If you didn't get this one then the next will blow you away.
You are on a gameshow. The presenter shows you three doors. Behind one there is a brand new XRT made just for you! Behind the other two doors there is nothing. The presenter knows where the XRT is.
You pick on of them and then the presenter always opens a door that is not yours and is still the empty one since he knows. He gives you a choice, will you stick to your original choice or will you switch doors?
Do you have a better chance of getting the XRT if you switch the doors?
I do understand that this riddle is something that has passed from people to people and some key elements might have gone missing in the way...
But the point is, the sum isn't 13 because it comes up twice. It's 13, because it's the only solution where you need the last clue. This is the most logical solution there is.
1. If you chose the door with the car, you are then shown one of the doors with nothing behind it. Changing your mind would LOSE you the car.
2. If you chose a door with nothing behind it then you are shown the other door with nothing behind it. Changing your mind would WIN you the car.
3. If you chose the other door with nothing behind it, you are shown the other door with nothing, and hence changing your mind would WIN you the car.
Out of the three possible scenarios, changing your mind wins two of them, so changing your mind is statistically more likely to win you the car. But it will NEVER guarantee it.
Exactly. The riddle given in the first post is not given correctly. You must know that in another version the question is asked to a censor taker which knows the number of the house next door and still has problems with the riddle. He knows it's 13 and that there are two possible combinations that add up to 13.
tristancliffe: You are assuming. You cannot claim with 100% certanty that the house number is 13! 7 possible solutions that are bullet proof without knowing that piece of info!
Last clue is that the eldest plays drums? Why can't 4, 6, 9 (House number 14), 12, 18 or 36 years old boy play drums? Bolded ones are the solutions where there is only one eldest son.
Forget the drums. It could be that he plays LFS or with himself. It's the age that's important, one of the children is the oldest. So there's no twins that are oldest.
The only time you need the last clue (there is an eldest) is if two sums are the same. Otherwise the clue would be meaningless. Normally some parts of a clue is irrelevant but never the whole clue.
The mysterious world or riddles! I guess you haven't seen "riddles" where some clues are wrong, a lie, puprosley constructed to decieve you,...it's called real life!
Ymmärsin kyllä että sillä karsitaan se että on vain yksi vanhin lapsi. Mutta on olemassa monta sellaista vaihtoehtoa että on vain yksi vanhin lapsi. Minkä ihmeen takia juuri talo numero 13 tuo sen oikean vastauksen? Mä en hiffaa miksei se voisi olla talo numero 14, koska silloinkin on olemassa yksi vanhin lapsi! Ei se 13 voi olla sen takia oikein koska se pullahtaa esille kahdesti, ja toinen niistä vaihtoehdoista kumotaan sillä että silloin olisi kaksi samanikäistä vanhinta lasta.
Homma kusee ja tuella. Veikkaan että talonumero-osuus on täydellinen kompa, ja jokin muu (Kriittinen) asia puuttuu. Yhdyn kantaan että tehtävää ei voi ratkaista.
Thank you. You can use dictionary to translate that to your own language.
How about secret option #3? The riddle as written in the OP is flawed and was missing information. You're basing your entire argument on the assumption that the riddle isn't flawed and you're then using that argument to prove that the riddle isn't flawed. Helloooo circular argument.
Siis... Tämä perustuu vain ja ainoastaan siihen olettamukseen, että tehtävän voi ratkaista: Ensimmäisen vihjeen avulla saadaan ne kaikki vaihtoehdot, jotka kerrottuna tuottaa 36. Toinen vihje, summa, ei lisää tähän mitään. Kaikki vaihtoehdot ovat vielä mahdollisia.
Kolmas vihje: on olemassa vanhin lapsi. Tämäkään vihje ei varsinaisesti lisää mitään. MUTTA, tässä kohtaa pitää miettiä, mitä virkaa sillä kolmannella vihjelllä ylipäätänsä sitten on: Kaikista vaihtoehdoista kaikki muut tuottaa eri summan, paitsi 9,9,2 ja 6,6,1 =13. Kaikissa muissa tapauksissa talon numeron tietämällä tehtävän voisi ratkaista. Tällöin ainoa tapaus, jossa tarvitaan kolmatta vihjettä avuksi, ovat nuo joista tulee summaksi 13.
Ainoa järjellinen syy tuon vihjeen olemassaoloon on siis se ettei tehtävää voi ratkaista ilman sitä. Näin siis voidaan päätellä, että sillä tulee ratkaista kumpi noista kahdesta saman summan tuottavasta vaihtoehdosta on oikea.
You're asserting that the two sums of 13 are the only two valid permutations because otherwise you wouldn't be able to solve the riddle with the last clue. You're basically taking for granted that the riddle has a solution and that all clues are relevant, when it's quite possible it doesn't have one (on account of being misquoted) and that they aren't.
I'm asserting that the riddle is flawed because using only the clues stated in the riddle it's impossible to solve. You need to add an additional assumption (that all the clues are relevant and that it is in fact solvable with the given clues) in order to solve it.
You may think yours is a reasonable assumption, but I don't agree. Especially when an alternate version of the riddle which doesn't have this problem has been posted, suggesting that the original is indeed misquoted.
Ymmärsin yea that because karsitaan it that is merely one doyen child. Only is purport many the alternative that is merely one doyen child. Which wondrous for radical farm digit 13 yonder its accurate vastauksen? Mä en hiffaa why it melted be farm digit 14, as then is purport one doyen child! No it 13 butter be its for really as it pullahtaa out twice , and another snuff vaihtoehdoista repeal because that then olisi twain samanikäistä doyen paddle. Ploy kusee and tuella. Betting that talonumero - quota is consummate quip , and some extraneous ( crucial ) case intervene. Yhdyn levy that errand no butter solve.
then This bottom merely and but there olettamukseen , that errand butter solve : Chief tip-off with attain those everybody alternative , which double generate 36. Another tip-off , amount , no more here aught. Everybody alternative ovat furthermore possibly. Third tip-off : is purport doyen child. Tämäkään tip-off no actually more aught. Only , here stricken shall muse , what flaw because thirdly vihjelllä ylipäätänsä ago is : Kaikista vaihtoehdoista everybody others generate separate amount , beyond 9,9,2 and 6,6,1 =13. Kaikissa muissa tapauksissa farm digit tietämällä errand melted solve. Here only incident , where need kolmatta tip-off avuksi ovat those joista tulee amount 13. Only reasonable fibre tuon tip-off being is then it lest errand butter solve exclusive it. Thus then feel conclude , that because tulee solve which noista twice equal amount lucrative vaihtoehdosta is accurate.
