Recently heard this one, I like it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

If you decide to find the answer and post it, please use the "spoiler"-color, so I can enjoy the illusion of a huge amount of people having their brain teased for a while, ok? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

I'll post the answer in a few days if no one happens to find it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

A man bought bananas at $3/piece. He sold them at $2/piece.
He made a habit of it and eventually became a millionaire.
How did he do that?

Some clarifications:
- A piece = 1 banana, and the only bananas he sold are the exact same ones that he bought
- The fact that he became a millionaire is a direct consequence of what he did as described in the riddle
- Let's assume a dollar has a steady value (to not complicate things too much <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> )

[color:"orange"] He bought whole bananas and then cut them into pieces. Each piece cost $2. Don´t know how many pieces make a whole banana. Perhaps 5 or 6 ? x $2/piece = $10-12. So take of $3 which is the cost of the whole banana = $9-10 profit[/color]

ok, stop me if u've heard this one already.

why does the chicken cross the road?

KERCHANG!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

Liked that one Janggut

@kejero.. no idea and 2 damn lazy to think <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

he had a lot of succes with other things <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
No one said he became millionaire because of the bananas <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />

Check the original post for some clarifications. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

that does make it more tricky <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

He sold them when dollars were worth more? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Nope <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Bananas go rotten pretty fast, don't they? Since he sold the same bananas that he bought, he must've sold them around the same period he bought them, hence stuff like inflation shouldn't have a great impact. Moreover, it took him a while to finally become a millionaire, Dollars have probably been going up and down during that time.
And for the record: they're American dollars for which he bought and sold bananas.

Anyhew, nope <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

he didn't trick anyone in making them believe there were more bananas? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

- he's chiquita

Was he using counterfeit three dollar bills to buy the bananas? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

[color:"blue"]did he plant the banana's he bought, wait for them to grow and make many bananas, then sell them [/color] <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />



yes? no? am i insane?


... no wait, that doesnt quite go with your clarifications.... uh, well it could do, depending how you difine 'same ones' hehehe <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />...

... hmm, unless by 'he made a habit of it' you ment the monks robe (the robe of a monk is somtimes called a habit) uhm, but i dont see why people would want to buy a monk robe made of bananas O.o....

... of course he could be selling them to a himself and buying them from himself, using some kind of cunning tactic that means he makes $1 each time he does it... but i dont know how hed achieve this.... uuhhhhmmmm, maybe he loses them on perpose and has them insured and gets lots of money from that? O.o... im just getting confused now... i need some sleep so i can think straiter

he ate the ones he bought and then sold, never mind i wont go there, but you get the idea.

Alex says: "He started as a billionaire or a multi-millionaire and worked his way down to being a single millionaire."

Someone here at work must have heard it before. Two words: ~~~[color:"#2F4062"]Milo Minderbinder[/color]~~~

catch 22

I didn't hear it from Milo, but that's it alright <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> - Oh hey, thanks for putting the answer in spoiler-color <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

what was the correct answer??

HandEFood's first reply - the one that makes sense <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

poo, that one I also guessed but I thought it was too stupid after my previous guesses <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

No wonder how he ended like this....

Wish I was even at his position though.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

For those who haven't played Planescape: Torment (spick please abstain <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> ), here's a nice one:

"Think of words that end in -GRY. Angry and hungry are two of them. There are three words in the common tongue. Which one is the third word? If thou hast listened carefully, I have already told thee what it is."

Hah, got it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> And I didn't play the game! *proud look* [color:"#3A495A"]-> tongue <-[/color]
I intend to play it though, some day <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> Does it have more riddles?
Oh, and if you read very, very carefully, I've included my answer in this reply <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> Now let's hope I'm right and don't make a total fool of myself <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

Nope, you didn't make a fool of yourself! You're right. Congratulations! Did it take you a long time? I never figured it out, but my Nameless One was intelligent enough to solve the riddle for me <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

You should definitely play PS:T. In my humble opinion, it's the best game ever made, FFVII and Fallout 2 following closely behind.

Want another one? This one isn't from PS:T, but from BG2. It's always been one I liked:

The rich need it
The poor have it
But if either of them were to eat it
They would surely die

It took me about half a minute <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> Pure dumb luck though, I usually suck at them myself <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

This second riddle I already know <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> -- So I'll just answer nothing and keep the ones who don't know it guessing <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
Don't know it from BG2 though, but I intend to play that game too, one day <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> (AND it's prequel). Guess what, I've always been more an adventurer than an rpg'er <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

*Harumphs* then I'll just have to give you another riddle, eh? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

It is as light as air, yet no man can hold it for long. What is it?

Guess: [color:"#3A495A"]-> your breath <-[/color]

Although I'm not sure it's technically as light as air <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

I know another one myself, one of my favorites, but it's kinda long (and a whole lot more complicated than the above ones, take my word for it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> ) but I wanna go to sleep now, so it'll be for tomorrow <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

You're right! Very good. Sleepwell. I'm goin' to bed too (you live in Belgium too, right?) ... it's getting late...

here's one that i've always liked:

a farmer has a fox, a chicken, and a bag of grain. he needs to cross a river, and his boat will only hold him plus one item. if he leaves the fox alone with the chicken, the fox will eat the chicken, and likewise the chicken and grain. assume that none of the items will float or swim. everything must cross in the boat. and no, he can't leave anything behind.

make the chicken swim....it'll float.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> .....maybe.. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

he swimms himself <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

[color:"#3A495A"]First he takes the chicken across, leaving him with the fox and the bag of grain. Then he goes back to pick up the fox. When he deposits the fox on the land, he takes the chicken back with him. Now you have the fox on the other bank, the grain on the first bank, and the chicken in the boat. Then he picks up the bag of grain and leaves the chicken back on the first bank. He sails across again and leaves the bag on the second bank with the fox. Then he goes back to collect the chicky. Is that right? [/color]

Couldn't he do it in an easier way? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Yeah, he could buy a bigger boat <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

very good, stormrider!! you got it.

Yup just some common sense does it every time <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

My turn:

One from the Dark Tower series by Stephen King (you should definitely read it if you get the chance):

What lives in winter, dies in summer, and grows with its roots upward?

[color:"#3A495A"]Icicle[/color]?

There's a variation on this riddle in Broken Sword 3 <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
This original riddle, I've also played a long time ago on an Apple Macintosh Classic II - you could actually SEE the boat and the chicken and the fox and the grain... Amazing!

Right, I said I'd post this one. However, I'm warning everybody that this is one of the most difficult riddles to grasp that I know of, EVEN when you know the answer. But I've told this riddle a couple of times now, and every time I've spent about half an hour explaining the answer and examening the answer from many different angles -- What I'm saying is: I'm convinced the answer is completely correct. And I'm afraid most people won't believe me at first <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> I didn't believe it at first <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> Anyway, here I go (please skip this riddle if you get easily frustrated <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />)




There is a Tibetan monastery filled with a number of monks. The number of monks is more than one, and not unreasonably large.

God visits the monks one night and tells them that he is planning on destroying the world unless they can solve a puzzle. He puts a red dot on the foreheads of a certain number of monks, X. X is greater than zero.

Then he takes away all means of communication between the monks, and all means by which the monks can see themselves. No mirrors, no hand signals, no nothing. Each monk can see all the other monks, and see if another monk has a dot on his head or not, but he cannot see himself, and he cannot communicate in any way with any other monk.

God then says that all of the monks with dots, and only those monks with dots, must jump off of the cliff next to the monastery and sacrifice themselves to save the world, at EXACTLY the same moment, on EXACTLY the same day.

The next morning, all of the monks from the monastery walk out to the edge of the cliff. They pause and look around, and then walk quickly back to the monastery.

The second morning, all of the monks from the monastery walk to the edge of the cliff. They pause, look, and walk back to the monastery.

The third morning, all of the monks walk to the edge of the cliff. And then all of the monks with dots, and only those monks with dots walk to the cliff edge and jump off at the exact same moment.

