This should be easy for someone like you, Anon.

File: 98 KB, 627x538, 1348858899756.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:23:42 2012 No.9796919 [Reply] [Original]

This should be easy for someone like you, Anon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:24:41 2012 No.9796923 File: 33 KB, 433x380, 1316010987411.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Can I get a hint

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:24:58 2012 No.9796924 Wait what

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:25:28 2012 No.9796927 0%

>>	None !FIreFlyLqM Sat Sep 29 05:25:59 2012 No.9796929 None.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:25:59 2012 No.9796931 100% only stupid people forget which umbrella is theirs!

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:26:58 2012 No.9796933 Is that a trick question?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:27:44 2012 No.9796936 >>9796919 Further contextual information is required as the equation is not complete as is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:27:44 2012 No.9796937 What if the last guy doesn't take his umbrella at all?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:28:58 2012 No.9796940 >>9796936 >equation

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:30:59 2012 No.9796951
File: 47 KB, 600x780, professor-layton-figurine.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9796919
50%

Listed are the following combinations of how the umbrellas could be distributed.

Guy 1: 1l3l2l1l2l3
Guy 2: 2l1l3l3l1l2
Guy 3: 3l2l1l2l3l1

As you can see, only 3/6 combinations/columns have two of the men taking different umbrellas.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:31:14 2012 No.9796953 >>9796936 If two people have the correct umbrella, so does the third. Because all of the not that guy's umbrellas have already been claimed. You are bad at critical thinking.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:31:14 2012 No.9796955 66% 2/3 of 100=66

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:36:59 2012 No.9796970

>>9796951
Your parsing of the question is correct but not your logic. The remaining 3 cases that aren't 1/3 matching are two cases of 0/3 matching and one case of 3/3 matching. The question is asking for only 2 matching and there is no situation in which that is the case. Thus >>9796927

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:38:46 2012 No.9796974

>>9796953
No, I'm good at critical thinking while not absolutely failing at lateral and literal thinking.
The question never mentioned that all three people took an umbrella.

Beyond that, multiple people could part-own each umbrella.
Twins, triplets.... etc may well share an umbrella, and co-own it.

Please try harder.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:39:01 2012 No.9796979 Wait, if two have their own umbrellas, then wouldn't the third too?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:39:16 2012 No.9796975 >>9796970 Ah I misread it as two people walking off with the wrong umbrella. Good logic befouled by hurried reading. My apologies.

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:39:31 2012 No.9796977

Somebody sucked the butcher's sausage! Here's what these four /jp/sies have to say:

A: "B sucked the sausage!"

B: "D slurped it all up!"

C: "I didn't suck it, no way!"

D: "B's totally lying!"

Only one of these /jp/sies is telling the truth and all the
others are, needless to say, lying. Can you figure out who sucked the sausage?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:40:33 2012 No.9796980 >>9796970 you're both wrong, so don't argue with each other. rather, celebrate your similarities

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:40:48 2012 No.9796981 >>9796977 They're all gay as HELL

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:41:32 2012 No.9796982 >>9796977 a?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:44:32 2012 No.9796984 >>9796977 I see what you did there...

>>	None !FIreFlyLqM Sat Sep 29 05:46:17 2012 No.9796989 >>9796977 C

>>	Cudder !MhMRSATORI!!fR8duoqGZdD Sat Sep 29 05:47:47 2012 No.9796991 If you're not underage you should be able to solve this. Or have they pulled combinatorics from maths in the last 10 years or so?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:48:47 2012 No.9796994 >>9796989 If C sucked the sausage then D is lying about B lying, so B is telling the truth, so D sucked it as well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:50:18 2012 No.9796997 >>9796977 They all sucked the sausage

>>	None !FIreFlyLqM Sat Sep 29 05:51:02 2012 No.9797000 >>9796994 D is the one telling the truth, meaning C is lying. Thus, C sucked it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:51:32 2012 No.9796999 >>9796997 If they all sucked the sausage then B is telling the truth, and so is A. But only one is telling the truth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:52:47 2012 No.9797003 >>9796999 No, B is lying since he says D slurped it all. In reality all of them slurped. So only A is telling the truth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:53:47 2012 No.9797006 0. I hate questions like that that aren't difficult but just common sense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:55:34 2012 No.9797010 >>9796999 C wrote the question. He also lied about how many people were lying

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:56:19 2012 No.9797012 >>9796994 ^this

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:57:49 2012 No.9797018 >>9797010 But these people are /jp/sies, so it's not possible that C could come up with the question in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:58:04 2012 No.9797024 If the janitor deletes this thread, I swear I'll go on a hunger strike.

