Einstein's Intelligence Quiz ?

[ƒ(x)]

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)]

#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]

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

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

 

[walbobo]

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

 

[secrets]

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!]

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 there's 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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[SGTPfeil]

i came across this while looking up some research on einstein mainly in time and space. i started to try it one way but after 8 mins i knew it was gunna work so the second try; with 5 different colored pencils and 5 squares drawn on a piece of paper and no mistakes, it took me approx. 42 minutes. not sure if that is a good time or that but after taking most of the time reading it over a couple times and tossing it around in my head it went pretty quickly through my fingers to the paper.

 

[Perau]

13mins, i highly doubt the 2% thing. with lots of logic, this is quite simple.

 

[Sorry!]

13mins, i highly doubt the 2% thing. with lots of logic, this is quite simple.

What's your logic for assuming someone owned the fish?

 

[Perau]

What's your logic for assuming someone owned the fish?

the question "These 5 owners drink a certain type of beverage, smoke a certain brand of cigar, and keep a certain pet" "who owns the fish"

the German hence has to own a pet, and since by deducing the using the clues that the German does not have a pet i.e. he owns the fish.

 

[Sorry!]

the question "These 5 owners drink a certain type of beverage, smoke a certain brand of cigar, and keep a certain pet" "who owns the fish"

the German hence has to own a pet, and since by deducing the using the clues that the German does not have a pet i.e. he owns the fish.

I wonder what logic book I can read flawed assumptions as true logic in? Direct me please.

 

[Perau]

I wonder what logic book I can read flawed assumptions as true logic in? Direct me please.

well the german does have to own a pet right? what would that be. there are only 5 animals stated in the question.

 

[Sorry!]

well the german does have to own a pet right? what would that be. there are only 5 animals stated in the question.

The question meant nothing the 'facts' are given in the clues. There are no 'facts' given about any fish. The German can own a bearded dragon for all I know. You just assumed that someone owned the fish and since the German didn't have any pet value then the fish must belong to him. Why though? This is why it's not simple this is also why the 2% thing may very well be true.

 

[Perau]

The question meant nothing the 'facts' are given in the clues. There are no 'facts' given about any fish. The German can own a bearded dragon for all I know. You just assumed that someone owned the fish and since the German didn't have any pet value then the fish must belong to him. Why though? This is why it's not simple this is also why the 2% thing may very well be true.

fair enough but they did say "With these 15 clues the problem is solvable. "
key word being solvable, if we take it to your deep stage of thinking, it wouldn't be solvable.

 

[Sorry!]

fair enough but they did say "With these 15 clues the problem is solvable. "
key word being solvable, if we take it to your deep stage of thinking, it wouldn't be solvable.

Yes it is, we don't know who owns a pet fish. No need for any charts or anything of that sort. This is a solution and I'm quite certain it's the solution.

I too started by making the chart after 15 minutes I completed my chart but I thought it out: 'Hey I don't know if the German guy actually owns the fish.'

Here's my original answer from way back when :tongue:

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.

 

[Perau]

Yes it is, we don't know who owns a pet fish. No need for any charts or anything of that sort. This is a solution and I'm quite certain it's the solution.

I too started by making the chart after 15 minutes I completed my chart but I thought it out: 'Hey I don't know if the German guy actually owns the fish.'

Here's my original answer from way back when :tongue:

so you're basically saying the solution is, "i don't know", if so, there would be fault in that, as not everyone is born with logic skills, a majority of people in fact, and would simply answer "i don't know" making them correct, but that would be more than 2%. And our assumption is only the best of the best can solve this right? if we take into account that close to 98% of the world is uneducated or are just stupid, 2% being logical, wouldn't it make more sense that the german owns the fish?

but all in all, after reading all the post, i would think the answer that went along the lines of
the one that owns the fish owns the fish, would be the best suited.

 

[xortan]

nice i got the right answer, took me roughly half an hour

 

[Sorry!]

so you're basically saying the solution is, "i don't know", if so, there would be fault in that, as not everyone is born with logic skills, a majority of people in fact, and would simply answer "i don't know" making them correct, but that would be more than 2%. And our assumption is only the best of the best can solve this right? if we take into account that close to 98% of the world is uneducated or are just stupid, 2% being logical, wouldn't it make more sense that the german owns the fish?

but all in all, after reading all the post, i would think the answer that went along the lines of
the one that owns the fish owns the fish, would be the best suited.

The answer is much more complicated that 'i don't know'. The answer 'the one that owns the fish owns the fish' also makes the same flawed assumption that anyone owns the fish. The simple truth to the matter is that given all the facts about this situation we can not give a definitive answer on who owns the fish as a pet. Since it says the own 'A certain pet' leads me to believe that each owns 1 pet (not multiples) so this led me to my conclusion that: The German may or may not own the fish as a pet.

