Who's that surgeon to the 'son'? Brain Puzzle

  • Thread starter Thread starter powergirl
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around several riddles that challenge perceptions of familial relationships. The first riddle involves a father and son in an accident, leading to a surgeon who is revealed to be the boy's mother, highlighting assumptions about gender roles. The second riddle features two Russians, where one is the father of the other's son, which is explained by their being a mother and father. Participants engage in a deeper analysis of a riddle involving three people in a room, identified as two mothers and two daughters. Various interpretations arise, with some arguing that the relationships can be represented by a grandmother, mother, and daughter, while others debate the wording and implications of familial titles. The conversation emphasizes the ambiguity in the riddle's phrasing, leading to multiple valid answers and interpretations. Overall, the thread illustrates how language and assumptions can complicate understanding of simple familial structures, prompting a lively debate about definitions and logic in riddles.
powergirl
Try this :
"Once a father and his son were going home in their bike.suddenly they got an accident and the father died at that moment itself.Whereas the son was taken to the nearby hospital.There he was taken to the operation theatre.
After a few minutes the surgeon came out and said:"the person inside the operation theatre is my son".
Who's that surgeon to the 'son'?:bugeye:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Erm.. the kid's mother?
 
Ya,right...:)
 
I like these ones. Also:

"Two Russians are walking down the street. One Russian is the father of the other Russian's son. How is this possible?"
 
verty said:
I like these ones. Also:

"Two Russians are walking down the street. One Russian is the father of the other Russian's son. How is this possible?"

They are mother and father to the boy.
 
How about this one, there are three people in a room, two mothers and two daughters.
 
jimmysnyder said:
How about this one, there are three people in a room, two mothers and two daughters.

Granddaughter, daughter, mother. The daughter and mother are "mothers." The granddaughter and daughter are the "daughters"
 
cristo said:
Granddaughter, daughter, mother. The daughter and mother are "mothers." The granddaughter and daughter are the "daughters"
Close, but no cigar.
 
jimmysnyder said:
Close, but no cigar.

Damn, I like cigars :-p

OK, suppose at least two of the people in the room are female, then by default they must be daughters (whether or not their mothers are in the room). Then, suppose both of these people have at least one child each (and so are mothers, whether or not their children are in the room)

Closer?
 
  • #10
cristo said:
OK, suppose at least two of the people in the room are female, then by default they must be daughters (whether or not their mothers are in the room). Then, suppose both of these people have at least one child each (and so are mothers, whether or not their children are in the room)
Closer?
Farther. Read your first answer carefully.
 
  • #11
jimmysnyder said:
How about this one, there are three people in a room, two mothers and two daughters.

Assuming that he meant to say "there are exactly three people in a room, two mothers and exactly two daughters", then you HAVE to know that since *EVERY* female is a daughter, that you have two females (two daughters) and one male (not a daughter). And since only females can be mothers, the females in the room must also be mothers. The remaining male is insignificant.

[edit]Oh, identities could be Grandmother, mother, son[/edit]

If, however, either "exactly" is omitted, the problem is entirely different, and the only information you can glean is that there are at *least* two females, and at *least* two mothers.


DaveE
 
Last edited:
  • #12
davee123 said:
Assuming that he meant to say ...
DaveE
Read his first answer carefully.
 
  • #13
In the room we have two female, one male. By default, the females are the two daughters. One of the females is the other's mother, the other is the male's mother.
 
  • #14
I guess cristo's first answer was "close" because the grandmother (the "mother" in cristo's convention) is also a daughter, and that would make three daughters and two mothers.

But since you did not say that there were exactly two mothers and exactly two daughters, I think his answer qualifies.
 
  • #15
jimmysnyder said:
Read his first answer carefully.

Read your question carefully.

DaveE
 
  • #16
davee123 said:
Read your question carefully.
OK, I did. Now, did you read his first answer carefully?
 
  • #17
jimmysnyder said:
How about this one, there are three people in a room, two mothers and two daughters.