>>	None !FIreFlyLqM Sat Sep 29 05:58:20 2012 No.9797020 >>9797003 If B is lying the D is also telling the truth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 05:59:34 2012 No.9797025 hunger strike in 3....2.....1.....

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:03:19 2012 No.9797034 >>9796977 C sucked the sausage. A: lie B: lie C: lie D: truth

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:04:34 2012 No.9797039 Obviously the chance is about 50%; either it will happen or it will not. Also, I think you can trust these men to be competent enough to keep track of their own things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:05:35 2012 No.9797041 File: 129 KB, 1000x1000, 1348887855158.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9797039 >I didn't read the thread or think about the question

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:06:05 2012 No.9797047 >>9797041 which is why you're wrong

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:09:21 2012 No.9797051 >>9797041 No idea who you are quoting, but are you telling me there is some other solution then the given result occuring or not?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:10:06 2012 No.9797052 16.7%

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:14:41 2012 No.9797063

>>9797034
I got the same answer you did.
A. b
B. d
C. not c
D. not (B.) = not d

If A's true, then B's not lying by way of D being false which results in more than one person in the sausage group. If B is true, then there's more than one person in the sausage group as well (C and D). If C's true, then B's telling the truth by way of D (which results in a contradiction since only one can be telling the truth). So it's D.

Since C said not C and he's lying, it has to be C who sucked the sausage.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:16:56 2012 No.9797072 >>9797051 They're not actually quoting anybody, and they're either >>9797039 or are telling said poster that they're wrong, like >>9797047 is doing. >>9797052 There is no answer to the question, that is the only answer.

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:17:26 2012 No.9797074

If you remember how to solve the spotty monk puzzle you are not permitted to spoil it:

There is a monastery in which the monks (plural) have taken a vow of silence.
One day (and all on the same day) a number of monks (but not all, and may be 1) become ill; the sole symptom is a blue spot on the head.
A monk therefore knows when another monk is ill, but not when he himself is ill.
When a monk knows he is ill he leaves the monastery.
The monks see each other once a day (i.e. each monk sees each other monk) at dinner.
One (non-leap) year passes and every ill monk has left the monastery.
How many monks were ill at the beginning of the year?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:18:41 2012 No.9797076 >>9797072 I make a post (>>9797039). Then he makes a post (>>9797041). In his post, he makes use of the quoting feature, but the phrase he quoted was nowhere in my post.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:20:41 2012 No.9797083 >>9797076 Shut the fuck up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:21:26 2012 No.9797085 >>9797074 None? I guess the puzzle is implying they can't communicate with each other, so none of the monks would leave because none of them would know they were ill.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:21:41 2012 No.9797087 >>9797083 You were clearly confused, so I was explaining to you what had happened.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:22:27 2012 No.9797088 >>9797087 They're just being a bully, don't mind!

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:23:56 2012 No.9797091

>>9797085

Nope.
It's a very well known one if you want to Google the answer, but note:
If one monk was ill and he knows that a number of monks became ill, he goes to dinner and sees no ill monks.
He concludes that he is ill and leaves.
Extrapolate from there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:25:42 2012 No.9797094 >>9797074 2

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:27:27 2012 No.9797096 >>9797091 Then 1.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:28:27 2012 No.9797097 Why does /jp/ fail at logic puzzles?

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:28:57 2012 No.9797099

>>9797094
>>9797096

Nope.
I suppose any number under the answer is true given how it is worded.
When I first read the puzzle it was implicit that the last monk(s) leave on the final day of the year, and I guess I have made the same mistake of leaving that as such.
Let it be stated explicitly here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:29:58 2012 No.9797103 >>9797091 Oh I get it. It didn't really say in there that the monks knew of an outbreak though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:30:27 2012 No.9797105 >>9797091 How would he know there even is an illness if he was the only one? Why would they think it's an illness if a few monks hat a blue spot on the head? This shit doesn't make any sense I tell you

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:31:57 2012 No.9797110 >>9797097 Because the people who can really solve them just post in the thread to complain about how other people can't solve them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:31:57 2012 No.9797113 >>9797103 >>9797105 It really does need to be stated more explicitly. I did a better job of it than the source where I first read it, but I still left out the knowledge of illness and last day of the year thing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:32:13 2012 No.9797115 >>9797099 I'm wondering how monks know they're ill if only they are ill. They all have taken a vow of silence so if only one is ill, how does he know?

