Quote from Gekkibi :

Edit2: That dictionary seems to be pretty good. I tested it with sentence "Me poltettiin kokko. Koko kokkoko? Koko kokko.". Result was almost right: "We a bonfire was burnt. The whole bonfire? The whole bonfire."

Would the translation have been accurate, if you had written that first sentence correctly, "Me poltimme kokon"? You can't use the passive tense, unless it really is a passive sentence.

Yes, it returns "We burnt the bonfire"

And, if there are two sons and two fathers, there are two people, unless there are daughters as well.

actually 3 not two,cause grandson son and grandfather

Isn't the grandfather also someone's son then? Or is he Jesus by any chance? Or born in a laboratory?

I am not convinced. Why is that because two answers go to 13 that one of those must be correct?

I mean for example the possible solution 1*4*9. Let's check if it meets the criteria:

The product of their ages is 36. (1*4*9=36) [correct]
The sum of their ages is the same as the number of the house next door. (1+4+9=15) [could be, house number is unknown]
The eldest one of the boys plays drums. [only one boy is the oldest]

It all checks out, with the rules given this is one of the possible answers.

And therefore you fail the logic part of the test.

I demand that you logically explain to me why your answer is correct!

But I have done.

Okay one more time.


Logic: If the house number part of the question (which we don't know) wasn't important, useful or required then it, simply, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN THE QUESTION.

The fact that it was means we MUST use it, and MUST know enough to use it. We don't know what the number is. It doesn't even need to be a house number, it could be number of chickens, or clouds in the sky. Forget that it is house numbers. It's just a number.

The only answers that stand out are the two that add up to 13, so, using logic, it MUST be one of the those two.

Then you see the "eldest one", implying the greater age is NOT a twin, which narrows it down to one single possible correct answer.

Ok, using logic doesn't mean that you just say "using logic". Maybe I'm being stupid, but you didn't explain anything as to why those two answers "stand out". Just because they both give the sum of 13? Why?

Does the answer 1*4*9 not meet the criteria of the riddle? I'm really confused.

edit: Hmm I think I know what you mean by reading your previous posts again. When you said "So, the house number must be 13, as otherwise that part wouldn't be sufficient to narrow it down." does makes sense, but only if the riddle said that this part will help you narrow it down. It does not say that, so any other possible answer is still correct if you want 100% bullet proof solution. My conclusion is that the riddle is flawed.

No it's not, it's your thinking that is flawed. That logic puzzle, in one form or another, has been around for hundreds of years.

The logic is -> All parts of the question must have something to do with it, and the only answers that could possibly make any sense to a house number that we don't know anything about are the two 13s, thus it must be referring to them.

Look up other, similar, puzzles and they will all work in the same way. One part of the question is seemingly useful until you calculate every possible answer.

I understand that, but that kind of logic only works in the world of riddles meaning there are some unwritten rules that go along side every riddle. I guess my brain just doesn't work like that. If the riddle doesn't specify that, it doesn't matter for me.

I retract my previous post!

I made a program to find all the permutations and this was the output (same as tristancliffe posted):
Found 8 solutions.
1,1,36 = 38
1,2,18 = 21
1,3,12 = 16
1,4,9 = 14
1,6,6 = 13
2,2,9 = 13
2,3,6 = 11
3,3,4 = 10

So now we have 8 solutions and the only thing left is to apply the last unused rule of the oldest brother which eliminates 1,6,6 leaving us with 7 solutions. So there you go, the riddle is flawed!

hyntty: Get the champagne and spray it all over the teacher for giving you this stupid riddle and yell out this is from kurent! :chairs:

Quote from kurent :

So there you go, the riddle is flawed!

No it's not, Tristan is spot on.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/archive/index.php/t-56005.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/quest ... qid=20070919054414AAOpZ0o

No he's not! (explain why please)

edit: Oh sorry I didn't see the links. I still think there are 7 solutions. Try them with the rules! Or is the problem with how the riddle was given...hmmm. But how did the census taker (in another version of this riddle) unable to solve it?

edit2:Doh of course, the censor taker knew the number was 14! The riddle was not given in the correct form.

I couldn't care less about riddles, I never find the solution.

