# Einstein's Intelligence Quiz ?

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” ;).

I didn't realize this was a semantics forum, my bad. You can assume anything you want. It doesn't make it correct. I don't care if you assume if the "woman" is 400 years old. Hell, you can assume that the other woman is imaginary. I was simply trying to help explain my point. "Determining in your own mind" who owns the fish is fine. I've determined in my own mind that you're a condescending blow hard. And hey, since every puzzle must have more then one solution, and whatever you "assume" must be correct...then I'm right! Yay me! ;-) (I added the wink face because apparently putting that at the end of a rude sentince makes it ok to berade others) ;-)

P.S. My spelling and grammer may not be perfect in the above response. I "assumed" this was a place to discuss differing opinions amoung my peers. I'm so glad Bioclay set me straight. ;-)

I didn't realize this was a semantics forum, my bad. You can assume anything you want. It doesn't make it correct.
That's why this is, in part, a semantics forum. The semantics of a problem are VERY important. If the OP included the lines "The 5 types of pets owned by the owners of the houses are: birds, cats, dogs, fish, and horses. The houses are arranged perfectly linearly, each facing the same direction, perpendicularly to the line on which they are arranged", then there wouldn't be an 11-page discussion on the matter. Semantics are indeed quite meaningful.

The question that you're disputing has been disputed throughout the entire thread-- what can you assume and what can't you assume? Can you assume the houses are in a straight line, and not on a roundabout, or irregularly placed? Can you assume that the 5th type of pet is a fish? Does the definite article "the" imply that fish exist? It's pretty silly, honestly, but it boils down to our understanding, as readers, of the semantics of the problem.

DaveE

I was referring to the fact that Bioclay picked apart the semantics of my response. I agree that the semantics of the puzzle are important. I read through the thread and realize that the people who understand the puzzle and the correct answer stopped replying long ago. It's just too hard to argue with someone who is wrong but is SOOO sure that they are right, despite evidence to the contrary. ;)

Last edited by a moderator:
I don't see how the location of the houses or your POV of these houses matters. It always comes down to the same homes owning the same things.

I hear you, although if one provides an answer to the riddle as far as who owns the fish one has to deal with constraints 4,8,9,10,11,14,15 using relative words such as left, middle, first, next, next, next, neighbor respectively. Usually, this leads to a default placement/location of the homes (left-to-right usually) to establish a POV, permitting one to provide an answer while satisfying the constraints (usually the German). Just as an example, I say the Norwegian owns the Fish, but given the location and POV I chose to implement he lives in the yellow house, drinks milk and smokes dunhill. It’s like working the problem backwards, where you select the answer and make assumptions to satisfy that outcome while conforming to and satisfying the rather loosely defined constraints we have to work with (1-15). That pretty much forces one to place the homes in locations and fixes a POV.

A wacky way of looking at this would be to consider each house as an astronomical object bound together by gravity and/or in a soup of gravitational fields (mass etc). Each house moving around in space relative to any particular object you select (consider that your POV) and each other (one of the houses could quite possibly be your POV). One could theoretically select a point in space whereby to view all 5 houses and “eventually” (an unspecified amount of time haha) they just might satisfy constraints 4,8,9,10,11,14 and 15.

Thoughts?

My first step was to start with the order of houses completely
Then listed the two beverages, Two nationalities, one smoke, and one pet I knew for a fact.
After that it was going back and forth between the questions and the order in which the beverages/nationalities/drinks/pets came.

The German owns the Fish

The answer has to be #12 because it says....The owner who smokes Blue Master drinks beer. the owner of what? A fish????

here you go :) enjoy!!!!

SOme of you have got to move on to... SUDOKU! Yeah, the concept of this game and Sudoku are the... SAME! :D

[PLAIN]http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs270.snc4/39819_1551450587289_1265865722_31578063_6247620_n.jpg [Broken]

I got it in like an hour. Am I still part of the 2% that can solve this problem?

Last edited by a moderator:
Reading so many replies, I feel the 2% part which is not part of the 'facts' or even does not form the question is affecting the question. If the assumption that one of them owns a fish cannot be true, then how does 'assuming Einstein cannot do wrong and 2% part has to be correct' hold good?

Is it actually by Einstein?

Is it actually by Einstein?
Extremely doubtful. The earliest sources of the puzzle are from Life International magazine in the 1960's, where no attribution was given to Einstein. The problem likely originated there, or from a few people passing it around, and was attributed to Einstein incorrectly later on.

DaveE