Einstein's Intelligence Quiz ?

[Jimmy Snyder]

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]

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]

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:
- Langauge - 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

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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]

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 anyone 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 existence 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]

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]

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?

 

[sebas531]

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]

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

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

"If anyone 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]

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]

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 existence 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

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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]

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

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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

 

[davee123]

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 existence of a fish. Hence, the fish MUST exist, and it must be owned by the German.

DaveE

 

[daveb]

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]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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]

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 realize 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]

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

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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]

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 there's someone within the five owns the fish.?
no i don't get it.

 

[davee123]

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

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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]

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 anyone 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

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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]

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]

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

 

[davee123]

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 existence 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

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.