT assume that there definitely is NO fish.

DaveE

Mickey

Aug21-06, 05:27 PM

Because it assumes a clue that isn't stated in the puzzle.
No, it doesn't. The puzzle stated there are five animals only.

The only way you can justify your position is if the quiz knows of a six animal that the german could have that is not a fish, but there are not six animals.

So, you are assuming a clue that isn't stated in the puzzle! :tongue2:

This is a problem people have when taking quizzes: they apply the quiz to the real world. In the real world, there are many animals, but in the quiz world, there are only five.

jimmysnyder

Aug22-06, 06:33 AM

But stating that "there is no fish" makes an EQUAL assumption! If you can't assume that there IS a fish, you CANNOT assume that there definitely is NO fish.
This line of reasoning violates one of the clues which says the puzzle is solvable.

Molydood

Aug22-06, 06:56 AM

My take:

-The puzzle is stated as being solvable
-The puzzle is defined by 'Who owns the fish?'
-Therefore there is an answer to this question within the boundaries of the puzzle

this is a statement and question all in one in my opinion (defines the fifth animal and states the question)

personally, I think too much is being read into it, fish is the fifth animal, it's that simple, and IMO not really ambiguous either given the above

Martin

Molydood

Aug22-06, 06:58 AM

oh yes, and added to that, it says who owns 'the' fish, not 'a' fish (somebody mentioned that already)

davee123

Aug22-06, 09:36 AM

This line of reasoning violates one of the clues which says the puzzle is solvable.

If that's your interpretation, fine, but *IF* that's the case, then your only logical recourse is to accept that the puzzle paradoxical and that there is NO solution. Remember early on when you said that liking an answer doesn't necessarily make it the right one? Ding ding!

The puzzle at hand does not give you ANY means of verifying absolutely whether or not a fish exists. It *implies* a fish, which, if you're a lawyer, you could make a case was the correct interpretation. You could *NOT*, however, make a valid case that a fish does *NOT* exist. It's an arguable point as to whether it's ambiguous, or there definitely IS a fish. There is no arguable case that there is unambiguously NO fish.

If you want to claim that there is no fish, you have to explicitly show HOW you arrived at that conclusion. Right now, you've shown that the existance of a fish is ambiguous, and you adamantly believe that there is a solution. Hence, you in particular are left with 2 options:

1) The German has the fish.
2) There is no fish.

In order to choose one of these options, you MUST show how one of the two cases is inaccurate in order to prove the other correct.

You can make a case for 1) because the author specified the word "the" before fish, establishing in a pretty clear concept that he's talking about a particular fish (actually a particular set of fish because the problem is written in the plural). It can therefore be said that because the author is referencing something discrete within the scope of the problem, that such a subject exists definitely.

But you seem to want a case for 2). In order to do that, you've got to show why 1) is explicitly wrong, which you haven't yet done.

DaveE

jimmysnyder

Aug22-06, 09:48 AM

there is NO solution. Remember early on when you said that liking an answer doesn't necessarily make it the right one? Ding ding!
Are you saying that the puzzle has a solution and the solution is "The puzzle does not have a solution.". I reject this.

you've got to show why 1) is explicitly wrong, which you haven't yet done.
1) is explicitly wrong because if the German could own a fish, yet it is also the case that the German might not own a fish. Then the puzzle would indeed be unsolvable. The puzzle is not unsolvable. Therefore, reductio ad absurdum, the German does not own a fish.

davee123

Aug22-06, 10:53 AM

Are you saying that the puzzle has a solution and the solution is "The puzzle does not have a solution.". I reject this.

So, you HAVEN'T been reading. See my prior post:

The valid answers to this problem ARE, quite definitively one of:
A) The German owns the fish
B) If any one of the 5 people does own the fish, it is the German
C) There is no solution

1) is explicitly wrong because if the German could own a fish, yet it is also the case that the German might not own a fish. Then the puzzle would indeed be unsolvable. The puzzle is not unsolvable. Therefore, reductio ad absurdum, the German does not own a fish.

Ok, I'm gonna stop after this because you're just not listening. Seriously, if I don't post again, it means go back and re-read my posts, because I already addressed this.

Maybe the order is confusing you. I'll state this two different ways, according to what appears to be your logic, and get two different conclusions. Observe the difference:

--------------------------------------

There are two possibilities:

A) The German owns the fish
B) There is no fish

If A) were the answer, we would need to assume that a fish definitely exists. However, we cannot make that determination. Hence, because the solution MUST exist as defined by the problem, A) is incorrect. Therefore, the only option left is B).

Answer: There is no fish.

-----------------------------------------

Now, I'll use the SAME EXACT LOGIC, but in the reverse order:

------------------------------------------

There are two possibilities:

A) There is no fish
B) The German owns the fish

If A) were the answer, we would need to assume that no fish exists. However, we cannot make that determination. Hence, because the solution MUST exist as defined by the problem, A) is incorrect. Therefore, the only option left is B).

Answer: The German owns the fish

--------------------------------------------

As I've said before, the valid answers to this problem ARE:

a) The German owns the fish
b) If any one of the 5 people does own the fish, it is the German
c) There is no solution

The answer depends on your particular interpretation of the problem.

a) is correct if you assume that the word "the" is a statement officially declaring the fish's existance.

b) is correct if you define "solution" as allowing a certain degree of ambiguity.

c) is correct if you assume the word "the" does NOT establish the fish's existance, and you define "solution" as being totally unambiguous.