 

[davee123]

The answer is, more appropriately, "If anyone of the 5 people own fish, it is the German that owns them".

Some people have claimed that due to the inconclusive nature of that statement, however, or the inconclusiveness of the puzzle, that this cannot be the answer-- particularly because the problem states that it is "solvable", meaning that using the clues given, one can unambiguously identify the owner of fish which are known to exist (whether or not an owner exists is not known, but the fish can be known to exist). Because only 5 people are identified in the problem, and 4 are disqualified as viable owners of the fish, the 5th person (the German) may own the fish, or may not.

Because this is inconclusive, there are two possibilities: Either the German owns the fish, or nobody owns the fish. Therefore, since people sometimes disagree that an inconclusive answer is a solution, one is forced to make the assumption one way or the other. And because of similarities to other logic problems and the likely intent of the problem's author (probably NOT Einstein), the more accepted solution is that the German owns the fish. One could in theory conclude that nobody owns the fish, and that the German owns some other type of pet, however this typically seems to violate precedent and human reasoning; despite it being equivalently plausible from a logic standpoint.

Hence, it depends on your interpretation of the problem as to whether or not the German definitely owns the fish, or simply that the other 4 do NOT, and the German may possibly have the fish, or if NOBODY owns the fish.

Unfortunately, this demonstrates the flaw with the problem's wording in that it can be interpreted in different ways. I have to say it's surprising to me how many people seem to claim with absolute certainty that there's only ONE way of interpreting the problem.

DaveE

 

[Sorry!]

The answer is, more appropriately, "If anyone of the 5 people own fish, it is the German that owns them".

Some people have claimed that due to the inconclusive nature of that statement, however, or the inconclusiveness of the puzzle, that this cannot be the answer-- particularly because the problem states that it is "solvable", meaning that using the clues given, one can unambiguously identify the owner of fish which are known to exist (whether or not an owner exists is not known, but the fish can be known to exist). Because only 5 people are identified in the problem, and 4 are disqualified as viable owners of the fish, the 5th person (the German) may own the fish, or may not.

Because this is inconclusive, there are two possibilities: Either the German owns the fish, or nobody owns the fish. Therefore, since people sometimes disagree that an inconclusive answer is a solution, one is forced to make the assumption one way or the other. And because of similarities to other logic problems and the likely intent of the problem's author (probably NOT Einstein), the more accepted solution is that the German owns the fish. One could in theory conclude that nobody owns the fish, and that the German owns some other type of pet, however this typically seems to violate precedent and human reasoning; despite it being equivalently plausible from a logic standpoint.

Hence, it depends on your interpretation of the problem as to whether or not the German definitely owns the fish, or simply that the other 4 do NOT, and the German may possibly have the fish, or if NOBODY owns the fish.

Unfortunately, this demonstrates the flaw with the problem's wording in that it can be interpreted in different ways. I have to say it's surprising to me how many people seem to claim with absolute certainty that there's only ONE way of interpreting the problem.

DaveE

Yes it does say that its solvable, with the given 15 facts listed as clues. The question who owns the fish is not part of the clues in anyway. It is merely a question about the clues.

If I show you 5 papers and each one has a different colour on it excluding red and then show you a paper upside down so you can't see the colour and ask you which paper is red then your going to interpret that to mean that one paper MUST be red because I'm asking you this question?
That's silly we do not know if the paper has the colour red on it or not from the clues given. All we know is that all the other papers have a different colour and none of those papers have the colour red on them.

 

[sermatt]

Solved it in 20 minutes! Hell yes!

 

[sermatt]

After reading everything up to my post, I guess I haven't solved it after all. Agree with post #108, though.

 

[no_alone]

This problem can be solved easily with prolog

 

[nuudelchin]

I　just made a table, and crossed all impossible options. And it gave the right answer in 20 minutes.

 

[ƒ(x)]

Doing it in your head with only the items listed in front of you is interesting, to say the least

 

[Zubin]

Reminds me of the SHSAT logical reasoning questions:
http://www.kaptest.com/High_School/SHSAT/Practice-SHSAT/HS_entrance_logicalquestions.html

 

[Bioclay]

Clearly, there is no "right" answer to this riddle if others come up with alternate answers to the standard "German" response. Having multiple "responses" to this riddle is possible based on the point of view and perspective each uses when approaching the constraints. What point of view allows for only one answer/response to the riddle? The below satisfies all constraints, the problem statement and answers the riddle question (i.e. who owns the FISH). This is what I got:

Green Red Yellow Blue White
Swedish British NorwegianDanish German
Coffee Beer Milk Tea Water
Blend Bluemast Dunhill PallMall Prince
Dog Horse FISH Bird Cat

Question: Does anyone know if Big E owned a cat or a fish (i.e. Einstein was a 'White German Prince who drank Water and owned")? My response to the riddle seems to fit this observation, just need to know what animal he owned ;).