Any two mothers and a male will work. The first answer did not work because you said there were 3 females, thus 3 daughters. Even grandmothers are daughters you know :-), and of course nowhere in Jimmy's question did it say that the mother's daughters were in the room.

woops davee already said this, didn't see it because it was blanked... How can you say this answer is wrong?
 
Last edited:
  • #18
dontdisturbmycircles said:
Any two mothers and a male will work. The first answer did not work because you said there were 3 females, thus 3 daughters. Even grandmothers are daughters you know :-), and of course nowhere in Jimmy's question did it say that the mother's daughters were in the room.

woops davee already said this, didn't see it because it was blanked... How can you say this answer is wrong?

Yeah, the question is a bit vague, and so there will be many answers.

Circles- when I saw you'd posted a response, I was expecting one of your straight out of left field scenarios! :-p
 
  • #19
Lol cristo, :-). I was just bored yesterday/too much time on my hands :P

edit: Yes that is also true it is very vague. JimmySnyder can you clarify the question please? :) For one, are they the only ones in the room? Is there only 2 daughters/mothers? Or could there possible be more?
 
Last edited:
  • #20
dontdisturbmycircles said:
Yes that is also true it is very vague.
Yes, well, it can be interpreted out the wazoo. I suggest you take a simple view of it and don't make a list of all the possible interpretations. cristo's answer in message #7 is close. I said so. But it has a mistake in it. I suppose you can't find the mistake if you analyze this thing too deeply. Just read message #7 and let it sink into your consciousness for a while. The problem will jump out at you eventually.
 
  • #21
jimmysnyder said:
Yes, well, it can be interpreted out the wazoo. I suggest you take a simple view of it and don't make a list of all the possible interpretations. cristo's answer in message #7 is close. I said so. But it has a mistake in it. I suppose you can't find the mistake if you analyze this thing too deeply. Just read message #7 and let it sink into your consciousness for a while. The problem will jump out at you eventually.
What about my answer in #13?
 
  • #22
Hold on I answered too fast. lol.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
How about this way of wording cristo's answer? There are 3 people in a room, a grandmother, a mother who is the grandmother's daughter, and a daughter of the mother. Thus 2 daughters of 2 related mothers in the same room.

edit: But I don't see how this is different than cristo's answer, brb I will try to figure it out once I eat some breakfast :-).
 
Last edited:
  • #24
dontdisturbmycircles said:
How about this way of wording cristo's answer? There are 3 people in a room, a grandmother, a mother who is the grandmother's daughter, and a daughter of the mother. Thus 2 daughters of 2 related mothers in the same room.
I don't think this is any different from "Granddaughter, daughter, mother." as cristo wrote so simply in message #7. That's not where he went wrong.
 
  • #25
jimmysnyder said:
I don't think this is any different from "Granddaughter, daughter, mother." as cristo wrote so simply in message #7. That's not where he went wrong.

I'll say again, as you probably didn't see above, what about post #13? Where is that wrong?
 
  • #26
why doesn't #13 work? :redface:
 
Last edited:
  • #27
jimmysnyder said:
Yes, well, it can be interpreted out the wazoo. I suggest you take a simple view of it and don't make a list of all the possible interpretations. cristo's answer in message #7 is close. I said so. But it has a mistake in it. I suppose you can't find the mistake if you analyze this thing too deeply. Just read message #7 and let it sink into your consciousness for a while. The problem will jump out at you eventually.

See, the problem appears to be that the "simple" answer to you is not the "simple" answer to me. Or christo for that matter. And, for that matter, dontdisturbmycircles, who also came up with my same solution. All valid, all simple, all according to your statement. "Simple" is subjective. We came up with answers that don't contradict your clues, therefore we're *all* correct.

Please, by all means, take 10 full minutes to type out an explanation of precisely where our logic differs from yours, and qualify the question so that we can see why what we said doesn't follow your logic. In other words, please:

A) Take the time to phrase your question accurately so that only one answer is correct. This might mean saying something like "oops, I guess I should have qualified that XXXXX".