DaveE

alias25

Aug22-06, 05:49 PM

your posts make me smile :)

Schrodinger's Dog

Aug23-06, 11:13 AM

Einstein sent this very puzzle to Schrodinger and said, "98% of people I know couldn't work this out" Since Schrodinger new that Einstein mixed in very intellectual circles he was keen to prove that he was amongst the 2% of people that could get this conundrum, so he worked for a while and got the answer, that the German owned the fish, he was about to retrieve his fountain pen from the draw when he realised that it was too easy....? Hold on he though if I can get this in 10 minutes what's to stop Niels Bohr or Max Plank from getting it this easilly? 98% mmmmm...

Damn it there must be more to it, after thinking on it for a while he came up with a brilliant solution, the solution wasn't that there was a solution, the solution was that the question was unanswerable! Since the fish was never definitively identified as existing but only infered Einstien was trying to force people into speculating about something intrinsicaly intangible in the structure of the question; it was obvious,there was no fish, the fish was a red herring! what Einstein was leading people to do was to solve the puzzle, but in doing so they made themselves the 98% who couldn't solve it, the sly old dog.

Pleased with his lateral answer he sent Einstein a letter saying, tough luck again old bean I have the answer, your trying to fool me into making assumptions about the answer without resorting to proof, there is nothing tangible that leads me to believe in the existence of a fish? You can't assert the German owns the fish unless the fish actually exists. Unless I can see a fish there is no fish it's suposition, untill you can definitively show me the nature of a cod or a herring within the problem then it is no fish you seek but something unknowable. You can stop sending me these questions without answers these, riddles without proofs.

Einstein wrote back saying ahhhh! You have it: now this Copenhagen interpritation....:smile:

In all seriousness though I seriously doubt Einstein wrote this riddle, unless there was an ulterior motive, perhaps?

The answer is the answer, the German ate the fish.:smile:

Molydood

Aug25-06, 09:11 AM

unggio

Aug27-06, 08:02 AM

kind of random but
the LSAT (law school admissions test) is filled with problems like this on the logical thinking section

i think i read it's an internet rumor somewhere that this is defintiely not a puzzle made by einstein to describe the top 2% of the population

waga110

Oct30-06, 09:11 PM

i'm in 5th grade and i solved the puzzle in like 25-40 minutes and i only have 130 IQ(I took an IQ test yesterday)
I think everyone(as in more than 2%)can solve it but they need more time than those 2 percent

waga110

Oct30-06, 09:13 PM

i'm smart!130 IQ is very superior(as it says in some other website)

GautamAishwarya

Oct31-06, 07:03 AM

i think the dane owns the fish

Gelsamel Epsilon

Oct31-06, 09:37 PM

I hate those puzzles, they bore me and are just tedious. And while we're comparing IQ, 158. But then again IQ is bull**** :P.

DaxInvader

Nov7-06, 07:45 PM

I found the answer in 17 minutes... AND a piece of paper...

haki

Nov8-06, 03:25 PM

Einstein was German, soo the German should own the Fish. My initial guess but I think it is correct.

DaxInvader

Nov8-06, 03:30 PM

i'm smart!130 IQ is very superior(as it says in some other website)

Ha hA! I have 133 IQ :P And my father has 142...:eek: Does your Iq go up as you grow? Your learn new things and your logic is improved...

davee123

Nov8-06, 05:15 PM

Ha hA! I have 133 IQ :P And my father has 142...:eek: Does your Iq go up as you grow? Your learn new things and your logic is improved...

I think it ... changes... as you get older. Problem being that "intelligence" isn't nearly as linear of a value as your "IQ" would lead you to believe. Neural pathways will get less flexible as you get older, making it harder to "think outside the box". But on the other hand, your multitude of existing pathways make you better at solving problems that are very similar to ones you've already seen before. Younger people have fewer established pathways to go on, and will likely spend more time "figuring it out".

Also, IQ is inherently difficult to measure. Different tests yield different results and different "norms", and gauging children's IQ's is especially difficult thanks to them not having as "standardized" of a set of experiences on which to evaluate.

Generally, IQ is divided into several areas, as well, such as verbal, memory, logical, etc. I remember getting two evaluations when I was in gradeschool (math and verbal, I think), and elsewhere I heard about something like 4 different 'areas' of IQ. Not sure how many qualifications there are out there, and of course how easy it is to genuinely call them distinct qualifications!

DaveE

DaxInvader

Nov8-06, 07:44 PM

Yeah.. I remeber having different % in different "areas". Thank you for your time.

Btw Congrats on you 100th post!

intwo

Nov14-06, 12:57 PM

When I had finished the puzzle, I felt like I had just completed a marathon of some sort. After reading the so-called "correct" answer, I now feel like I've been running the marathon in the opposite direction.

Bahh it figures that Einstein would throw a curveball. And here I thought I was somewhat intelligent lol.

Yura

Dec16-06, 12:11 PM

19 minutes ^^;
Wrote down the clues twice each to remember them (the second time around I slightly categorized them to make them easier to find), then drew a table of 5x5 and filled it out. >< I didnt even realise when I finished that one of the slots was still missing a pet till I read here and people were talking about a fish.

Waah, everyone here has a better IQ than me T-T
There was a IQ test running on tv a long while ago, they ask the questions and you choose your answer from multichoice, then go through the answer afterwards and you mark yourself (I think about a year maybe ago, i remember getting one wrong because i mixed up escalator and elevator) and i got...109 T_T I'm so sad..

f(x)

Dec21-06, 12:36 PM

Damn it there must be more to it, after thinking on it for a while he came up with a brilliant solution, the solution wasn't that there was a solution, the solution was that the question was unanswerable! Since the fish was never definitively identified as existing but only infered Einstien was trying to force people into speculating about something intrinsicaly intangible in the structure of the question; it was obvious,there was no fish, the fish was a red herring!