The question: how many monks jumped, and how did they organize the jump?






This is the original version. It think however that you should replace the "EXACT same moment" with "12:00 p.m." -- so that the monks cannot choose the exact moment, but they can still choose the day -- to leave all doubt out of the answer. Not that it really matters a whole lot. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

Enjoy <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Answer :[color:"#3A495A"]There is only one monk with a dot (one is greater than zero), it is the monk who can see the other ones.
He did not really know that he had a dot but he knew that the other monks had no dot.
Logically he found out that he was the one who had to jump.
The first day and the second day, he was too afraid to jump and the first day he finally decided to do it to save the world.
The other monks would had not jump anyway, they were just expecting that someone else would had jumped.[/color]

Icicle indeed! Nice, Raze!

@Barta


-> [color:"#3A495A"]How can the others monks be sure then they don't have a dot? Let's a assume there is one monk with a dot. We take one monk without a dot: he sees one dot, but how does he know that he doesn't have a second dot himself? Same goes for all the other monks: they can't know, in the situation you described, whether they have or don't have a dot. Conclusion: these monks have no fear to sacrifice themselves - if they know they have a dot, they will jump, otherwise we would get the above situation and no monk could know for sure whether and/or when he has to jump.

It's the best answer I've ever gotten though! Good thinking <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />[/color]

hmm I thought barta had it..
This is a tricky one <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

so only 1 of them can see, but he can't communicate?

And the rest can't communicate either?

No, every monk can see the other monks.

So each monk knows from another monk whether that monk has a dot or not - he just doesn't know if he has one himself.

And none of them can communicate in any way.

@Kejero

I did not understand well this :


I thought that "a single monk" meaned "only one monk", so i have made a mistake.
Then i thought that everyone, even a monk, will be feared to sacrifice himself.

This idea of topic is good, the forum is a little bit sleepy since a few days.

Barta

How do you use the spoiler color?

Hi Merendrious

The spoiler color has been made by Raze.
This is the code :"#3A495A"
You click on font colour and you chooze the last one "?" and you enter the code in the small window.

If you forget this code you just have to quote a message with the spoiler color, copy it and use it in your own post.
Like this :
Spoiler[color:"#3A495A"]Hi Merendrious, how are you ?[/color]
Barta

You're right, it's confusing... I'll edit it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

cant they just hold hands with the ones they see have dots??

Thanks a lot Barta.
I think I have an answer:
[color:"#3A495A"]When they go to the cliff, they look down in the water and so they can see themself reflecting in the water. By doing that they can see if they have a dot or not. Is it correct? [/color]

Wrong answer: ~~~[color:"#324152"]The monks murder all the monks without red dots until there are only red-dot monks left. Or less cruedly, perhaps they were just locked up. No, because "all the monks went out" on the day of the jump.[/color]~~~

Wrong answer: ~~~[color:"#324152"]There were only two monks? They why didn't the red-dot monk jump on day one. Also, they state "monks" plural.[/color]~~~

I'm having to go with Merendrious idea so far. ~~~[color:"#324152"]It must have been misty on the first two days.[/color]~~~

Thinking...

of course, it was never said whether there was water at the bottom of the cliff or not.

Murky water maybe. Nothing they can see themselves in.

i give up. kej, pm me the answer!

patience, grasshopper. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

or a new answer, i think this one is correct: [color:"#3A495A"]They decide to go one time to the cliff for every single monk. If they the number of days is equal to the number of monks with dots they see, they have to jump. In this case that are 4 monks with dots. That means those monks not having a dot, are seeing 4 people with a dot. The monks with a dot, are seeing only 3 monks with dots. So they have to jump on the third day. The other monks don't jump cause they would jump on the 4th day. But since the other monks already jumped, they don't.

Correct? [/color]

Nope, that would be a form of communication.

No reflection in the water: God took away ALL means by which they could see themselves, so that includes water.

(As HandEFood pointed out already <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> )

If it was so misty that they couldn't see eachother, I think it's fair to assume they could never see the edge of the cliff. They would've all fallen off <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

No, it wasn't misty <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

There's no coincidence involved - purely intelligence of the monks <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

You're getting close.
-> [color:"#3A495A"]
But I'm sorry to say your answer is wrong <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> Redo the reasoning and figure out why 4 monks with a dot is not the answer we're looking for. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
[/color]

Now I don't have a single clue anymore. But I still think it's very important why they jumped on the third day.

i thought merdenious had a good sollution <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Why was his conclusion wrong?
Because they can't communicate?

Let's take it from here. How do you come to this conclusion - that the number of days is equal to the number of dots seen by the ones who have a dot?

Suppose there are 2 monks with a dot. On day 1, those two monks each see 1 dot. How could either monk know, by seeing one monk with a dot, whether he has a dot or not himself?...

(You're almost there though, you know <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> )

=>[color:"#3A495A"]Still asuming the 2 monks: He can only know it if the other monk doesn't jump on the 1st day either (then the both monks have a dot, and they would jump on the 2nd day). If one of both monks jump on the first day, then the one that jumped only has a dot on his head.
Now back to the normal story, there they jump on the third day,so meaning that there are 3 monks having dots on their heads. So they jump when the number of dots that they see, overrides it with one.[/color]

Man, that's a brain buster, Kejero!

Fair enough, I'll take that as the correct answer <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> I'll post an "extended" explanation now. Well done! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

-> [color:"#3A495A"]
Day one. Suppose there is one monk with a dot.

All monks are standing at the cliff. The monk with the dot doesn't see anyone with a dot, so, since he knows there is at least one monk WITH a dot, he knows he's the one, the only one. So, at 12:00 pm, that one monk would jump.

However, no one jumped the first day, so we know one thing for sure now: there are AT LEAST two monks with a dot.

Day two. We know there are at least 2 dots. Suppose there are exactly 2 dots.

Both monks with a dot, only see one monk with a dot. At that moment they KNOW they have a dot as well, since they know there must be at least two dots. No doubt, they are number two. No doubt, they jump at 12:00 pm.

But no one jumped at day two. Conclusion: there are AT LEAST 3 dots.

Day three. We know there are at least 3 dots. Suppose there are exactly 3 dots.

Each of the three monks with a dot only see 2 dots, so they each know they are number three. They will jump at 12:00 pm.

And they jumped, so there were exactly three monks with a dot, leaving the other monks relieved, because they now, finally, know for sure they don't have a forth dot.




Feel free to question this solution, and check if it is really correct <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> Most people don't believe it because there were 3 dots from the beginning, and by the end of day one, the monks with a dot already knew there were AT LEAST 2 dots, and the other monks even know there were at least 3 dots! So they could've jumped on day two! Right? No, wrong <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> Figure it out <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

[/color]

I promised ya one, didn't I <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

but they could see that others have dots too on the first day..
SO i dont get it :S
why would they only draw the conclusion on the 3rd day?
on the first day, they saw no one jumped, and also saw that according to you, 2 other monks had a dot.
He could immediatly draw the conclusion that he has a dot himself then according to you, but the other monks don't know about their own dots eiter.

Confused <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

On the second day, the monks without dots see three dots, so know they do not need to jump. The monks with a dot see two dots, so there are two possibilities;

A) they do not have a dot, in which case the two other monks with dots will jump (they would only see one dot, and if that monk had the only dot, he would have seen none the day before and jumped then)

B) they do have a dot, in which case they other monks will not jump, since they will also see two other monks with dots.


On the first day, the monks see 2 or 3 dots, but can not figure out if they have a dot until the 2nd or 3rd day, as above.

I was confused with the answer of Kejero but everything is clear with the answer of Raze.
But next time you ask this riddle say that the monks are fearless and very clever because if one of them is stupid, it's doesn't work !

was it said that they had to jump on the same day as there were dots?
like 3 dots -> day 3??

Another one !