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:32:27 2012 No.9797116

>>9797103
That's because it's poorly worded.

As it is, any number less than all of the monks is plausible, as the only reason a monk that has taken a solemn vow would leave is so as not to harm the other monks.

>>9797105
Monks that took the vow of silence would still receive information from the outside world.

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:33:12 2012 No.9797121

>>9797105
I'm starting to question the validity of this puzzle. It sound more like something someone made up and started asking people just to have fun with it, knowing he specifically designed it as to being impossible to answer without knowing the answer first.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:33:27 2012 No.9797122 >>9797110 .....oops

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:34:12 2012 No.9797125 >>9797099 3, when 2 monks fall sick, they know that there is another sick, so they dont leave, while the last one know there is 2 sick and doesnt leave. 3 monks, 2 ill

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:34:12 2012 No.9797126 >>9797121 I regret not being perfectly explicit with it now, would you like me to have another try to avoid any further confusion?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:34:42 2012 No.9797129 Why is DeSuMe so fucking awful at nearest neighbor upscaling? Why doesn't it just render at the DS' screen resolution?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:35:27 2012 No.9797130 >>9797129 errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr wrong thread herp

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:35:27 2012 No.9797131 >>9797129 Because the native DS resolution is tiny

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:40:43 2012 No.9797141 >>9796977 Answer is >Me on the left

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:44:13 2012 No.9797149 >>9797116 >Monks that took the vow of silence would still receive information from the outside world So, I guess the outside world can just tell them which monks are ill and all is well then.

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:45:13 2012 No.9797152

>>9797126

Okay, here it is, more explicit and a little easier:

There is a monastery with a great number of silent monks.
One or more monks (but not all) become ill with blue dot disease.
It is revealed to the monks that one or more of them is ill with blue dot disease.
A monk will leave the monastery when he knows he has blue dot disease.
Once a day the monks see each other.
A monk who sees an ill monk knows that that monk is ill.
An ill monk cannot see if he himself is ill.
After a year has passed, every ill monk leaves the monastery.
How many monks were ill?

I hope that's watertight now, I'm off to get something to eat.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:46:43 2012 No.9797153 >>9797152 One or more monks, but not all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:47:43 2012 No.9797154 16.666%

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:48:58 2012 No.9797159 >>9797153 Very clever, Anonymous. Additional information: The answer is to be given as an integer; All monks know when another monk leaves the monastery. Now I really have to go, I'm hungry.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:49:43 2012 No.9797162 >>9797159 An integer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:49:58 2012 No.9797164 >>9797153 That is the answer, yes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:50:43 2012 No.9797165 >>9797152 When will he leave the monastery? Immediately, when he knows? As in at dinner?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:50:58 2012 No.9797166 >>9797152 When the monks find a monk with blue dot disease, how do they tell him? They're silent monks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:50:58 2012 No.9797167 >>9797159 They gave the only viable answer, what are you getting frustrated over?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:52:13 2012 No.9797170 >>9797166 other than making sound, how can people convey their thoughts? a conversation of pointing and grimacing would eventually get things worked out. it's a vow of silence, not a vow of isolation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:54:50 2012 No.9797176 >>9797170 Right, just exchange notes or something My autism can't let me concentrate on the actual problem while it's so unplausible. Can't come up with another answer then 1 anyway, though

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:57:36 2012 No.9797188 >>9797176 your autism aside, the answer is anywhere between 1 and 1 less than all of them, due to both the nature of monks and the question

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 06:58:37 2012 No.9797192

Since that guy has gone, I'll answer questions, since I also know the answer and the question, which you can find by googling.

>>9797165
Suppose he does it at dinner.

>>9797170
The monks do not communicate. Suppose there is one person who oversees them all, and this person has not taken a vow of silence, and is not one of the monks, but only said "one or more of the monks in this monastery is ill with a blue spot on their head." He said this on the day the monks first became sick, when they all gathered for dinner. Other than that, there is no contact from anyone else.

The monks think perfectly logically, and will be able to determine if they are ill given sufficient information. They know that a monk will leave the monastery the moment he knows he is ill.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:00:52 2012 No.9797197 Note: since the monks only meet once a day for dinner, they only know a monk has left when he does not attend dinner the next day.

