Einstein's Intelligence Quiz ?

[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

 

[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.

 

[unscientific]

Questions about IQ

Now now, some have said IQ is definite, fixed and can't be changed no matter what pig's or monkey's brain and tonics u eat. Some say IQ can be changed by doing puzzles, listeing to music ( Really? >_> ). In my opinion, I feel that IQ can't be changed. Now you must ask me one question, Why? The answer to this question is what u define IQ to be. I have come to believe that the speed of thought is oftenly mixed up with the level of intelligence or rather, IQ. What I think true IQ is; the ability to ask questions. The true, pure innate deep thinking. A simple question that everyone could solve, but it takes more than that to ask why is it like that? Is there a reason? If there is, why must it be? Are there other solutions? Peer intensely into problems, ask questions.

" The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity. "
Albert Einstein


"It does not matter who I am, but what i do that defines me. "

 

[davee123]

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.

You don't need to guess, it's just a bit complicated. And, in my opinion, poorly worded. The utterly WORST wording is clue #4, which states "The green house is on the left of the white house". What the clue actually MEANS is that the green house is to the immediate left of the white house. When I read this initially, I assumed it meant "the green house is somewhere to the left of the white house, not necessarily right next to it"

Also, clue #9 says "the first house", but "first" does not REALLY mean leftmost, it could mean rightmost (although I think the problem turns out with the same answer of the German owning the fish if you work this out)

The rest is just bad wording which could have been phrased more accurately. A restatement:

* There are 5 houses each of which is a different color
* In each house lives a person with a different nationality
* These 5 owners drink only a certain type of beverage, smoke only a certain brand of cigar, and keep only a certain type of pet
* No two owners have the same type of pet, smoke the same brand of cigar nor drink the same type of drink.

Here's the question: Who owns the fish?

1. The Brit lives in a red house
2. The Swede keeps dogs as pets
3. The Dane drinks tea
4. The green house is immediately to the left of the white house
5. The green house owner drinks coffee
6. The person who smokes Pall Mall owns pet birds
7. The owner of the yellow house smokes Dunhill
8. The man living in the house right in the middle drinks milk
9. The Norwegian lives in the leftmost 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
12. The owner who smokes Blue Master drinks beer
13. The German smokes Prince
14. The Norwegian lives next to the blue house
15. The man who smokes Blend has a neighbor who drinks water

Some say IQ can be changed by doing puzzles, listeing to music ( Really? >_> ). In my opinion, I feel that IQ can't be changed.

Alright, this IQ discussion really should be moved to a different forum, but... I think it most definitely *can* be changed, and *does* change. If you break down intelligence into its more discrete parts, you get neurons firing in resonse to various stimuli, and directing action. If your neurons started dying (for whatever reason), or stopped firing correctly, your intelligence *would* change.

I think what you're driving at, however, is a definition of intelligence that isn't defined by what you already know how to do, but by your capacity to learn, and your flexibility in learning it; and it sounds like that's how you want to measure intelligence, which is fine. Obviously we don't have a good mechanism for measuring it (or even more "accepted" definitions of IQ for that matter), but I agree it's an important part of intelligence.

DaveE

 

[billiards]

I did it! ~10-15 mins and about 10 cm² of paper. I think maybe 50% of people couldn't do this, no way 98%, it aint really that hard.

 

[iProLiFiK]

Supporting and contradicting evidence of Einstein creating this and 2% of the world being able to solve it.

Supporting: Well majority of people that have solved this probably only reach about 2 percent of the population but this is the internet, and it isn't exactly advertised.

Contradicting: This quiz was incredibly easy compared to most logic problems. Most people have figured it out within 30 minutes which shows it isn't some incredibly mind-racking problem.

In this new generation people are much smarter and much dumber. Those who are smarter and have strived to learn more will probably not find this that hard. As for "Intelligence" its the process of elimination, not very Intelligent.

I myself solved this in 5 minutes with a pen to write on my hand. The first time I mentally guess the order of the houses in color I was wrong, and I quickly fixed the problem checking my order with the questions. Once you determine who the nationalities are, they practically give you the answer.

Seriously, congrats to all who solved it but don't think don't think your Einstein. Though you still could be :)

 

[chaoseverlasting]

I solved the whole thing in about 10-15 minutes on a notepad.

 

[PMCS]

That was kinda interesting, a little too simple though.

 

[BillJx]

Solving it as stated was trivial. Just a matter of making a table and narrowing down the options. I did find several websites that said the correct answer is that it's impossible to say who, if anyone, has a fish.
On some of those sites, the wording is, "Who has fish?" or "Who keeps fish?" (note for non-native English speakers, the plural of "fish" is "fish".)

I'd say there's a error in the wording of the question. To ask "Who owns the fish?" implies that there is one, because "the" is a definite article. If the question were "Who owns a fish?" or just "Who keeps fish?" then it's a typical riddle with a trick answer.

Maybe it's in the translation from German. I can believe that Einstein could have come up with this to remind people not to make assumptions.

 

[AngeloG]

I did it in about 45 seconds in my head; I just read the first few clues and skipped the middle and read a few of the last clues heh.

 

[rocks]

Aww.. now I feel like a retard. I got it mostly right and quit after I thought I had the fish guy right. I was wrong. For some reason I came up with
Yellow Norwegian Water Dunhill FISH. I had it between fish and cats for him, but somehow I got fish. Sucks to be me..

 

[bassplayer142]

Is this iq test supposed to be done without guessing and checking. Or does one discovery lead to another and eventually lead to the answer.