You are in a room in which there are two doors A and B.
One of the two doors is the door of Paradise, the other one is the door of Hell.
There is a guard in front of each door.
One of the two guards always says the truth, on the other hand, the other guard lies continuously.
The two guards know each other very well and both of them know which is the Paradise door and which is the Hell door.

You have the right to ask one and only one question to one of the two guards in order to determine with exactitude which is the door of Paradise, door A or door B.

Which is this question ?

That monk one was good, Kejero! Well done!

As for Barta's: [color:"#324372"]"If I asked the other guy if this was the door to paradise, what would he say?"

If it is the door and the guard lies, he'd say "No."
If it is the door and the guard is honest, he'd say "No."
If it isn't the door and the guard lies, he'd say "Yes."
If it isn't the door and the guard is honest, he'd say "Yes."

So if he says "No" you know it's the door to paradise. If he says "Yes", you know it's the other door.

The question forces both a truth plus a lie, leaving nothing left to chance.[/color]

Another one:

Two countries are divided by a bottomless chasm. There is a single bridge spanning the chasm. It takes 5 minutes to cross the bridge. There is a guard hut in the centre of the bridge. The guard comes out every 3 minutes to ensure that no one crosses the bridge illegally. Your country is under evil-dictatorship rule and they're out to get you.

• You cannot legally cross the bridge.
• You cannot hide from the guard.
• The guard is armed and a trained athelete. You're not.
• All other neighbouring countries are under evil-dictatorship rule as well.

How do you escape to the other country and freedom?

@HandEfood
[color:"#324372"]Right answer and good explanation.
Mine was : "If I asked to the other guard to tell me which is the door of Paradise, which door would he indicate ?
Each gard would indicate the wrong door.
Congratulations[/color]

Barta

you pay the guard 100000 Dollar!

No, but until the number of days equals the number of dots, there is no way to be sure if you have a dot or not.

To start, you know there is at least one red dot.

Day 1; If you do not see any dots, you know you must have one, so would jump. Nobody jumped, so there are at least 2 dots.

Day 2; If you see one dot you know you also have one (if not, the single monk with a dot would have jumped the day before) and must jump.

Etc.

If you see y number of dots, then you jump on the y+1 day (assuming nobody jumped the day before). Each monk with a dot will see one less dot than monks without a dot, so would jump one day before (revealing to the rest that they do not have a dot and are off the hook).

The evil-dictator is the only one with that kind of money. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Assuming walking around the guard hut on the opposite side as the guard or climbing along under the bridge both count as hiding, how about building a hang glider? A forged passport? Kidnap the guard's family?

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

@HandEfood - an attempt at The Bridge:
[color:"#324372"]ummm... you scoot across the bridge to just past the halfway point (which takes just over 2 1/2 minutes), and then you turn around and walk slowly back toward the middle, so that when the guard comes out you are going back the way you came. the guard will order you off the bridge, so you obediently turn around again, and continue over to freedom... ?[/color] <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/question.gif" alt="" />

ok, i understand the answer to the monk question, as long as i don't think about it too hard. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Well done, Rincewind! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Wuhoo!! I had the riddle of the monks correct!! Hurray for me <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/party.gif" alt="" />.

For those who like riddles, you should try net riddle. link => Net riddle

You win all the money if you complete all the riddles, I tell you it is very hard. But still very pleasant. You will need to make an account first, and then you can start to play, I just started again with net riddle, and i'm stuck at 1.3.

If anyone starts with it, good luck

That's a famous one <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> There's a variation on it though, which is quite a bit tougher. I'd have to look up the answer myself, cause I've forgotten it and I don't feel like trying to figure it out for myself again. Btw, I never found it myself <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

So you thought the monks were difficult eh?... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


You are in a room with four people, of which two always lie and two always speak the truth. You have to find out which of the two are the liars, and which are the truth-tellers.

You may ask exactly two questions, each addressed to only one person. They have to be yes-or-no questions. It doesn't matter who you ask your questions to (you may ask the same person two questions if you want), or whether you ask two different questions or twice the same question -- do as you please.

Also, each of these people knows from the others whether they are liars or truth-tellers.


You're not allowed to kill these people out of frustration when you don't find the answer <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> (that last sentence is not part of the riddle <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> )

you ask 1 guy if hes a guy
Then you ask the second guy if hes a guy
Then you need one more question <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Whoa, you got it! No wait, you don't.

(For the record: this was not a hint! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> )

I sort of guessed I was wrong <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

Don't know that one kejero, and i don't want to think about it for now, still thrilled from the monks riddle. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Playing net riddle i'm stuck on this one:

I own two time pieces. They both serve a special purpose, for one has the least number of parts, while at the same time the other time piece has the most number of parts.

One's for showing the hour, and one's for showing the minutes?

So far it's looking impossible. Two binary questions to provide one of six results?

Ask two of them "Will you answer 'No' to this question?"

Liars will answer "Yes".
Truth-teller's heads will explode trying to answer the question.

Doesn't provide an answer, but it's fun! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" />

I don't even get the question <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> What's a "time piece"? And is that the full riddle? Cause I'm missing a question mark somewhere <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" /> And what are "parts"? Did I mention I don't get it? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Sorry i forgot to paste the last sentence too, this is the full riddle:

I own two time pieces. They both serve a special purpose, for one has the least number of parts, while at the same time the other time piece has the most number of parts. To continue your so far rather short journey you must tell me the two in that order below.

why don't u make an account too on net riddle and start playing yourself, it's free <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />, we can help each other further in the game. the link stands in one of my previous messages.

This riddle is quite literal. A "time piece" is a device used to keep time (eg. a watch or clock). Think of different ways of keeping time. Which one has the least number of moving parts and which has the most?

[color:"#324372"]a grandfather clock and a sundial?[/color]

You've got the second one.

whats a sundial?

@jvb: Een zonnewijzer

@meren: -> [color:"#324372"]probeer eens "sand glass" (zandloper) <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Misschien anders vertaald, maar meer "parts" dan al die zandkorrels ga je niet vinden in een "time piece" denk ik <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

http://www.trasnochando.com/web/cosas/arena.htm <- My source of inspiration <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> [/color]

(edit: spoiler color <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> )

I can't read German or Belgian (assuming that's what your writing), but I do know that that's the other answer. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

What he means to say is: "try 'hourglass' for the time piece with the most pieces." (it's not 'sandglass', Kejero, it's 'hourglass' <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> )

thx a lot all who have helped, the correct answer was:
[color:"#666666"]sundial hourglass [/color]
------------------------------------------------------------

the next one is easy, at least it was to me:

Well hello again, I suppose you’re expecting another riddle? Well you’re right that is exactly what you get.

Which mountain was the highest mountain before Mount Everest was discovered?
(For you picky people, height is considered the part of the mountain above sea level)
------------------------------------------------------------
then the one after that one, which i also already knew:

Still with us? Good, then I shall continue, time to give you a number pattern riddle, have fun, it’s simpler than it looks, honest.

1

11

21

1112

3112

211213

Continue….

and another one i solved in a couple of minits:

Right, I do believe it’s time to introduce you to someone, Net Riddle is full of characters, this one is probably not very important but other’s may be important, hehe.

Harry's mother had four children. The first child was named April. The second child was named May. The third child was named June. What was the fourth child's name?
------------------------------------------------------------
and now one where i'm stuck at:

Okay now you’ve mastered the individual based riddles, lets try you on a story riddle, here’s the beginning, all you have to do is finish it.

I was walking down the road, when I saw a house wearing…..

the highest mountain, before Mount Everest was discovered was [color:"#304154"] Mount Everest [/color]

the fourth cild is called [color:"#304154"]Harry[/color]

1 [color:"#324352"]one[/color]
11 [color:"#324352"]one one[/color]
21 [color:"#324352"]two ones[/color]
1112 [color:"#324352"]one one, one two[/color]
3112 [color:"#324352"]three ones, one two[/color]
211213 [color:"#324352"]two ones, one two, one three[/color]
[color:"#324352"]312213 three ones, two twos, one three[/color]

Nicely done both of you <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

and another one:

An odd riddle, a little British I feel but still raises a smile.