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:06:25 2012 No.9797206

>>9797192
But that's not how such monasteries worked....
They were either a few or all for the vow of silence, with some in either and especially the latter going further with the vow of isolation.

Those monks that had taken the vow of silence would still communicate, it was only those that had taken a vow of isolation that would not.

As there is no information about such a monk, and given that there are as many with the vow of silence as there are, they have all taken it. They can all communicate, so there is no issue there.

If the question was taken further, and included the possibility of a number of the monks having gone further by taking the vow of isolation, the number of monks that had the illness would be between 1 and said monks + 1 less than the total.

>>9797197
They meet up, and they'd all notice the monks with the blue spot, and would know that said monk would leave. They therefore know who will be there until the next dinner.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:07:39 2012 No.9797209 >>9797206 > that had the illness would be between 1 and said monks + 1 less than the total. *that remained

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:08:54 2012 No.9797214 I don't get what you're trying to get at, the monks are sick, yes, so what?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:09:24 2012 No.9797216 >>9797206 All the monks have taken the vow of silence. There is no outside contact, meaning contact from other monks, aside from the overseer who is not a monk, is therefore not sick, has not taken a vow of silence, but only said that one thing.

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:10:39 2012 No.9797223

>>9797206
All the monks have taken the vow of silence. They further do not communicate in any form. There is no outside contact, meaning contact from those who are not monks, aside from the overseer who is not a monk, is therefore not sick, has not taken a vow of silence, but only said that one thing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:10:39 2012 No.9797224 >>9797216 .....you tl;dr'd it, didn't you? just give up now, you're not cut out for this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:13:55 2012 No.9797233 >>9797224 Give up what? I already know the answer, because I have heard it before. (different variation though) I'm just trying to make sure the information provided her is enough to solve it.

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:17:25 2012 No.9797242

If more than 2 ill monks are at dinner the only thing I can see happening is the monks seeing each other, thinking "haha, those guys are ill" and that's it.
Now if there's 2 ill monks, you could consider them noticing something is wrong when they meet again the next day and figure out they're both ill, because there is no one else ill and the other ill monk is still there.
If there is exactly one ill monk it's pretty clear he'll leave.
But that's about all I can figure out, I really dislike unrealistic riddles like that

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:17:55 2012 No.9797244 >>9797233 Who cares. Either there was no answer to start with or it's become so convoluted because of you two inaccurate retards that there isn't one anymore.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:18:40 2012 No.9797246 >>9797233 If you're trying to do that, then please, make it an answerable question. At the moment, it's irritating me to no end because it has no single answer beyond a general one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:19:55 2012 No.9797252 >>9797244 I'm being beyond accurate, so I guess that sort of counts as being inaccurate... ........sort of, but not really.

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:27:31 2012 No.9797275

>>9797246
Then I'll try rephrasing it again.

There is a monastery with a great number of monks, all of these monks have taken a vow of silence and do not communicate.
One day, one or more monks (but not all) become ill with a blue dot on their foreheads.
No more monks will become ill with the disease.
The monks only see each other once a day, when they all gather at dinner.
At dinner on the day they all became sick, the only person who has not taken a vow of silence at the monastery - the overseer - announces to all monks that "one or more of the monks in this monastery are ill with a blue spot on their foreheads." This is all he says.
A monk will leave the monastery when he knows he has the disease, immediately.
The other monks know that a monk will leave the monastery immediately when he knows he is ill.
The other monks will only know a monk has left when he does not attend dinner the next day.

A monk who sees an ill monk knows that monk is ill.
An ill monk cannot see if he himself is ill.
The monks think with perfect logic, so, given sufficient information, they will deduce that they are ill.
One year passes from that day, and on that day and only that day, every ill monk leaves the monastery all at once.

How many monks were ill?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:28:16 2012 No.9797279 >>9797152 356

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:30:46 2012 No.9797287

>>9797275
There is no specific information given. You cannot give an answer save "one or more monks, but not all," because that is the only information provided. That is the answer, and no matter how many times you repeat yourself, that is the only possible answer that can be drawn from the information provided.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:31:16 2012 No.9797288 >>9797279 That's right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:31:16 2012 No.9797289 >>9797275 I dont get it. What if an ill monk sees another ill monk? Does he know that he himself is ill or does he only figure out he is ill when he doesnt see any others who are?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:32:01 2012 No.9797295 >>9797279 >>9797288 No that's not fucking right, because the puzzle doesn't allow it to be right. Fix your shit or ship out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:32:01 2012 No.9797296 >>9797287 I believe there is an answer, that should be all the information required. >>9797288 No, it's not.

