Einstein's Intelligence Quiz ?

[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!

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.

 

[davee123]

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 anyone 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 going to 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 anyone 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 existence.

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 existence, and you define "solution" as being totally unambiguous.

DaveE

 

[alias25]

your posts make me smile :)

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

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 realized 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, until 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...

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.

 

[Molydood]

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 realized 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, until 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...

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.

I also find it hard to believe that Einstein wrote it. Even if the answer is 'there is no solution' it's really not that clever is it? Or as Erdos would say, not exactly 'one from the book'...

 

[unggio]

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]

easy

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]

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

 

[GautamAishwarya]

i think the dane owns the fish

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

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]

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

 

[haki]

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

 

[DaxInvader]

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... Does your Iq go up as you grow? Your learn new things and your logic is improved...

 

[davee123]

Ha hA! I have 133 IQ :P And my father has 142... 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]

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

Btw Congrats on you 100th post!

 

[intwo]

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]

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 realize 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)]

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

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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)]

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

 

[Servo888]

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.