A smooth room has been, try focusing, it cant be done?

I didn't like NetRiddle much. Some of their riddles, like that last one, relied on culture knowledge.

we still have this one also:


You are in a room with four people, of which two always lie and two always speak the truth. You have to find out which of the two are the liars, and which are the truth-tellers.

I wanna know <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

hmm, I want to know the answer too.

@jvb: you have to change your signature:
I wish Larian a lot of succes with their working on [color:"blue"] riftrunner [/color] , and I hope I will experience as much good times with this game as with divine divinity

I was walking down the road, when I saw a house wearing…..
----
a chimney.

Kejero, I give up on the four guys, two liars... Could you PM me the answer? It's driving me nuts. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

me too <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Ooh right <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> Answer to the "four people, two liars, two truthtellers" riddle:

->[color:"#324372"]Lets call our people A, B, C & D

T = always tells the truth
L = always lies

"Same" means both liars or both truthtellers.
"Different" means one is a liar and one tells the truth.
Ask D "IF A AND B ARE DIFFERENT, is A a truth-teller?"

--If D answers yes,
----Ask A "Are B and C the same?"

------If A answers yes
------A=T, B=L, C=L, D=T

------If A answers no
------A=L, B=T, C=T, D=L


--If D answers no,
----Ask A "Are B and D the same?"

------If A answers yes
------A=T, B=L, C=T, D=L

------If A answers no
------A=L, B=T, C=L, D=T


--If D doesn't answer, then it means that
--A and B are the same.
----Ask A "Are C & D the same?"

------If A answers yes,
------A=T, B=T, C=L, D=L

------If A answers no,
------A=L, B=L, C=T, D=T

Explanation: there are six different outcomes, you only get 2 questions. The questions can only be answered yes or no. There is no stipulation that anyone MUST answer a question.
[/color]

This is the simple solution. I'll save you the complex one <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

Sorry it took me so long to reply ... I've been away and only recently returned.

Answer to the Jumping Monks:
[color:"#324372"]
When God tells the monks that the dotted ones must jump at "EXACTLY the same time", these devout literalists realize that there is only one way to meet God's definition of EXACTLY: only one monk must jump. Being men of Faith, and believing that God would not pose a challenge that was IMPOSSIBLE for them to achieve, they deduced the only possible answer: precisely one monk was dotted, no more, no less. Otherwise, if two or more monks were to jump even one trillionth of a nanosecond apart, multiple monks could not possibly meet the EXACTLY requirement.

Comforted by this knowledge, they all walk to the cliff to watch the Chosen One jump off of the cliff on the first day. Of course, the Chosen One would be the only monk who would see that no other monk had a dot on his forehead. Thus, he would know immediately that he is the Chosen One.

Had he sufficient Faith and Courage, he would have jumped then and there on the very first day. But, he did not.

It took three days for the Chosen One to work up the courage to jump. When he finally did, he EXACTLY fulfilled the requirements of God, and (presumably) the World was Saved. [/color]

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" /> Technically, isn't that two questions?

If D was a liar, why couldn't [color:"#3A495A"]he answer if A and B were the same[/color]? If he tells the truth, [color:"#3A495A"]does not answering mean A and B are the same, or that he is confused trying to answer a conditional question as 'yes' or 'no'[/color]?
Also technically, [color:"#3A495A"]didn't you say you could ask two questions, not that you could get two yes/no answers[/color]?


BeeGee;
All of the monks would willingly sacrifice themselves if they knew for sure that they had a red dot. This means that on the first day, all of the monks must have seen at least one dot. Had there been only one dot the monk would not have seen any (and would have jumped knowing he had the dot), so there must be at least two monks with red dots....

Read previous posts for the solution.

Beegee, you're right about the "EXACTLY". Good job I adviced to ignore the "EXACTLY the same time" and replace it by "12 p.m." <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> And before you go cranky on me ( <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> ), since I've written 12 p.m. without any seconds, that would give them a range of one minute to jump <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> See, you're wrong, and I'm right. Blah <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

But at least you tried <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> That counts. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

( <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> )

I disagree. Nothing in the original riddle stated that the monks had a death-wish or the devoutness to willingly sacrifice themselves. In fact, I would argue that God would not have challenged them if it was a given that they would willingly sacrifice themselves without hesitation ... the only reason for God to challenge them (if that was the case) was to see if they were smart enough to solve the riddle: a petty God indeed, if that was the case.

Nonetheless, as to the multiple dotted monk issue, the situation would have been untenable. If you were one of the monks and saw one or more other monks with the dot, you would (a) know that those monks would not know that they had a dot, (b) have absolutely no way to communicate to them that they had the dots, and (c) wonder if you, yourself, had a dot. As the riddle is stated, there is provably no algorithmic solution for any case where the number of dotted monks (X) is any value other than one (1).

Thus, algorithmically, if the value of X is not equal to one (1), then the World would not end if and only if the monks GUESSED right, since they can not possibly KNOW how many dots were given. I doubt that the correct answer to the riddle is that the monks GUESSED correctly -- although I will concede it is possible -- in which case, no one could PROVE that their answer is "the soultion." PROOF, as you know, requires that you disprove all possible negatations of the solution. That's what the one monk solution does. No other solution posted here has met that criterion. Q.E.D.

Stating that the jump occured on the third day does not change the underlying logic, and makes solving the riddle just a little more interesting by adding an irrelevant detail. It is a classic deceptive trick, added to confuse the reader and make solving it taste a little sweeter.

Nope. Given a situation, you ask whether something is true or not. "Suppose this is true, would that be true?". The first part is not a question, it's a hypothetical fact.

One or two questions: "If my socks have different colors, is my left sock orange?"
Suppose you're a liar, and suppose my socks are the same color. Suppose they're green.
Since you ALWAYS lie, you will never answer the truth. Now, the first part of my question, turns the whole question into a hypothetical situation: the fact that my socks are both green becomes irrelevant, and there is no way to KNOW whether my left sock would be orange, if my socks were a different color. So, the answer to the question COULD be either yes or no. And so, you can't answer either because either COULD be true, and you NEVER tell the truth. If you answered, you COULD be telling the truth, so for once in your life you realise you have to shut up! (To put it gently <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />)
Then again, you probably got that part, on to the other technical issue:



A yes or no question is simply a question that can only be answered by yes or no. Hey, that's common knowledge. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />
There would be no point in saying you can only ask yes or no questions if they can answer anything they want. They could answer "non of your g*dd*mn business" and then what? Then, compadre, we have a really stupid riddle <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

(You don't really want me to post the complex answer to be happy, do you? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" /> )

BeeGee;

[color:"orange"]I disagree. Nothing in the original riddle stated that the monks had a death-wish[/color]

If a monk knows he has a red dot, he can either not jump and doom the entire world (including himself) to death, or he can jump, save the world and earn some bonus points from god.

[color:"orange"]As the riddle is stated, there is provably no algorithmic solution for any case where the number of dotted monks (X) is any value other than one (1).[/color]

Only if you assume a monk can wait an indefinite number of days before jumping if he knows he has a red dot. If you and another monk have a red dot, the only way to coordinate when to jump is to jump the day you are sure you have a red dot.

[color:"orange"]Thus, algorithmically, if the value of X is not equal to one (1), then the World would not end if and only if the monks GUESSED right[/color]

There is no need to guess. Count the number of dots you see and jump the day after that. All the monks with dots will see one less than those without, and will jump the day before (showing the rest of the monks they do not have a red dot and do not need to jump).


Kejero;

[color:"orange"]Nope. Given a situation, you ask whether something is true or not. "Suppose this is true, would that be true?". The first part is not a question, it's a hypothetical fact.[/color]

If conditional questions that can not be answered (thus providing information) with a yes or no do not count as questions, then that defeats the purpose limiting the number of question you can ask. Any such riddle is no longer a riddle, but a series of conditional question iterating over the possible solution until one question is answered.