OR

B) Don't tell people they're wrong when they're right.

DaveE
 
  • #28
That's true, there are many "right answers" to the question. While there may be a different one, the simplest is definitely cristo's that the grandmother had a daughter who had a son, or the first one in #7 where the grandmother is not taken to be a daughter. DaveE's is also simple because it did not say that the grandmother was not considered a daughter nor even how many people were in the room. By the way sorry for reposting your answer daveE I tend to do that alot. I have a habit of trying the riddles without reading the post and then if I think I have found the answer I take a quick look at the thread and post it, the answer is fully yours :P
 
Last edited:
  • #29
For reference, here is the problem with the answer in message #7. Don't read it unless you give up on finding it.
Granddaughter, daughter, mother. The daughter (he means grandmother) and mother are "mothers." The granddaughter and daughter are the "daughters"
 
  • #30
jimmysnyder said:
For reference, here is the problem with the answer in message #7. Don't read it unless you give up on finding it.
Granddaughter, daughter, mother. The daughter (he means grandmother) and mother are "mothers." The granddaughter and daughter are the "daughters"

Clearly the daughter is the mother of the granddaughter? If I rephrased it like this, would you be happier?

The three persons are grandmother, mother(*) and daughter. Of which, the grandmother and mother are "mothers" and the mother and daughter are "daughters"??

I just used a different convention... I labelled the three persons as granddaughter, daughter and mother, whereas above I have labelled them daughter, mother and grandmother. Note that the daughter in post #7 is the mother(*) above.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
jimmysnyder said:
For reference, here is the problem with the answer in message #7. Don't read it unless you give up on finding it.
Granddaughter, daughter, mother. The daughter (he means grandmother) and mother are "mothers." The granddaughter and daughter are the "daughters"

I am pretty sure he meant that there was a mother of a daughter, and then a granddaughter who was the daughter of the daughter... Thus the daughter cannot possibly be the "grandmother". lol.
 
  • #32
cristo said:
If I rephrased it like this, would you be happier?
Ecstatic.

Text added to satisfy a curious criterion.
 
  • #33
I don't get it... they are the same thing and I posted and reworded it for cristo beforehand and you said it was wrong...
 
  • #34
Hmm, a curious piece of "marking." I hope you're not a teacher jimmy, or else no one will be passing your exams! :biggrin:
 
  • #35
Yeah, see... this is crazy. Cristo's first answer is EXACTLY what you wrote, just worded differently:

cristo said:
Granddaughter, daughter, mother. The daughter and mother are "mothers." The granddaughter and daughter are the "daughters"

He states there are three people. For the sake of argument, let's call them Gloria, Mealanie, and Deborah. Gloria is the mother of Melanie, and the grandmother of Deborah. Mealanie is the daughter of Gloria and the mother of Deborah. Deborah is the daughter of Mealanie and the granddaughter of Gloria.

In cristo's wording, he lists them as Deborah, Mealanie, Gloria. He calls Deborah a granddaughter, which is totally accurate. He calls Mealanie a daughter, which is totally accurate. He calls Gloria a mother, which is ALSO totally accurate.

Just because he didn't say "Grandmother, Mother, Daughter" and instead chose to say "Granddaughter, Daughter, Mother" doesn't make him wrong.

Once I played Trivial Persuit against someone and was asked "What three colors are on Superman's suit?" I answered "Red, blue, and yellow". He immediately told me "No, it's red, yellow, blue! It says so right on the card!" And the sad thing was I absolutely could NOT convince him that the answer I gave was valid.

DaveE
 
  • #36
No wonder some people couldn't see the error without my hint. They couldn't even see it with my hint. If you saw it, then ignore this message. If you can't ignore this message, at least wait a minute before you respond to it.


Wrong:
Granddaughter, daughter, mother. The daughter and mother are "mothers." The granddaughter and daughter are the "daughters"

Right:
Granddaughter, daughter, mother. The grandmother and mother are "mothers." The granddaughter and daughter are the "daughters"

It is nothing deeper than that. cristo saw it.
 