But my math teacher loves riddles... Maybe I could put her to work for an hour in class

Kurent is right and Tristan is wrong! The riddle in the first post is flawed and can not be solved in that form. You don´t need to know the number of the house next door. However you need to know the fact that a person who knows the number needed to know more information at first but the riddle was solvable when he was told there was an eldest son. 2,2,9 is correct. Just read the best answer on TechAde´s second link. It´s explained better there.

Indeed Tristan, in the riddle there is no information about 13 isn't allowed to be an answer two times. You by-passed it a bit by "knowing" how these riddles work. But if you would try to solve it without that knowledge it's impossible.
You HAVE to know that a solution can't come up twice.

Actually, I'd never done this riddle before, or seen one like it. I just started from scratch, and looked at each part of the riddle. Sum (and product) bit, house number bit, eldest one bit. And it strikes me as obvious when you see all 8 possible answers (ignoring the house number bit) that the two 13s MUST relate to that, otherwise the whole riddle is flawed and pointless.

Maybe it's just a British thing?

Quote from tristancliffe :

Actually, I'd never done this riddle before, or seen one like it. I just started from scratch, and looked at each part of the riddle. Sum (and product) bit, house number bit, eldest one bit. And it strikes me as obvious when you see all 8 possible answers (ignoring the house number bit) that the two 13s MUST relate to that, otherwise the whole riddle is flawed and pointless.

Maybe it's just a British thing?

It must be a British thing

And like you said, technically the riddle should mention something about the two 13s, like the riddle in the links posted. This is a flawed riddle, because they took a riddle and probably translated it but forgot something.

No, it would be rubbish and dull if the 13s were mentioned specifically, or even if the double is alluded to. It stops being a logic puzzle and simply becomes a maths puzzle. I assure you the numbers were not missed off accidentally.

Still waiting for my champagne

Quote from tristancliffe :

No, it would be rubbish and dull if the 13s were mentioned specifically, or even if the double is alluded to.

It doesn't need to be mentioned specifically. The clue missing from the original riddle was the fact that someone knowing the number of the house next door would figure out the kids' ages by getting the clue that the eldest plays drums. That's the only way the original riddle will make sense in my head. The occurrence of the number 13 twice in the list of permutation isn't a proper clue without that crucial bit of information.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Actually, I'd never done this riddle before, or seen one like it. I just started from scratch, and looked at each part of the riddle. Sum (and product) bit, house number bit, eldest one bit. And it strikes me as obvious when you see all 8 possible answers (ignoring the house number bit) that the two 13s MUST relate to that, otherwise the whole riddle is flawed and pointless.

The one in the first post is. You did a good a job and understood the point of the riddle and got the "right" answer but presented in a way that it is in the first post, it hasn´t got one single answer and it is indeed flawed and pointless. Look at TechAde´s second link and see how the riddle is properly presented.

I read his second link, and it confirms I am right. You don't need to know anything other than is already in the riddle in post #1.

Quote from tristancliffe :

I read his second link, and it confirms I am right. You don't need to know anything other than is already in the riddle in post #1.

You do.

Otherwise all these answers would work as proven by Kurent earlier.
1,1,36 = 38
1,2,18 = 21
1,3,12 = 16
1,4,9 = 14
2,2,9 = 13
2,3,6 = 11
3,3,4 = 10
Only 1,6,6 is excluded because there must be one older brother.


Now by adding the fact that a person who knows the house number doesn´t know the answerand needs more information leaves only these options:
1,6,6 = 13
2,2,9 = 13
Because any other option would mean that by knowing the house number you know the ages. But since there are two 13´s, it means you don´t know the ages. Yet.


And the fact that there is one older brother excludes the 1,6,6. That means the only option is: 2,2,9.


The riddle in the first post is unsolvable.

tristancliffe now you're just looking for trouble!

Why "MUST" the two 13s relate to the answer? It doesn't make any sense. Are you religious or something?

Kurent and kalev are right: the riddle as stated in the first post is flawed. And it's NOT logically the same as the one in that TechADE's link: that one explicitly tells you that knowing the product and sum is not enough. This one doesn't and it's wrong to make further assumptions just because there's no unique solution otherwise. I've seen that riddle before, the teacher, or the author of the 1st post, simply didn't state/copy it correctly.