Here is the solution with a single yes/no question (using your definition);

[*] If A and B tell the truth and C is a liar, is D a liar?
[*] If A and C tell the truth and B is a liar, is D a liar?
[*] If A and D....

[color:"orange"]You don't really want me to post the complex answer to be happy, do you?[/color]

Not if the complex answer also uses conditional question that do not count if the condition is not met.

But that isn't a yes-or-no quesiton. It's a yes-or-no-or-other question. By adding the condition, you force the posibility of a third answer: nothing or "A and B aren't different."

Although, I do like the answer you gave. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> It's jut a symantics thing. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

what you do is go up to them if they are a man.

the 2 who are truthful say yes.

the 2 untruthful have to say no and so they say no.

simple. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

"what you do is go up to them if they are a man."

Unfortunately, that would not always identify everyone in two questions. If you talked to either the two truth tellers or two liars first that would work, but if you talked to one liar and one truth teller, you would need an additional question to identify the other two people.

Raze

>>If conditional questions that can not be answered (thus providing information) with a yes or no do not count as questions

I never said the question doesn't count as question... I said the whole sentence is one question, and not two, as you stated.

"If A and B are different, is A a liar?" <- Is this one question or two?

-> Answer me this question: "If A and B are different?"



<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />



The only really misleading aspect I see is the "yes or no" questions: however, the fact that they are questions that can only be answered by yes or no, doesn't rule out they simply can't be answered.

Compare it to a paradox. Maybe you know this one:


On a card there are 3 statements.

----------------------------------
a. This sentence has five words.
b. This sentence has two verbs.
c. Exactly one sentence on this card is true.
----------------------------------

Question: is statement c true or false?


Do we agree that the question is a "true or false" question? Altering the question a bit, even turns it into a "yes or no" question:

----------------------------------
Question: Is statement c true?
----------------------------------

So there, I've asked a yes or no question. But can you answer it?

don't understand this sentence (2x one). But yes, I'd say one sentence of these 3 is correct => sentence A has 5 words.
Sentence B does not have 2 verbs.
So statement c is true.
Kiya

Exactly one sentence on this card is true?

Errh, correction: Statement c is WRONG: there are 2 correct statements on this cards (A+C) >1 => untrue

Beegee

That's the difference between a story and a (serious) riddle: they don't take place in our universe, they're bound by the rules given. They have their own universe. A monk is not a human being anymore, it's a mere object that lives by the rules of the riddle. Since nobody wants to read a 100-page description of a universe, before even being presented with the problem itself, the universe of a riddle is usually given in only a few lines. Hence, you can "assume" certain basic consequences, given the basic rules. If it is said the monks with a dot have to jump, you have to assume they will jump. You can't assume they would doubt or stall, because then there's no point in giving rules anymore. The result is pure luck (or "guessing"), and a (serious) riddle never has luck or guessing as an answer. Again, that's the point of a riddle, it's purely theoritical, it doesn't have to be credible in the universe as we know it. It's not a story.

I know dozens of riddles that could be "solved" by assuming the "objects" have doubts, use their mobile phone to call for a helicopter, just think by themselves "up yours" or suddenly get super-powers. But what's the point of presenting a problem in a different universe if that's how you're gonna solve it?

You're possibly not convinced by that little speach <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> but let's just wrap it up like this: if you're figuring out an answer to a riddle, and your answer involves luck or guessing, you can be pretty sure you're wrong. That's the way riddles work. But it doesn't mean you have to like it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

See, that's what I mean with the paradox:

If C is true, then we have the following situation: A is true, B is false, and C is true. However, in this situation we have two sentences that are true. Since C says "there is exactly one sentence true", statement C can't be true.

So C is false? Suppose C is false, that would mean there is more than one (or none) sentences true. We now have the situation: A is true, B is false, C is false. However, in this situation there is exactly one statement on the card that is true. Hence, statement C can't be false.

Paradox: C is neither true or false. There is simply no way to answer the question. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" />

Whops, typo. Corrected it. If that caused the confusion, I'm truly sorry <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shame.gif" alt="" />

[color:"orange"]I never said the question doesn't count as question... I said the whole sentence is one question, and not two, as you stated.

"If A and B are different, is A a liar?" <- Is this one question or two?[/color]

That conditional question can be broken down into two separate questions that provide the same information (except the liar is not prevented from answering if the condition is not true);

'Are A and B different?' / 'Is A a liar?'

These could be better phrased such as;

"If I asked you 'does A tell the truth?', would you say yes?'

so that a liar and a truth teller would answer the same way.


[color:"orange"]-> Answer me this question: "If A and B are different?"[/color]

The fact that the condition is not phrased as a question doesn't change the fact that you can link several questions into one by using a conditional question. The example I gave (asking a question about a question) is valid, IMNSHO, since it is a straight yes/no question, rather than yes/no/'your condition is not true' and gives you one piece of information, rather than one or two (with the first impossible to lie about).


[color:"orange"]The only really misleading aspect I see is the "yes or no" questions: however, the fact that they are questions that can only be answered by yes or no, doesn't rule out they simply can't be answered.[/color]

Then why the methodical reasoning on the two guards / two doors riddle? Why not just ask;
'if the door on the right leads to paradise, is red your favourite colour?'
That would simplify the explanation, since you would not have to follow the logic of asking which door the other guard would point to, depending on whether you were talking to the liar or the truth teller.


[color:"orange"]Compare it to a paradox.[/color]

Why? It is not a paradox. It is a question of semantics; what counts as a valid yes/no question and if it is legitimate to phrase a question so that the inability to answer with yes or no still provides you with information the same as a yes/no question would (actually better, since a liar can not answer if a condition is false) and being able to answer gives you two pieces of information (confirming the condition and answering the question).

I understand your reasoning. And you're right. I also agree it isn't a paradox, and it is a matter of semantics.

The part where we disagree is that I consider the question as one question, and you as two questions, right?

I agree that the conditional part in the question, provides more information than a basic yes or no question. But, if we don't consider the people who're bound by rules when they answer it, and just look at the question itself: it still has only two possible answers: yes or no. You can't consider no answer as an answer, despite the fact that we would learn from it. Not an answer is not an answer. If not an answer were an answer, then it would be an answer. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> Two opposite things can't be the same at the same time. So, the question only has two possible answers: yes and no.
I'm not sure why I'm writing that, since it's not really to the point, but it sounds good, so I'll leave it there.

Now, why do I disagree that it is really two questions? Because I don't think that because you can learn more from it than you can from an elementary yes/no question, that this means the question isn't still a yes/no question. The second part of the question, is entirely connected to the first part. They're only half questions if you'd ask them seperately (you could ask them seperately, but they wouldn't be the same questions then). One can't do without the other, they're one whole. You can tear them apart into two seperate questions, but you'd have to change the questions: then you're proving your point with different questions. You're saying they are two questions, but you prove it with other questions...

That's how I see it. Semantics, I suppose. I guess it's like taste. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

The reasons why I posted that paradox:
- To show that a yes/no question is still a yes/no question, which only has two possible answers (yes and no), EVEN if the answer can't be given. But the fact that you can't answer it (or, in the riddle, that you learn more than yes or no), doesn't mean it's not a yes or no question anymore. But I realize that wasn't your point. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
- I wanted to post that paradox anyway <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


PS: I saw the part about glutton for punishment <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />
At least it's a change from another Iraq discussion <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

"The part where we disagree is that I consider the question as one question, and you as two questions, right?"

It is one question (though functionally equivalent to two separate questions), but IMO not a valid yes/no question. I still don't see why a liar could not answer if the condition was not met; would that make the answer less of a lie?


"You can't consider no answer as an answer"

It is an answer, though. In this case the question was specifically designed to ensure that.