Some1 elaborate on the text in bold

jimmysnyder

Dec21-06, 12:52 PM

Some1 elaborate on the text in bold
(intrinsicaly intangible / the fish was a red herring)
A red herring is neither red nor a herring and therefor is not a fish. And just as there is no fish in "red herring", so there is no intrinsically tangible fish in any of the 15 clues.

f(x)

Dec21-06, 02:16 PM

A red herring is neither red nor a herring and therefor is not a fish. And just as there is no fish in "red herring", so there is no intrinsically tangible fish in any of the 15 clues.
oh thx. no idea abt fish :yuck:

Servo888

Dec23-06, 02:03 PM

unscientific

Dec24-06, 10:28 AM

Now now, some have said IQ is definite, fixed and can't be changed no matter what pig's or monkey's brain and tonics u eat. Some say IQ can be changed by doing puzzles, listeing to music ( Really? >_> ). In my opinion, I feel that IQ cant be changed. Now you must ask me one question, Why? The answer to this question is what u define IQ to be. I have come to believe that the speed of thought is oftenly mixed up with the level of intelligence or rather, IQ. What I think true IQ is; the ability to ask questions. The true, pure innate deep thinking. A simple question that everyone could solve, but it takes more than that to ask why is it like that? Is there a reason? If there is, why must it be? Are there other solutions? Peer intensely into problems, ask questions.

" The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity. "
Albert Einstein

"It does not matter who I am, but what i do that defines me. "

davee123

Dec26-06, 03:13 PM

How are you guys solving this problem? I don't see a clear solution without using guess and check... You can't solve a riddle by guess and checking though - hell you already have a 1 in 5 chance of getting the correct answer.

You don't need to guess, it's just a bit complicated. And, in my opinion, poorly worded. The utterly WORST wording is clue #4, which states "The green house is on the left of the white house". What the clue actually MEANS is that the green house is to the immediate left of the white house. When I read this initially, I assumed it meant "the green house is somewhere to the left of the white house, not necessarily right next to it"

Also, clue #9 says "the first house", but "first" does not REALLY mean leftmost, it could mean rightmost (although I think the problem turns out with the same answer of the German owning the fish if you work this out)

The rest is just bad wording which could have been phrased more accurately. A restatement:

* There are 5 houses each of which is a different color
* In each house lives a person with a different nationality
* These 5 owners drink only a certain type of beverage, smoke only a certain brand of cigar, and keep only a certain type of pet
* No two owners have the same type of pet, smoke the same brand of cigar nor drink the same type of drink.

Here's the question: Who owns the fish?

1. The Brit lives in a red house
2. The Swede keeps dogs as pets
3. The Dane drinks tea
4. The green house is immediately to the left of the white house
5. The green house owner drinks coffee
6. The person who smokes Pall Mall owns pet birds
7. The owner of the yellow house smokes Dunhill
8. The man living in the house right in the middle drinks milk
9. The Norwegian lives in the leftmost house
10. The man who smokes Blend lives next door to the one who keeps cats.
11. The man who keeps horses lives next door to the man who smokes Dunhill
12. The owner who smokes Blue Master drinks beer
13. The German smokes Prince
14. The Norwegian lives next to the blue house
15. The man who smokes Blend has a neighbor who drinks water

Some say IQ can be changed by doing puzzles, listeing to music ( Really? >_> ). In my opinion, I feel that IQ cant be changed.

Alright, this IQ discussion really should be moved to a different forum, but... I think it most definitely *can* be changed, and *does* change. If you break down intelligence into its more discrete parts, you get neurons firing in resonse to various stimuli, and directing action. If your neurons started dying (for whatever reason), or stopped firing correctly, your intelligence *would* change.

I think what you're driving at, however, is a definition of intelligence that isn't defined by what you already know how to do, but by your capacity to learn, and your flexibility in learning it; and it sounds like that's how you want to measure intelligence, which is fine. Obviously we don't have a good mechanism for measuring it (or even more "accepted" definitions of IQ for that matter), but I agree it's an important part of intelligence.

DaveE

billiards

Dec26-06, 03:47 PM

I did it!!! ~10-15 mins and about 10 cm2 of paper. I think maybe 50% of people couldn't do this, no way 98%, it aint really that hard.

iProLiFiK

Mar26-07, 12:58 PM

Supporting and contradicting evidence of Einstein creating this and 2% of the world being able to solve it.

Supporting: Well majority of people that have solved this probably only reach about 2 percent of the population but this is the internet, and it isn't exactly advertised.

Contradicting: This quiz was incredibly easy compared to most logic problems. Most people have figured it out within 30 minutes which shows it isn't some incredibly mind-racking problem.

In this new generation people are much smarter and much dumber. Those who are smarter and have strived to learn more will probably not find this that hard. As for "Intelligence" its the process of elimination, not very Intelligent.

I myself solved this in 5 minutes with a pen to write on my hand. The first time I mentally guess the order of the houses in color I was wrong, and I quickly fixed the problem checking my order with the questions. Once you determine who the nationalities are, they practically give you the answer.

Seriously, congrats to all who solved it but don't think don't think your Einstein. Though you still could be :)

chaoseverlasting

Mar29-07, 02:52 PM

I solved the whole thing in about 10-15 minutes on a notepad.

PMCS

Apr2-07, 04:07 AM

That was kinda interesting, a little too simple though.

BillJx

Apr11-07, 11:45 PM

Solving it as stated was trivial. Just a matter of making a table and narrowing down the options. I did find several websites that said the correct answer is that it's impossible to say who, if anyone, has a fish.
On some of those sites, the wording is, "Who has fish?" or "Who keeps fish?" (note for non-native English speakers, the plural of "fish" is "fish".)

I'd say there's a error in the wording of the question. To ask "Who owns the fish?" implies that there is one, because "the" is a definite article. If the question were "Who owns a fish?" or just "Who keeps fish?" then it's a typical riddle with a trick answer.