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:33:17 2012 No.9797298

MONKY BUSINESS:
These aren't /jp/ style spoilers, these are the real deal.
I fucking hope this works and spoilers the whole lot.

1(base case). Assume 1 monk is ill:
Attends dinner;
Sees no ill monks;
Concludes he is ill and leaves.

Now assume 2 monks are ill:
A given monk attends dinner;
Sees 1 ill monk;
Attends dinner on the 2nd day;
Sees 1 ill monk still there;
Concludes he is ill and leaves.

3 ill monks:
Given monk attends dinner;
Sees 2 ill monks;
Knows if 2 monks are ill they would leave after dinner on day 2 (from above);
Attends dinner on the 3rd day;
Sees 2 ill monks still there;
Concludes he is ill and leaves.

Etc. for 4,5,... monks.
We know the ill monks leave on the 365th day, therefore 365 ill monks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:34:01 2012 No.9797306 >>9797298 They could very easily point out to the ill monks that they are ill. A monk just assuming he is ill because the other ill monk does not leave makes no sense. Why, for that matter, does only one monk a day get sick?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:34:46 2012 No.9797305 >>9797298 That logic would work if the question hadn't been fucked up and didn't insist on them being monks.

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:35:46 2012 No.9797309

>>9797298
Your logic is right, except that if a monk concludes he is ill, then he leaves that very day. So 0 days after the illness occurs, a monk will leave if he is the only monk ill. So the correct number of monks ill is 1+the number of days it took them to leave. (366)

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:36:31 2012 No.9797311 >>9797306 Oh, for fuck's sake. If the monks are silent it is implied that they cannot communicate. Should I have also specified that the monks are not blind? Because that is potentially a problem that wasn't explicitly stated. Come on, man.

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:37:01 2012 No.9797315

>>9797306
at this point it doesn't really matter, the person that posed the question paraphrased the workability out of it, and the person who tried to fill in the gaps messed that up as well.

>>9797309
NO, DEAL WITH IT.

The question as it was delivered and 'fixed' has but one answer, "between 1 and 1 less than all of them"

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:37:01 2012 No.9797319

So, when did anyone say there even where that many monks to begin with?
And can you count on humans to be that logical for that long a time? That'd have to be some kind of hive mind right there, and if it was there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:37:46 2012 No.9797318

>>9797311
No, silent means no noise, not no communication, you dense mother fucker. You could just get another monk's attention and tap your forehead. Problem fucking solved. He knows that if he is ill his head is blue, so there is no miscommunication there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:38:01 2012 No.9797322 >>9797321 Which would mean no fucking monks, which was the very first answer he got. This is asinine, retarded bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:38:01 2012 No.9797323 >>9797298 I can't see how I was supposed to work out the answer from >>9797275 Fucking full of holes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:38:01 2012 No.9797324 >>9797321 That's the logic the person who posed the question or whatever is trying to use, but they're monks so they wouldn't. If they were all sick, they'd stay there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:38:16 2012 No.9797320 >>9797311 >implied they cannot communicate What are you, a fucking bat? Vow of silence prohibits sound. That's it. >>9797318 ^ THIS

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:38:16 2012 No.9797321 Everyone concludes that they are ill on the first day and leaves.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:39:01 2012 No.9797328 >>9797097 >>9797110 >>9797122 Anybody else see these? Well, yeah.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:40:01 2012 No.9797333 >>9797275 what kind of shitty head monk would tell people that they're sick but not point out which ones? this problem is retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:41:02 2012 No.9797339 >>9797333 Maybe he forgot the name of the guy who's sick?