"The second part of the question, is entirely connected to the first part."

No it isn't. A and B can be the same or different, completely independent of whether A tells the truth or not.


"The reasons why I posted that paradox:"

That is an interesting paradox, but you don't need a paradox to ask a question that can not be answered with a yes or no. ...
Yes, or no; have you stopped beating your spouse/mate/partner yet?
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />


"PS: I saw the part about glutton for punishment"

I realized after the fact it was rather silly to ask about the two guard/door riddle, then say it was pointless to continue the discussion (unless you were a glutton for punishment {to put that in context}), even if just teasing you about being wrong.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

Because a liar wouldn't be a liar if he spoke the truth. Given the condition isn't met, his answer could be either true or false. No matter what he'd answer, there's a chance he'd tell the truth. But since he can NEVER tell the truth, he just can't answer it.


It is designed for us to draw a conclusion if the person who's supposed to answer it, can't answer the question. Maybe it's just a matter of perspective: from the person's point of view, he can't answer it. If he did answer, he could contradict his own characteristic of being a liar/truthteller, so giving an answer is not an option. So he doesn't give an answer.
From our point of view, we could consider his inability to give an answer, as an answer though. We learn from it, and if you consider any kind of feedback as an "answer", then yes, it's an answer. But I don't see a "no answer" as an answer.
Suppose I'm only allowed to ask you a yes/no question. You have to lie. I ask you "Am I showing two fingers?" and I hide them behind my back, so you can't see them.
You can't answer it because you may only answer with yes or no, and either way, you could be telling the truth.
Do you consider your inability to answer as an answer as well? I think the fact that in this case I don't learn anything from your inability to answer, is irrelevant. At least, from your point of view (the liar), it is irrelevant.


But the answer is different (if asked seperately), how can the question be the same?


I know I didn't have to, but I wanted to. So I did. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


I don't feel teased yet <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> Or wrong <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> But do keep trying! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Ahh... Paradoxical fun!

A barber shaves everyone in town that does not shave themself. Does the barber shave himself?

Another riddle which can be answered:

A man is in a helicopter. It is running low on fuel. It is extremely foggy with only about 20 meters visibility. He is next to a building where someone is working. The pilot writes a sign "Where am I?" The office worker replies "In a helicopter." With that, the helicopter pilot knew how to return to the airfield where he landed safely.

How did he do it?

"Because a liar wouldn't be a liar if he spoke the truth. Given the condition isn't met, his answer could be either true or false. No matter what he'd answer, there's a chance he'd tell the truth."

The condition not being met does not magically change the facts, though. Suppose;
A=T B=T C=L D=L

Ask D "if A and B are different, is A a truth-teller?"

A and B are not different, but asking the question does not change who is a liar and who tells the truth. If D replies 'no' it is still a lie.
If you want to say the condition then makes it a hypothetical situation different from reality if the condition is not met, then what is to prevent the question from applying to a hypothetical situation differing from reality when it is met?


In the case of being asked if someone is holding up two fingers behind their back, you do not know the truth, so can not definitely answer yes or no (information the asker already had), and the inability to answer is not an answer.
In the riddle, the inability to answer the conditional question truthfully answers the question 'are A and B different?'.

Speaking of which, lets say A and B both tell the truth, but A is a male 250lb football player and B is a female 90lb office manager. Now you ask D 'If A and B are different...' .....


"But the answer is different (if asked seperately), how can the question be the same?"

Functionally, you can phrase two separate questions to get the exact same information.


"I don't feel teased yet <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> Or wrong <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> But do keep trying! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> "

The reason you didn't realize you were being teased is because you are still in a delusional state believing you are right about the riddle.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />



The helicopter riddle;
[color:"#3A495A"]The information was 100% accurate, yet completely useless, so the pilot knew he was outside Microsoft's support building, and thus where the airport was relative to his current location.[/color] <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

the building has the airfield? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Yup! A silly one, but I tought it was necessary. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I think Kejero's riddle has a technical flaw. I do like and support Kejero's answer, but I agree with Raze that a liar can answer falsly to the question if A and B are different.

Now why do I have the feeling the "infinite loop A, B, C, D" entered this thread? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />
Kiya

"the building has the airfield?"

No, but if the building is 20 miles south of the airport, and you know you are at the building, you just need to fly 20 miles north to get to the airport.


"I do like and support Kejero's answer"

That defective riddle stole an hour of my life I'll never get back!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/memad.gif" alt="" />


"Now why do I have the feeling the "infinite loop A, B, C, D" entered this thread?"

Because Kejero is using flawed logic? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

And how long have you been arguing your point? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shhh.gif" alt="" /> HEF; Raze wants to argue back this hour <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" />
Kiya

The riddle was an exercise in futility, trying to come up with two valid yes/no questions that could be used to extrapolate more information than was readily apparent. Several attempts to link questions to reveal information about more than one person turned out to be inadequate, reducing to the equivalent of two separate, direct questions.

However, an argument (especially when you are clearly winning) can be enjoyable (at least for a time, winning this easily should start to get boring soon). <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

I know. Friendly arguments can be fun. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Hey, you haven't won yet <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

You're right: the facts aren't magically changed. But I believe you're still missing the influence the condition has on the question itself. Actually, it's more than a little difference: it has a huge impact. Let's go abstract <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/freak.gif" alt="" />

Suppose: A=T B=T C=L D=L

The facts are that A and B are the same. And D always lies. That is the reality. And you're right: these are facts. Can't change them.

Even if I ask "if A and B are different", in reality A and B are still the same. And D is still a liar.
True.

In this reality.

However: I'm asking "is A a truth-teller, supposing that A and B are different?". What does that condition change?

It doesn't change the fact that D knows, that in this reality A is a truth-teller.

But, A and B aren't different in this reality, so what I'm asking is if "A is a truth-teller" in another reality:

a reality where A and B are different. A parallel universe if you want. And there is simply no way for D to know anything about that other reality: in that reality A could be a liar as well as a truth-teller.

Hence, if D says that in that reality A is a liar, he's only guessing: he could be wrong and he could be right.

However, it is stated that he ALWAYS lies, so guessing is not allowed. He doesn't know anything about the "parallel universe" I'm asking about, so he can't lie about it.

That's the difference: if the condition isn't met, I'm not asking about the actual situation anymore. This reality has nothing to do with my question.




It was stated that in my answer to this riddle, "the same" means both liars or both truth-tellers. Similar for "different" - read the answer to the riddle again, cause I'm sensing a flaw in your argumentation <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />



I guess in some other reality, you've proven me wrong, but not in this one <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[edit]Little typo and flaw in my own argumentation. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />
Whew <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shhh.gif" alt="" />

"Hey, you haven't won yet"

Do you want me to come back, so you can bite my legs off? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch.
Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off!
Black Knight: No, it isn't.
Arthur: Well, what's that then?
Black Knight: I've had worse.


"It was stated that in my answer to this riddle, "the same" means both liars or both truth-tellers."

Yes, but that is only for this reality, when the condition 'If A and B are different' is met. Once A and B are both liars or both truth tellers, we are talking about a different reality, in which your original conventions may or may not be applicable.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

Aha, so you're reaching the state now where you're defending your point without arguments and countering mine with diversions... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" /> Trying to bleed on me? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


The conventions are made to describe the different reality in the first place.
They were also written in English. You're saying that because A and B are the same, in the reality as we know it I wasn't speaking English, but a language that resembles it and I could just as well have been saying "Oh, suit you, sir!".
But you were joking, right? I mean, bleeding <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/badsmile2.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

The ladies love a man in a suit sir! Will you be giving her a good seeing-to then sir? Suits you sir!

back to the monks:

They are stupid:
The first day, no one jumped, and the earth still existed.
The second day no one jumped either and the earth still wasn't destroyed.

They all knew god didn't give a time limit.

