- #176
Bioclay
- 5
- 0
Referencing the above comments by 103bas: "There ages" and "You people"...
Unfortunately, as written you've provided an example that implies the fifth "woman" can be any age. So it would be a "fair assumption" to assume the woman is any age. So, one could choose 14. In fact, Betty could be 10, 11, 12, or 13 based on the provided example. Although, since "woman" is typically defined as an "adult female person", one could assume that even if you had meant "Their ages", Betty could be... Ok, ok. Even if the example was worded correctly, why couldn't one assume Betty is 14? I could assume Betty is the 5th girl and that she's 14 alright. I just did, "prove" she isn't 14. Perhaps there's something hidden in those "various clues" you whipped up.
Your first comment states, "You cannot determine who owns the fish". Anyone who provides an answer to the riddle that satisfies the problem statement and constraints has determined in their (<-- see that) own mind who in fact has the fish. Where does the riddle say it's solvable? One assumes it's "solvable", is that a fair assumption? lol.
According to your nifty definition of "solve", us people most certainly provide a solution/explanation/answer to the riddle. Your assuming there's only one solution/explanation/answer to the riddle, which I believe to be a flawed yet perfectly acceptable assumption ;). Which is what makes this a riddle...?
So when you stated, "To say that an answer to a question cannot be absolutely determined with the given clues is to solve the puzzle", all you've done is solve the riddle with the least amount of ingenuity, which is most certainly not the only answer...
The real riddle here is why I bothered to respond to the comments provided by 103bas? Perhaps I felt like defending all “you people” ;).
Unfortunately, as written you've provided an example that implies the fifth "woman" can be any age. So it would be a "fair assumption" to assume the woman is any age. So, one could choose 14. In fact, Betty could be 10, 11, 12, or 13 based on the provided example. Although, since "woman" is typically defined as an "adult female person", one could assume that even if you had meant "Their ages", Betty could be... Ok, ok. Even if the example was worded correctly, why couldn't one assume Betty is 14? I could assume Betty is the 5th girl and that she's 14 alright. I just did, "prove" she isn't 14. Perhaps there's something hidden in those "various clues" you whipped up.
Your first comment states, "You cannot determine who owns the fish". Anyone who provides an answer to the riddle that satisfies the problem statement and constraints has determined in their (<-- see that) own mind who in fact has the fish. Where does the riddle say it's solvable? One assumes it's "solvable", is that a fair assumption? lol.
According to your nifty definition of "solve", us people most certainly provide a solution/explanation/answer to the riddle. Your assuming there's only one solution/explanation/answer to the riddle, which I believe to be a flawed yet perfectly acceptable assumption ;). Which is what makes this a riddle...?
So when you stated, "To say that an answer to a question cannot be absolutely determined with the given clues is to solve the puzzle", all you've done is solve the riddle with the least amount of ingenuity, which is most certainly not the only answer...
The real riddle here is why I bothered to respond to the comments provided by 103bas? Perhaps I felt like defending all “you people” ;).