Maybe it's in the translation from German. I can believe that Einstein could have come up with this to remind people not to make assumptions.

AngeloG

Apr14-07, 06:26 PM

I did it in about 45 seconds in my head; I just read the first few clues and skipped the middle and read a few of the last clues heh.

rocks

Apr19-07, 04:56 PM

Aww.. now I feel like a retard. I got it mostly right and quit after I thought I had the fish guy right. I was wrong. For some reason I came up with
Yellow Norwegian Water Dunhill FISH. I had it between fish and cats for him, but somehow I got fish. Sucks to be me.. :frown:

bassplayer142

Apr26-07, 12:19 AM

Is this iq test supposed to be done without guessing and checking. Or does one discovery lead to another and eventually lead to the answer.

phoenixthoth

May26-07, 11:54 PM

Isn't "who owns the fish" a loaded question? I mean, the german could have a python. Shouldn't it say, "if someone owns a fish, then who owns it?"

K.J.Healey

May27-07, 01:14 AM

keynespaul

Jun28-07, 09:04 AM

Color green blue yellow red white
Nationality Norwegian german swede Brit dane
Drink coffee water Milk beer tea
Cigar blend prince dunhill blue master pall mall
Pets fish cats dogs horses birds

Answer is :The Norwegian has the fish

davee123

Jun29-07, 08:25 AM

Answer is :The Norwegian has the fish

The problem is that this violates one of the poorly written clues:

"4. The green house is on the left of the white house"

Note that if you assume "is on the left somewhere" rather than "immediately next to", then there are apparently two possible answers!

DaveE

keynespaul

Jun29-07, 08:31 AM

hi davee,
I would like to bring out a point here, when we consider clue#10 and #11,"10. The man who smokes Blend lives next door to the one who keeps cats.
11. The man who keeps horses lives next door to the man who smokes Dunhill

so I still say my answer is right, the green house is the very next house on the left,einstein might have specified it has " the green house is the left next to the white house" --I still say your answer is ALSO right. :)

CompuChip

Jun29-07, 09:02 AM

I remember doing this in the 6th grade. I had never seen a logic problem before, and had no idea how to go about solving it. What i ended up doing was making grids of each topic vs another. Like smokes vs pet, or pet vs house. Each was on a seperate piece of paper and i stacked them in 3d. I found soem way to make connections by flipping back and forth, it was pretty fun. Took me about an hour to solve but only cause it took forever to setup.

That's what I would do too, but then more like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_Puzzle) (Spoiler warning the linked page contains the solution to the puzzle!) :)

I copy/pasted the link from the Dutch version (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logigram), I see only now that Einstein is also mentioned on the page, and in fact the puzzle is literally there. So I added a warning to the link.

keynespaul

Jun29-07, 09:09 AM

so does it mean the solution is an ambiguity ?? :) :) :) :)

davee123

Jun29-07, 10:23 AM

so does it mean the solution is an ambiguity ?? :) :) :) :)

I think it probably means that:

1) Einstein didn't write it
2) This isn't the original phrasing of the question

The other possibilities might be that the question was MEANT to be ambiguous just to prove the point that it was unsolvable with a unique solution, or that whoever initially wrote the question was just lazy, which is similarly understandable.

DaveE

mathwonk

Jul1-07, 09:21 PM

BillJx

Jul2-07, 02:02 AM

here is a simple intelligence quiz:

1) do you believe that you learn more going to class than not going to class?

2) do you miss class more than once a month?

3) how do you reconcile the answers to 1) and 2)?

i have more, on other topics, if you passed this one.

1) Depends on the class. For some courses all the material is available outside of class, and the main advantage of the classroom method is that it keeps you on schedule. If you're well disciplined, you can make better use of your time at home, even without considering travel time. Some courses require interaction, or there's material that's only presented in class, or you find the course difficult and need the instructor to clarify things.

2) For two years I completed my BA by doing a full course load along with full time shift work. I missed lots of classes, used my holidays one day at a time for class, and did what I could by correspondence. I also did some of my studying at work. I graduated with honors. So it can be done.

3) You can reconcile a "no" to 1 and "yes" to 2, , but if your answer to 1 is "yes" then you have to attend classes or accept lower grades. Sometimes life doesn't really give you a choice. You do what you gotta do. There are lots of single working mothers in college too. I don't know how they do it.

4) There are bonus questions; consider this a bonus answer. To do anything beyond the norm, the main thing you need is a warped sense of priorities.

Werg22

Jul5-07, 06:19 PM

It's the German who lives in the green house (which is the 4th house), drinks coffee and smokes Prince :biggrin:

Solution:

1. The Brit lives in a red house
2. The Swede keeps dogs as pets
3. The Dane drinks tea
4. The green house is on the left of the white house
5. The green house owner drinks coffee
6. The person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds
7. The owner of the yellow house smokes Dunhill
8. The man living in the house right in the middle drinks milk
9. The Norwegian lives in the first house
10. The man who smokes Blend lives next door to the one who keeps cats.
11. The man who keeps horses lives next door to the man who smokes Dunhill
12. The owner who smokes Blue Master drinks beer
13. The German smokes Prince
14. The Norwegian lives next to the blue house
15. The man who smokes Blend has a neighbor who drinks water