  • #37
jimmysnyder said:
No wonder some people couldn't see the error without my hint. They couldn't even see it with my hint. If you saw it, then ignore this message. If you can't ignore this message, at least wait a minute before you respond to it.


Wrong:
Granddaughter, daughter, mother. The daughter and mother are "mothers." The granddaughter and daughter are the "daughters"

Right:
Granddaughter, daughter, mother. The grandmother and mother are "mothers." The granddaughter and daughter are the "daughters"

It is nothing deeper than that. cristo saw it.

Are you truly serious? They are the exact same thing! To argue that they are not is childish to the extreme. For one, you have to accept that the names are STATIC. Thus when you say the granddaughter, daughter and mother in the first one, the DAUGHTER is the daughter of the MOTHER, not the granddaughter. If the names are not static then the whole thing is pointless, but anyone can see that in all of the answers, the names were assumed to be static.

It is just different words for mother grandmother and granddaughter, it's like telling a german that his solution is incorrect because he called the grandmother a Großmutter.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
jimmysnyder said:
No wonder some people couldn't see the error without my hint. They couldn't even see it with my hint. If you saw it, then ignore this message. If you can't ignore this message, at least wait a minute before you respond to it.


Wrong:
Granddaughter, daughter, mother. The daughter and mother are "mothers." The granddaughter and daughter are the "daughters"

Right:
Granddaughter, daughter, mother. The grandmother and mother are "mothers." The granddaughter and daughter are the "daughters"


There is no way you can say that the first answer is wrong. Dave has confirmed this above, (and circles- he can obviously type faster than me!) but just to clarify.

In case 1. "The daughter and mother are mothers" is true, since the mother has a daughter (namely the daughter) and the daughter has a daughter (namely the granddaughter).

In your case, you simply redefine the names you give the people. You have called the "daughter" mother, and the "mother" grandmother.

I really hope you can see my point, but if not, I shall leave it- I don't want to start Dave's superman discussion!:rolleyes: edit: did that really happen? I feel for you being put in that situation!

It is nothing deeper than that. cristo saw it.

I didn't see that it was wrong, but I noticed that you couldn't see that there was no difference between the two!
 
Last edited:
  • #39
cristo said:
I don't want to start Dave's superman discussion!:rolleyes: edit: did that really happen? I feel for you being put in that situation!

Oh, most definitely! It was somewhere around 7th or 8th grade (wow, almost 20 years ago now), I was winning (by at least 2 pie wedges) and that was the "final victory" question. So, in part, I assume he wouldn't yield because I was going to win otherwise. But I eventually gave up because I couldn't make any headway in the argument, and won a couple turns later.

DaveE
 
  • #40
davee123 said:
I was winning (by at least 2 pie wedges) and that was the "final victory" question. So, in part, I assume he wouldn't yield because I was going to win otherwise.

I hope, for his sake, that this was the reason!

But I eventually gave up because I couldn't make any headway in the argument, and won a couple turns later.

DaveE

It never pays to cheat! (well, not in this case anyway!)
 

Similar threads

Having extremely hard time letting go (serious viewers only)
Replies
14
Views
3K
Home Repair & Maintenance Advice for Newbie?
Replies
11
Views
3K
Can we help this girl find love and happiness?
Replies
13
Views
5K
My Lobotomy: A 23-Minute NPR Radio Piece on Howard Dully
Replies
37
Views
9K
Are Ball Pits Dangerous for Kids?
Replies
29
Views
17K
Book Review: Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men
Replies
19
Views
7K
Why Did Tony Dungy's Son Commit Suicide?
Replies
5
Views
27K
Medical Brain Death and Revival: What Happens When the Heart Stops Beating?
Replies
4
Views
11K
Fork in the road, each path leads to possibly more disappointment.
Replies
42
Views
8K
Are Medical Errors on the Rise? A Look at Recent Cases and Statistics
Replies
32
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top