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:41:46 2012 No.9797336

If I were to cover every pedantic complaint, I couldn't have fit the problem in 10,000 words let alone a single post.
Come on, you guys. You know what the problem was - it's like saying that the umbrella guys don't necessarily walk out with their umbrellas therefore the OP answer is indeterminate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:42:31 2012 No.9797343 >>9797336 Your problem literally cannot be any more full of holes if I stabbed my monitor. The fault is entirely yours, you stupid bitch.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:42:46 2012 No.9797344 >>9797336 But that's exactly what this is. OP's question was fucked, your question is fucked.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:43:31 2012 No.9797348 >>9797321 Good point, but the question wanted the number of ill monks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:43:46 2012 No.9797349 Try this one instead, guys https://www.xkcd.com/blue_eyes.html

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:43:46 2012 No.9797350 >>9797343 What if we went and stabbed his monitor? May not put more holes in it, but it'd make me feel better.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:44:07 2012 No.9797353 >>9797350 Only if we can tape it to him first.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:44:07 2012 No.9797355 >>9797353 I SECOND THIS MOTION

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:45:36 2012 No.9797357

>>9797298
but that doesn't make sense. say there are 10 monks and 5 of them have spots. each monk with a spot sees 4 other monks with spots. he has no way of knowing that he has a spot himself because he doesn't know the total number of monks with spots.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:45:51 2012 No.9797359 >>9797349 They can find some water and look at their reflections. Problem solved.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:46:51 2012 No.9797366 >>9797359 This is becoming obnoxious. Why anyone would try to play logic puzzles with you is beyond me.

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:47:06 2012 No.9797372

>>9797359
That isn't the point of the question, yes in real life you could just look in the water, but this is a puzzle.

>There are no mirrors or reflecting surfaces, nothing dumb. It is not a trick question, and the answer is logical. It doesn't depend on tricky wording or anyone lying or guessing, and it doesn't involve people doing something silly like creating a sign language or doing genetics. The Guru is not making eye contact with anyone in particular; she's simply saying "I count at least one blue-eyed person on this island who isn't me."

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:47:07 2012 No.9797369 >>9797366 I was not the genius who put them all on an island.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:47:51 2012 No.9797371 >>9797366 Maybe you should not be a faggot who can't even phrase questions right next time. I'm guessing you never solved the puzzle yourself and just got told the answer. Someone of your intelligent could not solve it.

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:48:21 2012 No.9797375

>>9797357

But he knows that the 4 monks have not left by the 5th day.
Therefore he knows there must be a 5th monk, he cannot see him therefore he must be him and leaves.
Apply the same situation to each of the other 4 monks thinking and that is why they all leave on that 5th day.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:48:37 2012 No.9797376 >>9797372 They are on an island. They are literally surrounded by water.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:49:06 2012 No.9797381 >>9797371 I was told a version of the problem back in high school. The context though was proofs by mathematical induction, and I would not have got it had there not been that context clue.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:49:06 2012 No.9797382 >>9797376 That's not the point. Imagine that they're in a big stone bowl instead.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:49:06 2012 No.9797383 >>9797366 bro, don't get upset, >>9797369 is right. And besides, anybody who decides to herfderf a logic puzzle without meeting all information requirements is a twat anyway, so what does it matter?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:49:21 2012 No.9797377 >>9797349 100 people? Everyone assumes they have blue eyes, those that are correct get to take the fairy home.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:50:21 2012 No.9797385 >>9797376 What if they're too high up to see the water

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:51:06 2012 No.9797389 >>9797375 why would any of the other 4 monks leave? they have the exact same information as the 5th monk.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:51:36 2012 No.9797387 >>9797382 you need to go watch life of bryan dude, wait till the scene where he's all 'think of the lilies' and you'll get why. until then, stop digging your hole deeper bro.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:51:36 2012 No.9797388 >>9797382 They could all ram at one side and tip the bowl over. >>9797385 I have never heard of an island that meets such criteria, but I suppose they could wait until it rains and gather some rainwater.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:52:06 2012 No.9797393 >>9797392 They die from illness, stranded on an island, drinking piss and dirt. Nobody leaves.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:52:21 2012 No.9797391 >>9797385 if they're too high up to see any water, they're all going to die of dehydration anyway, so the point is moot?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:52:21 2012 No.9797392 >>9797388 it never rains, the water they get is in bottles, and it's too dirty to have reflections

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:53:36 2012 No.9797398 >>9797388 >They could all ram at one side and tip the bowl over. It's too heavy for that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:53:51 2012 No.9797399 >>9797393 You won.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:54:21 2012 No.9797400 >>9797398 They could all guess brown, which I believe is the most common eye color, and hold their rescue ransom until they all get to escape.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:54:21 2012 No.9797401 >>9797392 see >>9797393 >>9797398 yeah well you forgot to mention that didn't you, he's making it up as he goes along!