Couldn't they come to the conclusion they didn't have to jump at all? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Typical of this age to make thing harder than they are <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

That's like... a paradox! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" /> God said the dots had to jump! He didn't say when they had to jump, so technically, they're allowed to wait forever. But, if they wait forever, the dots never jump, and if the dots never jump, God will destroy the earth! Except that they're allowed to wait forever, so they don't have to jump. But they have to jump... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" />
jvb, what are you doing to me! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

sorry I tried to read your crazyness over other riddles and then it suddenly struck me <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

What are we gonna do now? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

God should have specified he would destroy the world if they failed to jump the day they knew who had the red dots.


another riddle;

Inspector Craig of Scotland Yard was called to Transylvania to solve some cases of vampirism. Arriving there, he found the country inhabited both by vampires and humans. Vampires always lie and humans always tell the truth. However, half the inhabitants, both human and vampire, are insane and totally deluded in their beliefs: all true propositions they believe false, and all false propositions they believe true. The other half of the inhabitants are completely sane: all true statements they know to be true, and all false statements they know to be false. Thus sane humans and insane vampires make only true statements; insane humans and sane vampires make only false statements. Inspector Craig met two sisters, Lucy and Minna. He knew that one was a vampire and one was a human, but knew nothing about the sanity of either. Here is the interview:

Craig (to Lucy) : Tell me about yourselves?

Lucy : We are both insane.

Craig (to Minna) : Is that true?

Minna : Of course not!

From this interview alone, Craig was able to prove which of the sisters was the vampire. Who was it?

if lucy is a human and tells the truth, minna can't be a vampire, cause if the vampire would lie she would say "yes we are" when she was sane, and offcourse not when she was insane. because she had to tell the truth.

If lucy is a vampire who is sane and makes the same statement, they can't be both crazy.
she lies with saying that they are both insane when she is sane, and her sister says they arent both insane, so the minna tells the truth. so she must be the sane human. while lucy is the sane vampire.

Am i correct?

Ohhhh! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> You're not - trying to <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> - insult just me here, but everybody else who supports the answer, and the people who invented it!

I should, but I'm not giving up on you guys! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/badsmile2.gif" alt="" />
Look, I know the explanation with "different realities" sounds a little "sci-fi". <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" /> It sounds surreal - but that happens to be the whole point in the first place, that's exactly what I've been trying to prove the whole time! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" />
A condition has a consequence depending on whether it's met or not. The direct consequence of this condition when not being met, is that the situation I'm asking a question about isn't real.

You disagree that the condition doesn't have any effect on the question in the second part. Suppose I ask you "Is tomorrow Monday?". In reality, tomorrow it's Friday, so the answer is "no".
Now, you are saying that the following question is exactly the same as the one above: "If today is Sunday, is tomorrow Monday?". It obviously isn't same question, because the correct answer to the first question is "no", and the answer to the second one is "yes". Do you agree that the condition made it a completely different question?

That part was easy <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> It was already surreal though, but we still KNEW the answer, because it's a certainty that Monday ALWAYS follows after Sunday. The situation with the people in that room is different of course:
Make "Is A a truth-teller?" question (1).
If I'd ask today "If tomorrow is Monday, is A a truth-teller?" (2), the condition wouldn't change anything about the fact that A is ALWAYS a truth-teller, always been, always will be. It does change the question (1) though, despite the fact that the answer (2) would be the same as (1). Not in this situation perhaps, because A ALWAYS lies. But if we were in the situation where A lies on day 1, speaks the truth on day 2, lies on day 3 etc., it would have an influence on the answer (2). Still we didn't change the question (2), just the circumstances. But the fact that in this situation the condition doesn't change the answer (2), doesn't mean that it doesn't change the question (2). So we've got our question (2), and we already said that A is ALWAYS telling the truth. Same with B. B will ALWAYS be a truth-teller. Obviously, this means that A and B will ALWAYS be "the same". That's reality, mr A and ms B, you two will always be the same. You don't have to like it, but it's reality, accept it.
If I now ask mr D "Is A a truth-teller", he will answer "no". Because in reality, A is a truth-teller, and D is lying.
(Btw, lying = deliberatly not telling the truth. That means that in order for you to be able to lie, you have to KNOW the correct answer, you have to KNOW the truth. Agree?)
Now, what if I ask: "If the sky is red, ... ?" If the sky is red? But the sky isn't red you surreal weirdo! No, it isn't. If the sky is red we must be dreaming or hallucinating or something... In any way, we can't be in reality anymore if the sky is red, because the sky isn't "really" red, the sky being red isn't "real"... And we have simply no way to know anything about facts in this "surreality" - it's a purely hypothetical reality. So how can you possibly lie about anything if you can't KNOW the answer in the first place?

The explanation with parallel universes? Sure <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> :
I wasn't asking "Is A a truth-teller?", I was asking "Is A a truth-teller in a surreality", or "Is A a truth-teller in a situation that is different than this one".
A parallel universe = a theoritical reality in which one or more things have happened differently then it has in our reality. Considering that in theory, every reality in which one single event was different from the event in every other reality, is a parallel universe, the number of parallel universes is uncountable.
"Parallel universes" sounds funny, but that's what I'm asking: "Is A a truth-teller in a parallel universe?". The fact whether parallel universes exist is irrelevent; what matters is that they're defined, and according to the definition of a parallel universe, there is un indefinit number out of them there. In an uncountable number of those parallel universes, A is a liar. In as many other parallel universes, A is a truth-teller. So the condition given in the question is obviously not enough information for D to know what parallel universe we're asking questions about.


I warned you you have to think abstract if you want to understand and appreciate the answer, didn't I? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Do you still disagree? If so, it should be easy enough to show the flaw in the explanation. And laughing it away is not a valid argument - I can do that too <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />


I'm feeling more and more insane looking at the size of this very reply. Did I really write that much?? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" />




Speaking of insanity: [color:"#324372"]Lucy better stay off my neck! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> (You call that a riddle? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/badsmile2.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> ) [/color]

I think they are either both sane or insane. Doesn't matter what, but they're "the same", if you know what I mean <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> Lucy's indeed the vampire though <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

second riddle i solved <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
With 1st one being the monks one <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

"Am i correct?"

Yes. Here is the cut-and-paste solution;


There are only two possible cases that could occur given the statements of the girls:

Case 1: They are both insane, which would mean that Lucy must be telling the truth. Since the only insane creature that can tell the truth is the vampire, this makes Minna a human, and since she must be lying by saying that Lucy's statement is false, this makes her an insane human.

Case 2: They are both sane. This could occur if Lucy's statement is a lie, which would make her either an insane human or a sane vampire. This would mean that Minna is telling the truth, which would make her either a sane human or an insane vampire. If Minna were an insane vampire, then her statement would be true, meaning that both must be not be insane. In this case, Lucy must be a sane human, which would tell the truth; however since Lucy's statement is that they are both insane, this would be a lie in this case, so we can rule out the possibility that Minna is an insane vampire and that Lucy is a sane human (at the same time). This leaves Minna being a sane human, which makes her statement true, meaning that both are not insane. Lucy would therefore be a vampire (since we know that one is a vampire and one is a human) and since her statement of them both being insane would be false, she must be a sane vampire. Since this condition agrees with the first condition in this argument, then this is the only possibility for this case.

Summary : The only possible outcomes are;

Lucy is an insane vampire, and Minna is an insane human.
OR
Lucy is a sane vampire, and Minna in a sane human.

Conclusion :
In either of the cases, Lucy must be a vampire, and Minna must be a human.

yes, I got that right then <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
you guys have any more riddles ? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Tons of em! How about another abstract one? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Here's some maths for a change: how to prove that 2 = 1. Not really a riddle, but a mathematical flaw. (Moeha! Especially for Raze: a real flaw! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/badsmile2.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" /> )
It's a pretty well known one though, so you're likely to have seen it already.

