nàme wrote:Hold the bag by the middle where the rope is. Take off the rope, but keeping your hand there separating the two. Tie a rope from the middle of the opening part of the bag (above the lentils so they are kept in a smaller section) to where your hand is, creating a compartment that is approximately 3/8ths of the bag. Release your hand so the peas are in the other 5/8ths of the bag, with a compartment that reaches the opening. Hold the bag upside down so the peas fall to one half, then tie a knot down the middle separating the two sections. Untie the knot that restrained the lentils to 3/8th of the bag. Open the half of the bag that contains the peas.
Or just give him both because you are generous.
we got too technical there ;p remember one bag will be inside out by the time your done with the transfer.
Invdr_zim wrote:A shopkeeper gives you three bottles. Two bottles contain poison, the other one contains water. You may ask the shopkeeper one (yes-or-no) question to determine which bottle has the water.
Can you ask the same question more than once?
I have a sneaky suspicion you know the answer to this already, but to answer your question yes.
question. Does this one have poison.. if no ask same again pointing to dif bottle... until its found. is that it? so simple if it is...
You aced that one!
Edit: still thinking on the ring one...
What? It says "one" question.
Asking more than one question is.... >1 question--even if it's the same question.
"Is the poisoned bottle this one?" Shopkeeper: No. "Is the--" Shopkeeper: Sorry, you can only have one question.
Was the riddle not setup appropriately? If so, then it has more than one answer. "The same, one question asked multiple times." Or, "unsolvable because one question is one question."
Invdr_zim wrote:A shopkeeper gives you three bottles. Two bottles contain poison, the other one contains water. You may ask the shopkeeper one (yes-or-no) question to determine which bottle has the water.
Can you ask the same question more than once?
I have a sneaky suspicion you know the answer to this already, but to answer your question yes.
question. Does this one have poison.. if no ask same again pointing to dif bottle... until its found. is that it? so simple if it is...
You aced that one!
Edit: still thinking on the ring one...
What? It says "one" question.
Asking more than one question is.... >1 question--even if it's the same question.
"Is the poisoned bottle this one?" Shopkeeper: No. "Is the--" Shopkeeper: Sorry, you can only have one question.
Was the riddle not setup appropriately? If so, then it has more than one answer. "The same, one question asked multiple times." Or, "unsolvable because one question is one question."
The one question he asked is "Is this the poisoned bottle?". He asked the one question two times. Tricky wordsmanship, but fair, I suppose.
I know; I just said that. And obviously, the riddle has more than one correct answer: 'one question multiple times' or 'no solution possible'.
So, the point of riddles is to rely on multiple meanings of words, and when given a variety of answers (even if they are obviously correct--as I've shown), then the 'riddle-asker' arbitrarily chooses only one to be correct?
The only riddle here is: why is nonsense so appealing to some?
Invdr_zim wrote:A shopkeeper gives you three bottles. Two bottles contain poison, the other one contains water. You may ask the shopkeeper one (yes-or-no) question to determine which bottle has the water.
Can you ask the same question more than once?
I have a sneaky suspicion you know the answer to this already, but to answer your question yes.
question. Does this one have poison.. if no ask same again pointing to dif bottle... until its found. is that it? so simple if it is...
You aced that one!
Edit: still thinking on the ring one...
What? It says "one" question.
Asking more than one question is.... >1 question--even if it's the same question.
"Is the poisoned bottle this one?" Shopkeeper: No. "Is the--" Shopkeeper: Sorry, you can only have one question.
Was the riddle not setup appropriately? If so, then it has more than one answer. "The same, one question asked multiple times." Or, "unsolvable because one question is one question."
Oh the riddle was set up correctly, I can assure you, its one of those "you really have to watch your grammar" riddles, that's why it works (and why it had me stumped for the longest time) "you may ask the shopkeeper "one" (yes-no) question" it doesn't say you cannot repeat yourself... that's the trick.
BigBallinStalin wrote:I know; I just said that. And obviously, the riddle has more than one correct answer: 'one question multiple times' or 'no solution possible'.
So, the point of riddles is to rely on multiple meanings of words, and when given a variety of answers (even if they are obviously correct--as I've shown), then the 'riddle-asker' arbitrarily chooses only one to be correct?
The only riddle here is: why is nonsense so appealing to some?
define nonsense.... what gets people with the bottle riddle is they think too literally...with riddles you need to find multiple meanings in words and phrases... that's the fun of riddles...
Well I think my way would work, so maybe two answers to riddle? if it has to finish inside out, put the empty innnkeepers bag inside the poor mans at the point of the knot release knot and tip upside down so all of the bottom contents fall into the sac then remove the sac full of the peas or lentils whichever was in the bottom.
Bombersftw wrote:Well I think my way would work, so maybe two answers to riddle? if it has to finish inside out, put the empty innnkeepers bag inside the poor mans at the point of the knot release knot and tip upside down so all of the bottom contents fall into the sac then remove the sac full of the peas or lentils whichever was in the bottom.
I thought you would do something different in the end then we might have a possible second answer (I love when I get these as I'm always looking to debunk old riddles)... the peas and lentils cannot mix and you cannot take apart your bag as it is... you can only undo any bindings you put in it (that's a big hint)
crispybits wrote:This one I can't claim credit for - it's come from a friend on facebook. No idea if it's right but looks plausible.
Turn the innkeepers sack inside out and pour the lentils in. Tie it off then turn it right way out again and pour the peas in. Untie the inside out bit and let the lentils fall back into the farmers sack.
Sorry for missing this... this is the concept in a nutshell but with an extra step... sorry for losing your reply amongst the "riddles are stupid" rant
crispybits wrote:This one I can't claim credit for - it's come from a friend on facebook. No idea if it's right but looks plausible.
Turn the innkeepers sack inside out and pour the lentils in. Tie it off then turn it right way out again and pour the peas in. Untie the inside out bit and let the lentils fall back into the farmers sack.
Sorry for missing this... this is the concept in a nutshell but with an extra step... sorry for losing your reply amongst the "riddles are stupid" rant
So since a bag has to be inside out I guess you could turn your bag inside out before you pour the lentils back in, that way one is inside out and both of the people have the correct bags.
crispybits wrote:This one I can't claim credit for - it's come from a friend on facebook. No idea if it's right but looks plausible.
Turn the innkeepers sack inside out and pour the lentils in. Tie it off then turn it right way out again and pour the peas in. Untie the inside out bit and let the lentils fall back into the farmers sack.
Sorry for missing this... this is the concept in a nutshell but with an extra step... sorry for losing your reply amongst the "riddles are stupid" rant
So since a bag has to be inside out I guess you could turn your bag inside out before you pour the lentils back in, that way one is inside out and both of the people have the correct bags.
well you don't have to turn the bag inside out to start, like I said there is an extra step... but crispy bits has he concept.... what would happen is the farmer would walk away with his sack inside out by the end of the transaction but it would still work none the less.
technically you give me a child we both owe that child a debt to make sure that s/he has a bright future so no... but I can see how a child would fit sadly in today's standards.