- The Norwegian lives in the first house, point 9.
- From point 9 and 14, we can infer that the second house is the blue one.
- Looking at point 4, the Norwegian cannot live in either the green or white house. Since the Brit lives in the red house and we know he does not live in the blue house, the Norwegian lives in the yellow house.
- The Norwegian smokes Dunhill, from point 7.
- The man in the blue house keeps horses, point 11.
- Point 5 and 8 allows us to infer that the green house is on the fourth position.
- The white house is hence, point 4, on 5th position. The Brit lives in the middle in the red house and drinks milk, point 1 and 8.
- The person in the green house drinks coffee, point 5.
- Point 12 cannot apply to the Norwegian, nor the German, nor the British, nor the Dane. Hence the Swede smokes Blue Master and drinks beer.
- From point 15, the Swede cannot live in the blue house. If he did, point 15 could not apply anywhere. He can neither live in the green house since he drinks beer. Hence he lives in the white house.
- Point 15 makes the Dane living in the green house an impossible scenario: neither of his neighbors drinks water. Hence the Dane lives in the blue house and the German lives in the green house.
- From point 15, the Norwegian drinks water (the Brit drinks milk, it cannot be him).
- The only possible choice for point 6 is the Brit. Hence, the Brit smokes Pall Mall and keeps birds.
- From point 10, the Norwegian keeps cats.

Voila!!!

We now know that the Norwegian keeps cats, the Dane keeps horses, the Brit keeps birds and the Swede keeps dogs. The German is hence the one who keeps fish.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul5-07, 06:26 PM

here is a simple intelligence quiz:

1) do you believe that you learn more going to class than not going to class?

Depends do I have access to the internet or a library or several text books or a phone? And am I on a course that has no tutorial access except for the means given before.

2) do you miss class more than once a month?

Yes but the reasons are irrelevant and not often, I am my own student but still studying under a professional body.

3) how do you reconcile the answers to 1) and 2)?

I don't they are non correlatory given myself as an example, so on a subjective level they mean nothing.

i have more, on other topics, if you passed this one.

Good because that one kinda sucked and the irony is palpable :tongue2::biggrin:

OP: This problem is now a semantic one as it always was, and it's solvable fairly easily once you know the truth or the right question, which is kinda the whole point I think :smile:

Ruian

Jul25-07, 10:07 PM

No, it doesn't. The puzzle stated there are five animals only.

The only way you can justify your position is if the quiz knows of a six animal that the german could have that is not a fish, but there are not six animals.

So, you are assuming a clue that isn't stated in the puzzle! :tongue2:

This is a problem people have when taking quizzes: they apply the quiz to the real world. In the real world, there are many animals, but in the quiz world, there are only five.

This is a LOGIC PUZZLE therefore the clues are in there... and the question
"WHO OWNS THE FISH" ---> contains a clue

phoenixthoth

Jul25-07, 10:12 PM

This is a LOGIC PUZZLE therefore the clues are in there... and the question
"WHO OWNS THE FISH" ---> contains a clue
Could be a loaded question with the answer "no one."

Maybe it should be, "if someone mentioned owns a fish, who is it?"

Ruian

Jul25-07, 10:17 PM

hi,

hi davee,
I would like to bring out a point here, when we consider clue#10 and #11,"10. The man who smokes Blend lives next door to the one who keeps cats.
11. The man who keeps horses lives next door to the man who smokes Dunhill

so I still say my answer is right, the green house is the very next house on the left,einstein might have specified it has " the green house is the left next to the white house" --I still say your answer is ALSO right. :)

your reasoning is either right or wrong... you still must consider the fact that
davee has a good point. when I solved this problem I also considered both...
the green house is... and the green house is somewhere... this is a logic puzzle the clues are there but you must consider the possibilities... if you only considered one than many... then your solution might be correct or wrong. sorry for my grammar :biggrin:

Ruian

Jul25-07, 10:28 PM

Could be a loaded question with the answer "no one."

Maybe it should be, "if someone mentioned owns a fish, who is it?"

may i refer you to #51. it explains the "The" and "a"

rockytriton

Aug3-07, 11:27 AM

I've seen this "Einstein" puzzle before, it took me about 10 mins to figure it out, I don't think it's really hard. Especially since my mom figured it out pretty quickly as well, she just created an excel spreadsheet to figure out the logic.

I've seen things saying that if you can figure this puzzle out you are some kind of super genius, I think that's bogus, I'd say something more like, "If you can figure out this puzzle, you have the ability to concentrate for more than 10 minutes at a time", which is still pretty flattering nowadays.

AaronDesselle

Sep2-07, 05:29 PM

I'd like to offer a suggestion and have it discussed... It hit me the first time I saw the very last clue.

First, here is my logic, feel free to point out how wrong it is:

1) If supposedly only 2% of the population will get this, then the obvious solution that most people get in 30 minutes on some scratch paper, probably isn't it.
2) According to the rules, no one drinks the same thing
3) Everyone on the planet drinks water... Einstein, or whoever the made this puzzle, knows that.

So when I read the last clue, I saw it as a trick question... Try finishing it without knowing what the fifth drink actually is.

I've read people's ideas about the fish not being mentioned in the actual clues, therefore the puzzle can't be solved, but I think that's just them trying to explain why only 2% would get such an easy logic puzzle. Obviously the fish is one of the pets, duh. This puzzle is not unsolvable, it's just really hard without the fifth drink. Water doesn't count.

-Aaron Desselle

ill4tune

Nov10-07, 07:15 PM

i can honestly say that i found an abstract way to solve Einstein's Intelligence quiz. It took me around 30 minutes and i didn't make a single mistake.

ill4tune

Nov10-07, 07:19 PM

How many people solved it?

Poseidon

Dec8-07, 03:04 PM

Well, for one, the person who had the fish would live on or nearby water, also that person would not own any pets that would be deleterious to the fish .