Given: a = b

=> a² = ab
=> a² - b² = ab - b²
=> (a + b)(a - b) = b (a - b)
=> (a + b) = b
=> a + a = a
=> 2a = a

=> 2 = 1 !!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

EDIT: Double post.

[color:"#324372"]Because a = b, (a - b) is 0 in the third line. To get from the third to the forth line, you divide both sides by (a - b). You divide by 0. That's the problem...[/color]

Another fairly simple one:

Travelling to town, you arrive at a cross-roads.

Northern sign reads: This way to the town.

Western sign reads: This way there be dragons. Two of these signs are false.

Eastern sign reads: This way there be dragons. One of these signs are false.

Which way to the town?

follow the one who directs you to the town? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

whoever can tell me what this says gets a cookie!!

YYURYYUBICURYY4ME

Nope.


~[color:"#324352"]Too wise you are, too wise you be. I see you are two wise for me.[/color]~


This one is from a Steel Eye Span song:

White bird, featherless,
Flew from paradise,
Lit on a castle wall.
Along came Lord Landless,
Took it up handless,
Rode along horseless,
To the King's white hall.

We don't actually know the answer to this one. Any ideas?

here you go, handefood!!

<arhm!>

Thank you! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

@ hef, but whats the question? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

What is it? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Alex has been trying to work it out for 14 years now, and I've been trying for 4 years. We're stumped.

Are you sure that it is a riddle? I mean, there doesn't seem asked something.

edit: after using the help of my good friend mister google i found an answer, altough i still don't get what the question is:[color:"#3A495A"] snow[/color]

[color:"#3A495A"]Snow[/color]? Though maybe it just doesn't have an 'answer'?

Faile, are you aware that the consumption of brains causes mad cow disease?

The following question is not rhetorical and was brought to mind by clicking on Faile's link.
What does a vegetarian cannibal eat?

The following question is rhetorical.
If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?

Cleglaw

It sounds right for the first half of the riddle, but what about the rest? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

[color:"#3A495A"]wind[/color]?

Maybe. Can you explain it?

Along came Lord Landless, - what is more landless than wind? Being above everything it is also quite lordly, in the nobleman sense of the word

Took it up handless, - wind can pick things up...

Rode along horseless, - ...and blow them around or along the ground; tumble weeds, snow, whatever

To the King's white hall. - between falling and drifting snow, the hall is bound to get whiter, if it wasn't to start with

That all makes sense, but what is "it"? Snow doesn't tend to leave the ground once it's landed. A white flower, perhaps?

Lord Landless might also be a river?

What could the "castle wall" be? Is it literal?

hee hee. who says i'm not mad already?

[image]http://divdev.pixelice.be/text2schild.php?smilie=8&fontcolor=0000FF&shadowcolor=00FFFF&shieldshadow=1&text=You%27re+not+mad+already." border="0[/image]

Scientists now have found the astonishing hint that the thhing you've called "cow desease" (Creutzfeld-Jakob-Desease) might have something to do with a kind of failed wake.-up from winter rest (what we call "Winterschlaf" in German), because the proteins found to be causing this, were also found in animals making the deep winter rest or winter sleep.

Therefore, the scienticts are puzzled what's actually going on there.

"Snow doesn't tend to leave the ground once it's landed."

Maybe in Australia there isn't enough snow to be blown around, but wind in Canada can cause white outs or reduced visibility long after the snow stops falling, or (much more commonly) just cause snow drifts.


"Lord Landless might also be a river?"

Could be, but rivers don't pick things up as well as wind, and, except for serious design flaws, don't usually ride into castle halls.


"What could the "castle wall" be? Is it literal?"

I took it as literal since there wasn't much to go on otherwise. Perhaps it could be a row of trees or cliff face.

Quote(bold italics are mine):
"
Scientists now have found the astonishing hint that the thhing you've called "cow desease" (Creutzfeld-Jakob-Desease) might have something to do with a kind of failed wake.-up"

Cleglaw

this is me making talking motions with my hand and rolling my eyes. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

You should get something for that.

you only have one hand? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

so make sure you get someone to give you a hand! ... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

You cheeky little orc... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" />

well, since you're such a sweetheart, jurak, i thought for sure you'd give me yours! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/kissyou.gif" alt="" />

OK. What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Cleglaw

<fwip>

@faile.... i'd give 'em both to you if you needed them! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />



answer to one handed clapper= ......whoosh! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shhh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Good guess, but not correct.

Cleglaw

1. take the chicken
2. go back and bring the fox
3. bring the chicken back, get the grain and bring that across
4. go back. bring the chicken across again.


What is the one time in the year when it is impossible to get a traffic ticket in Texas?

Bring the chick. Go back and get the wolf. Bring the chick back and get the grain. Take the grain across and then go back bring the chick across again.

What is the one time in the year when it is impossible to get a traffic ticket in Texas?

any time

Ha Ha. Actually I had 2 speeding tickets in 2002. Try again. tThere is an answer--not a joke.

Not knowing Texas very well, is there a day when they close the roads?

It has nothing to do with road closures. Actually this same time would apply in most states of the USA, though not quite all.

All time pre 1896?

Yup, but nope. Besides that would be true for all 50 states and I gave a hint when I said it is not true for quite all.

I know. I was being a smart [nocando]. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Wanna nother hint?

hey try this riddle

in the morning walks on four legs, at midday walks with two legs and at it walks on three legs what is it?

humans--hands and knees, then 2 legs, then 2 legs with a cane.

All right here is another hint on my riddle: What is the one time in the year when it is impossible to get a traffic ticket in Texas?
While the answer to this is true in most states, it does not hold true for Arizona, Hawaii and parts of Indiana.

Here's my guess: [color:"#2F4062"]

I imagine it has to do with the change from Daylight Savings Time to Standard Time, each Spring when we leap forward from 2:00am to 3:00am. That leaves a full hour that doesn't actually exist each year, thus making it impossible to earn a ticket during that period.

Not to mention the occasional "leap second" when scientists decide to screw up everyone's non-Cesium clocks. [/color]

Now for a new riddle:

Question: What does a man do standing up, a woman do sitting down, and a dog do on three legs?

Answer: [color:"#2F4062"]Shake hands[/color]

Very good Bee Gee. What does a vegetarian cannibal eat?

Alex says "Vegetarians."

I was thinking the daylight savings jump for the traffic ticket riddle too. But that's technically not a time.

Next clue for a clueless Aussie?

Bee Gee was right. Twixt 2:00 and 3:00 AM that 1 Sunday in April when the time changes.

Good guess on the cannibals and I guess I have to consider it to be an alternate answer, but it is not the one I was looking for.

...vegetables?

nothing, and they starve to death.

They only eat people who are in a coma.

i have to confess, i don't really get that one. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Well, cannibals don't just eat their own species. In fact, I'm fairly certain that they eat a lot of other things and add spices and vegies to their "meals".

And, vegetarians (believe it or not) don't just eat vegies, either. Microscopic animals inhabit many of the vegies that we eat (yuck!), so ingesting vegies really means ingesting a little "meat" in addition to vegies. Also, humans can not survive without the symbiotic affect of microscopic "animals" in their digestive tract. How did those little animals get there in the first place? They were ingested. Thus, every vegetarians' very survival depends upon the fact that s/he has "eaten" animals.

Therefore, neither "vegetarian" nor "cannibal" are religiously, scientifically, or rigorously exclusive categories or behaviors.

I am guessing that a vegetarian cannibal eats pretty much the same things the rest of us do. Meanwhile, s/he espouses a lifestyle that proclaims distaste for carnivorous diets, yet espouses cannibalism.

Or, is this one of those riddles that has a sick "silly pun" as an answer? Something like: "the fruits of her labors" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/suspicion.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/down.gif" alt="" />

I hope not.

Well... someone who doesn't move or think or speak (who is in a coma in other words) is often compared to a vegetable. Never heard the expression 'I don't want to live like a vegetable' - or 'like a plant'?

ah, i see now. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />
thanks.