Please see attachment for explanation.

Clay

 

[Bioclay]

I've refined the previous graphic to include/provide additional examples and a few comments below as thought provoking goulash ;).

Let's start with "Point of View", where the "point" is a location where by "viewing" is the act of seeing/observing something. The extent or range of one's view or vision can change from one point to another. The point at which one views the houses can be moved along a "path" (you can think of this as a line flowing towards the houses) as long as the path and the "point of view" chosen along that path satisfies the constraints. If you got this, proceed.

First off, the person addressing the riddle is allowed to choose their point of view. Most people pick a point that's fixed and assess the placement of the houses from that one point. Examples of this are when people place the houses on a line perpendicular to the viewing point, then use the variables to setup a condition where the end result is the German owning the FISH. This way does indeed provide a response/answer to the riddle, however, it's not the only answer, which makes all answers that meet constraints and problem statement just that an answer (i.e. where the right answer is subjective/personal to those attempting the riddle). It's the complexity by which you resulted in your answer and I believe the "best" answer (if there is such a thing) is the set of conditions (including your point of view) that allows for only one individual (namely the NORWEGIAN) to satisfy all constraints and end up with the FISH.

Secondly, the size, shape, spatial arrangement and order of the houses are not set in stone. This allows the user to manipulate them to setup conditions (see above) that satisfy the constraints and answer the riddle (the bunk/weak yet valid assumption is that they are all the same size and in a line).

Thirdly, the riddle makes no mention where that point of view must be. Meaning you can pick a point on a path close to or far away from the objects in view. From that point the viewer can view the positions of the houses and their relationship to one another. For example, allowing one to draw the conclusion that the green house is to the left of the white house and satisfy the middle house constraint to drink milk etc. This is the typical view looking left-to-right or right-to-left (or top-to-bottom/bottom-to-top depending on how you oriented the houses) while looking at a piece of paper. Staying on this point, the graphic I show is for a line/path that flows into the yellow house (like through the front door if you will, see black dot) and the point chosen along that line/path to view the houses is YOU observing the houses. So I can move my point and/or manipulate the houses (described above) to establish my own "point of view" then ensure all constraints are satisfied.

And Fourth, the riddle does not say anything about having only one point of view along the same path. The view of the individual is fueled by the chosen point, in that it's based on the information he/she has available in front of them at anyone point (in this case that would be in time too). Did the riddle say anything about the individual not being in motion? Why no, it does not ;).

Either way, the attached graphic shows examples of fixed and non-fixed points to view from along the path (follow line into black dot) while satisfying all constraints, the problem statement and answering the riddles question.

Graphics in attached left to right ;). *Pleases note the path where my point of view resides, is into the black dot.*


1 - Front to back example, setting up yellow house to become both first and middle house
2 - Single Point and View: Original example, shows depth of houses in space, yellow house both first and middle
3 - Single Point and View: Just a variation of graphic # 2, just to show how middle house is subjectively chosen
4 - Two Points and Views: Point of View 1 is far away, where the houses fall in order behind the yellow house, making it the First house. Point of View 2 is close up, where the houses emerge/fan out from behind the yellow house.
5 - Single Point and View (could be considered continuous to a point): This is a FUN example, consider the picture a pyramid and you've jumped out of a plane. As you free fall towards the yellow house you are oriented in such a way where the green house appears to the left of the white house. The assumption is that all the houses are the same size (which is no different from basic assumptions others choose naturally) or the yellow house is much taller than the others. The yellow house appears larger than the others because it is closest to you at any point upon approach, making it the first house (X<Y implies the house is positioned in your direction) and because its in between all houses, the middle house. In this example the houses are all neighbors to each other (a circle would work as well, a cone perhaps etc).

Clay

 

[103bas]

I think if you simplify it, it will be easier to see that you cannot determine who owns the fish. Look at it this way: There are 5 women. There ages are 10,11,12,13 and 14. From various clues you can determine that Sandra is 10, Mary is 11, Veronica is 12 and Stephanie is 13. How old is Betty?

You can't assume that Betty is 14. The puzzle is however "solvable". Webster defines the word "solve" as "to find a solution, explanation, or answer for". The answer/solution is that you cannot determine who owns the fish.

 

[103bas]

You people seem to keep getting caught up on the fact that the puzzle says that it is "solvable". To say that an answer to a question cannot be absolutely determined with the given clues, is to solve the puzzle.