Oerg

Dec18-07, 07:07 AM

davee123

Dec18-07, 11:34 AM

I remembered i read somewhere that Einstein was quoted as saying that if you managed to solve it in under a time limit(I forgot what), then you make up the top few percentile of the population with the highest IQ/

You actually read that Einstein actually authored the problem? That would be extremely interesting, if true, although to date it seems that Einstein was NOT the author of the problem. If you read it online somewhere, it's highly doubtful that whoever said it got the information from a reliable source. I would doubt that Einstein was enough of a sociologist to start giving statistics on time limits and IQ for a problem he derived.

DaveE

Oerg

Dec18-07, 11:55 AM

AHA! Here's the link!

http://www.geocities.com/citycollegechess/riddle.html

kingwaffle

Mar23-08, 08:41 PM

ok. for people saying "no one owns a fish" ... what the hell, theres five people, five cigarettes, five drinks, and five pets, only four are specified who owns which animal, so, figure out who owns which animal, then you'll get who owns the fish.

ultimately, the Norwigan owns the fish, dont understand, send me messages on how

ManDay

Mar24-08, 10:11 AM

jimmysnyder

Mar24-08, 12:07 PM

Who the **** is that "Einstein", anyway?!?
He's the fellow made famous by his quote: "I'm no Einstein."

Noone

Apr3-08, 10:03 AM

Didnt reat the thread, but: This is a very old riddle and it therefore has some very old answering technique aswel.. SImply create a table of 5*5 rows and the same number of colums. the columns sound

housecolor 1 - hc 5 ... animal 1 to 5 ... etc etc

same with the rows. now read each statement, check the according field and cross out the rest of the column and the row. in the end the answer is left.

Who the **** is that "Einstein", anyway?!?

....98% of people try to create to solution and overthink it... and almost all people think they got in the 2% but it just means they landed in the 98%...due to the overthinking and the usage of time to find a solution to a problem that realy isnt a problem to start off with...the reason why its 98% is because about 98% of the world would think alike, and try to solve the problem the same way, or along the same mean's....only 2% will just look at it and see it in the way that it was intended...(hence in the perception of the creator of it instead of in the perception of the person solving it)

Noone

Apr3-08, 10:08 AM

--=(The person who own's the fish has 100% chance of owning the fish)=--

Which would mean that there would be no need for paper and pen, or even thinking...

Stop thinking in the box...unless you allways wana live in it :/

took me 2min to find the answer and i didnt use any math...just logic...which made all other hint's and information not needed, just totaly errelavent...

My answer has a higher % of being correct than all of your answers :/ i gusse that would make me the winner ^^

davee123

Apr3-08, 05:21 PM

--=(The person who own's the fish has 100% chance of owning the fish)=--

Um... so the answer to all riddles is "The answer is the answer"?

Which would mean that there would be no need for paper and pen, or even thinking...

Yeah, I guess that WOULD eliminate the need for thinking.

DaveE

thewylie

Apr3-08, 06:28 PM

much negative boolean

11 minutes using a spreadsheat ... 1 minute to read the problem through once - 1 minute to start up Excel and set up tables - 9 minutes to solve problem, ... 3 5x5 tables ... 1 for dropping in hints, 2nd for organizing hints as they become related through direct fact supply or negative boolean deduction, 3rd for final arrangement of hints

Dane-Tea ... hahahaha ... aren't they just?

Noone

Apr3-08, 09:45 PM

Um... so the answer to all riddles is "The answer is the answer"?

Yeah, I guess that WOULD eliminate the need for thinking.

DaveE

The riddle is logicaly a trick riddle... only 2% will ever use logic to try to prove or disprove what it really is in the intended perception of the creater :/

Yes the answer is the answer, because it has a 100% chance of being correct, and all other answer's would have less of a % of being true...

it eliminates the need for thinking inside the box, about a pointless riddle, because the only point it has would be the point you give it, but what matter's the most would be the intended point of the creater :/ allso only 2% of people that look's at it would say an answer in this such way, one that lead's to so meany other thought's "."

but really it's 97%,1%,1% allso logic would dictate that it would have to be :/ for it to be correct in the way that it was said :/

BryanP

Apr3-08, 11:49 PM

Solved it in 20 minutes. It took more time "writing" the stuff down than actually solving it *chuckles* .

Just made a table and you can use process of elimination. Make a table consisting of the pets listed, beverages, and cigars or whatevers. Then just cross them out.

Here's my table:

yellow - norwegian - cats - dunhill - water
blue - dane - horses - blend - tea
red - brit - birds - pall mall - milk
green - german - fish (by elimination) - prince - coffee
white - swede - dogs - bluemaster - beer

davee123

Apr4-08, 11:09 AM

The riddle is logicaly a trick riddle...

I really don't think there's a "trick" in the traditional sense of the word. "Trick questions" typically imply that there's some sort of half-truth or non-standard definition or wording in the question that's intended to "trick" people into thinking that an implication is true, when in fact, it's false. But I don't think that's the case. It's a slightly more difficult than normal logic puzzle with an answer that's logically verifiable.

only 2% will ever use logic to try to prove or disprove what it really is in the intended perception of the creater :/

You're saying that only 2% will argue about whether or not the author's intent was to be a trick question, and that the 2% is in some way related to the 2% that are claimed to be able to solve the puzzle?

Yes the answer is the answer, because it has a 100% chance of being correct, and all other answer's would have less of a % of being true...

