Einstein's Intelligence Quiz ?

[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

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

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.

 

[Bioclay]

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” ;).

 

[103bas]

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. ;-)

 

[davee123]

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

 

[103bas]

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. ;)

 

[Bioclay]

I must admit, I was “fishing” for an open minded reply at first. Hence, my initial blow hard semantic reply to 103bas. I cordially retract my pointy reply to 103bas. However, just to be clear, there is no wrong/right answer to this "riddle" as previously emphasized in comment #173. My answer is "as valid" as the others, which includes there is no answer to the riddle. I'm not convinced I’m right and everyone else is wrong, simply that the answer I’ve provided is valid and satisfies the “constraints” provided (like the other answers). I maintain that one can determine (from their point of view no less) who owns the fish, however, it most certainly is not the only answer. Putting aside all rhetoric and childish finger pointing, I challenge you to dispute my response detailed in comment #173. Accept? Consider it an exercise in futility to keep the thread going ;) <-- friendly smile here. If not, ah good day to you sir.

 

[zomgwtf]

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.

 

[Bioclay]

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?

 

[Mazer Rackham]

Took me about 30 minutes
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.

Spoiler

The German owns the Fish

 

[aldridge]

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

 

[misskas]

here you go :) enjoy!

 

[Willowz]

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

 

[jcbri8z]

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

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

 

[tattushenoi]

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?

 

[ashishsinghal]

Is it actually by Einstein?

 

[davee123]

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