Einstein's Intelligence Quiz ?

[daveb]

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]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The text in the puzzle says that it is solvable.

Yes. The solution is No one has a fish.

 

[Mickey]

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."

 

[daveb]

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.

 

[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:
- 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

 

[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