That's like saying you can't lose if you don't try. That's true, of course, but you can't win either. You don't even have to try and think if you just say "the person who owns the fish owns the fish".

it eliminates the need for thinking inside the box,

It eliminates the need for thinking, period. You're NOT thinking outside the box, you're just not thinking at all-- THAT'S the problem as I see it. Thinking outside the box would be to come up with plausible "tricks" that the author could have intended which result in a different answer. By not thinking at all, you don't have any kind of answer.

about a pointless riddle, because the only point it has would be the point you give it, but what matter's the most would be the intended point of the creater :/

Yes. That's the point of the riddle-- to try and figure out what the author intended by following the clues they've given you. If you can do it, bravo! If you can't, well, you weren't up to the challenge, I guess.

allso only 2% of people that look's at it would say an answer in this such way, one that lead's to so meany other thought's "."

but really it's 97%,1%,1% allso logic would dictate that it would have to be :/ for it to be correct in the way that it was said :/

97%, 1%, 1%? What? I'm totally lost. Why don't these numbers total 100%? What does the 97% represent? What does the first 1% represent? The second 1%? And where did that missing 1% go? What logic are you talking about?

DaveE

thewylie

Apr4-08, 11:33 AM

it does say using logic and doesn't ask for a specific property of the fish owner like house, or nationality?

One could validly say "Gunter owns the fish" but that doesn't use logic.

Since the fish is not specifically assigned a clue and even when the entire grid is populated is only obvious because it goes in the "last empty field", and it's not even stated in the problem's setup that a fish is one of the 5 pets owned by one of the 5 people, it's not possible with certainty to say any of them own a fish. The german may own a rabid bobcat for all we know. However, if we are told a fish is one of the five different pets and asked what the specific nationality is of the person who owns the fish, we can (with relative assuredness) claim specificaly that the the german owns the fish.

In that context one could try to answer (using logic): The nationality of the person who owns the fish is that which is not a member of the group nationalities of the people who own the dog, cat, bird, goblin (or horse if you prefer) respectively.

That person though, would have failed the part of the revised question asking for the specific nationality of the fish owner.

Who owns the fish? God
Who owns the fish? A human being
Who owns the fish? What fish? I see no fishies!!!
Who owns the fish? Can anyone really own anything? What is the nature of property in relation to the significant I? I know I exist but I'm not sure about anyone else, therefor, IF the fish exists at all, I will claim that I own it and all things until some entity proves otherwise.

kts123

Apr16-08, 07:57 PM

It took me around two hours to finally solve the problem.

... I then showed it to my mom, she got it in half an hour. I must say, I'm impressed. XD

esbo

Apr22-08, 08:14 PM

It took me around two hours to finally solve the problem.

... I then showed it to my mom, she got it in half an hour. I must say, I'm impressed. XD

Solved it too, Took me about 2 hours too, but I was playing poker as well for some of that
time, I also had looked at it yesterday, but not really tried to solve it, just
determine what type of problem it was.

Well at least I think I have solved it anyway, not going to post my answer as a spoiler
(unless it has already been posted).

It would help if you had some sort of 'tool' to help you, I just had a text editor,
I don't think I could do it without something to write on. I think there is an element
of 'luck' in finding the solution.
Maybe women find these types of puzzles easier, I think they are meant to be better
at doing a lot of things at the same time, ie multitasking, than men and there seems
to be an element of multitasking involved, although in a way it is purely sequential
in method.

esbo

Apr22-08, 09:00 PM

Here is my table

norway. yellow. water... cats.... dunhill
dane.... blue.... tea...... horses.. blend
brit...... red..... milk...... birds.... pall mall
german. green.. coffee.. fish...... princes
swede.. white.. bear..... dogs.... blue master

I notice most gave their table with the rows and colums transposed
compared to mine. Except the last one BrianP.
It seemed more logical to identify the people by their nationality, although
I did notice IIRC that you solved in this order

colours nationality drinks cigars pets
or maybe
colours drinks nationality cigars pets

In a way however it was rather laborious testing your memory or something like that,
rather then a real test where you have to hammer pegs into the correct shaped holes.

jaslyn

Sep17-08, 10:35 AM

Sorry to bump up an old thread, but I realized that keynespaul actually brought up a very important point. This puzzle is actually in fact not solvable with the current clues given, and I'm not talking about the 'there is no mention of a fish' thing.

#4: The green house is on the left of the white house
#10: The man who smokes Blend lives next door to the one who keeps cats
#11: The man who keeps horses lives next door to the man who smokes Dunhill

From this we can clearly see that the green house can be anywhere on the left of the white house. It could be right beside it, it could be 1 house away, 2 houses away and so on. It does not necessarily mean that it's right beside the white house, as it would have used more specific words rather than 'left of'.

Unless we can safely say that the green house is on the immediate left of the white house, it is impossible to solve this quiz. I'm unable to proceed further than this with 100% certainty.

Norwegian
Blue
Milk

From this I can make 2 assumptions which can lead to 2 different answers, both of which are correct.

ƒ(x)

Oct11-08, 04:21 PM

Haha, some of these posts make me laugh. After writing down the rules it took me an entire 15 minutes to figure it out.

P.S. In case you haven't realized this, the German has the fish.

ƒ(x)

Oct11-08, 04:31 PM

Sorry to bump up an old thread, but I realized that keynespaul actually brought up a very important point. This puzzle is actually in fact not solvable with the current clues given, and I'm not talking about the 'there is no mention of a fish' thing.

I'm terribly sorry to be the one to inform you of this, but the riddle is solvable.

ƒ(x)

Oct12-08, 09:43 AM

#4: The green house is on the left of the white house
#10: The man who smokes Blend lives next door to the one who keeps cats
#11: The man who keeps horses lives next door to the man who smokes Dunhill

From this we can clearly see that the green house can be anywhere on the left of the white house. It could be right beside it, it could be 1 house away, 2 houses away and so on. It does not necessarily mean that it's right beside the white house, as it would have used more specific words rather than 'left of'.

Unless we can safely say that the green house is on the immediate left of the white house, it is impossible to solve this quiz. I'm unable to proceed further than this with 100% certainty.

*sighs and facepalms* OK, so you deduced that the green house could be anywhere to the left of the white one? Have you tried reading the original problem--there are two versions of this riddle by the way, one of which states what your clue says and the other states that the green house is "next to, and on the left of the white house."

LeePhilip01

Nov5-08, 08:45 PM

Lol ur right..... I DO feel like the man....!

Although it took me abt an hour lol.... :rofl:

walbobo

Nov16-08, 03:51 PM

i have solved it in 3o minutes the german has fish

secrets

Jan18-09, 11:44 AM

I have the unhappy news of informing you that.. you are all wrong.. after realizing the simplicity of the question... I decided to look for people making the same assumption that I did.. "its the german" but as a question from einstein.. you need to think a little deeper.. think outside the box, at no point in the hints is the word fish even mentioned, you are assuming that somebody owns the fish... at no point is there any proof of this, einstein is carefull to keep his question from the hints, this is why such a small majority of the population will ever answer this correctly... don't feel bad if your wrong, its einstein for crying out loud, he was far ahead of his time, deal with it.

and the best part is the person looked at as wrong is the closest to being right on this discusion..

"--=(The person who own's the fish has 100% chance of owning the fish)=--"

for a more details...
http://www.amazeingart.com/fun/einstein-quiz-answer.html

Sorry!

Jan23-09, 12:50 AM

LOL man i was doing this riddle by using a chart i had everything laid out and then i realized there weren't any damn clues for where the fish is anyways so who knows where the fish is?

i ASSUME that the fish would live in the last empty spot with the german green house # 4.... but i don't know at the bottom it says that the riddle can be solved with just the 15 clues given above so placing no assumptions into it. hmmmm

i'd have to go with the german may or may not own fish as his pets.

did it in about 15 minutes wasn't really hard just was getting distracted by t.v. lol.. all you have to do is look for the next 'oh that MUST go there' like a sudoku..

EDIT:

looked through all the other answers people have given compared my chart to theres all are similar.. noticed other people picked out that there are no clues to where the fish is...

i'm just wondering is my line of thinking WRONG ?

KyleDevon

Jan25-09, 01:47 AM

lol! That is a good intelligence test. But I don't think it should be called Einstein's. Anyway, there is a lot good activities and intelligence games like playing texas holdem poker (http://www.poker-card-index.com/poker-guide). I have heard it was used in experiment with children intelligence. I think this blog is close to one i've read:

http://yelloworchid33.livejournal.com/1273.html

coxcomb

Feb1-09, 05:25 PM

If we assume one of the people own a fish, (from left to right)
House #1-Norwegian, yellow house, water, cats, Dunhill
House #2-Dane, blue, tea, horses, Blend
House #3-Brit, red, milk, birds, Pallmall
House #4-German, green, coffee, FISH, Prince
House #5-Swede, white, beer, dogs, Bluemaster
My physics teacher gave this to my class in the beginning of the year. It took me 20-25 minutes. I was actually rather motivated because of the 2% part.
I couldn't solve the next brain teaser he gave us, though.
(Three people check into a hotel. They pay the bellboy 30 dollars as rent or whatever. The bellboy finds out that the rent is actually 25 dollars. He takes five dollars with him. Thinking it would be hard to split between three people, he gives each of them one dollar back and pockets the remaining two dollars. So if you think about it, each of those three people gave ten dollars and got back one dollar. So (10-1)*3=27. The bellboy has 2 dollars. It equals 29 dollars in all. Where is the remaining dollar?)
Ugh...if you try to solve it backwards...it works out somewhat, but if you think about it in terms of each person paying 10 and getting one back, I get confused. Heh...I wonder what percentage of the world can explain this one...

davee123

Feb2-09, 01:38 PM

Three people check into a hotel. They pay the bellboy 30 dollars as rent or whatever. The bellboy finds out that the rent is actually 25 dollars. He takes five dollars with him. Thinking it would be hard to split between three people, he gives each of them one dollar back and pockets the remaining two dollars. So if you think about it, each of those three people gave ten dollars and got back one dollar. So (10-1)*3=27. The bellboy has 2 dollars. It equals 29 dollars in all. Where is the remaining dollar?

That's a classic, because it's confusing. They each paid 9 dollars, which means the total they paid was $27. But $2 of their combined $27 went to the bellboy, and the remaining $25 went to the room fee. The trick is that they're adding the bellboy's $2 to the total paid rather than subtracting.

DaveE

blighty

Feb16-09, 02:21 AM

after 10 minutes of head scratching i'm plumping for the
german who owned the fish.

Gonna feel stupid if i'm wrong, Lol

ED, YAY! I was right, *buffs knuckles on me hoody :D

ED 2, After reading the "real" answer I feel conned, :D
at least i didn't waste to much time on it.

Lol.

tony134340

Feb23-09, 04:31 PM

How about my angle? To solve a problem means you are successful but what constitutes success? With a mice in a maze, success if reaching the end of it to find its way out. What is success in relation to solving this problem? Is it a feeling of achievement? I suppose if you guessed German, you are successful in achieving if you are happy with it. If you guessed that the fish isn't specifically stated to exist, and you are happy with it, then you are successful. Successful in meaning happiness. We have the problem but no one answer. What would constitute success in this problem, I assume, is Einstein's word that you got it right, if it is indeed Einstein's test.

I suppose this is one of those questions which makes you think existentially. Being from a deep thinker, you'd think deep thinking is required. What if I don't take on the problem? What if it is of no burden to me? Am I successful at solving it because I can step back and realize it's not a relevant problem to my survival? If I keep hammering away at the pi equation all my life, am I considered successful? Or would someone be considered successful if they stepped back and realized that you can keep doing it over and over and not arrive at a final solution?

Ok, pardon the existential crap there. I came to conclude the German but this thread is making me think a little deeper about it.