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:55:37 2012 No.9797404 >>9797389 If you see a number of ill monks that you know should have left yesterday, but they don't, there must be another ill monk. You cannot see another ill monk, therefore you conclude that you must be that ill monk => you leave.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:56:06 2012 No.9797407 >>9797405 This is called ``thinking outside the box.'' You should try it sometime.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:56:36 2012 No.9797405 >>9797401 Trolling is a lot easier than working out a logic puzzle, I know. Try actually figuring it out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:57:06 2012 No.9797414 search for Consider the lilies http://www.westmont.edu/~fisk/Articles/MontyPython.htm you'll see where this is going. >>9797405 see >>9797409 and stop calling what you're doing 'logic'.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:57:21 2012 No.9797409 >>9797404 Also note that this logic applies from each of the other ill monks' perspectives as well, that's why they all leave on the same day.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 07:59:23 2012 No.9797422 >>9796977 >borderlands 2

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:00:08 2012 No.9797427 >>9797422 who are you quoting?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:00:23 2012 No.9797429 >>9797407 >>9797414 You're simply upset that you can't figure out the puzzle. It's like saying that you can win a chess game by pushing the king off the board from the beginning.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:01:38 2012 No.9797436 >>9797429 No, chess has strict rules that outline what you can and cannot do perfectly. There are no holes in the rules provided. You suck at logic, you suck at arguments and you should consider taking up a day job as a laborer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:02:38 2012 No.9797439 >>9797436 >and you should consider taking up a day job as a laborer. That's actually proper advice used as an insult by the way, so feel it out and consider it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:02:53 2012 No.9797440 >>9797429 These are entirely logical and reasonable conclusions. You are angry because they are not your conclusions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:03:08 2012 No.9797447 >>9797440 But they're neither logical nor reasonable, despite your protests. Please quit while you're ahead.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:03:23 2012 No.9797441 1234=0 5678=3 9090=4 1046=2 2371=0 5647=1 1031=1 8909=5 1206=? Preschoolers can solve this in under 10 minutes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:03:39 2012 No.9797442 >>9797404 you keep saying that they know someone should have left, but they don't have that knowledge. all they can know is how many other monks have spots.

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:03:39 2012 No.9797444
File: 12 KB, 188x209, 1247695528562.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

There are no more than 18 people on an island.
The island is closed off, nobody can come from the outside at any point.
Only humans factor into this problem.
A doctor on this island dies, having been murdered by a living person. This person did not die before the doctor.

The following people on the island were already dead before the doctor:
-The man who purchased the island
-The oldest legitimate son of the man who purchased the island
-The second oldest legitimate son of the man who purchased the island
-The second oldest legitimate daughter of the man who purchased the island
-The son of the oldest legitimate daughter of the man who purchased the island
-The daughter of the second oldest legitimate daughter of the man who purchased the island
-The husband of the oldest legitimate daughter of the man who purchased the island
-The wife of the oldest legitimate son of the man who purchased the island
-The wife of the second oldest legitimate son of the man who purchased the island
-The young male servant
-The young female servant
-The elderly male servant
-The elderly servant servant
-The chef
The following people were alive when the doctor died but did not kill him, nor did any actions caused by their body cause his death:
-The daughter of the oldest legitimate son of the man who purchased the island
-The son of the second oldest legitimate son of the man who purchased the island
-The oldest legitimate daughter of the man who purchased the island

-Who killed the doctor?
(Magic may have been involved)

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:03:53 2012 No.9797445 >>9797441 1

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:04:08 2012 No.9797454 33.3/2 = 16.8 answer is 16.8% where's my meddel?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:04:23 2012 No.9797450 >>9797447 Exactly; I am ahead, and you are not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:04:23 2012 No.9797451 >>9797441 the answer is 2.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:04:53 2012 No.9797452 >>9797445 Shit, no. 2. Less than 5 minutes. Fuck you, preschoolers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:05:23 2012 No.9797456 >>9797450 And there's the brick wall, congratulations on losing the argument in a blaze of failure.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:06:08 2012 No.9797459 >>9797456 Keep digging your stupid argument deeper, nerd.

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:06:08 2012 No.9797460

>>9797436
>No, chess has strict rules that outline what you can and cannot do
So does the puzzle. The little details do not matter in the puzzle.

Yes, it said they're on an island, and if this were to actually happen irl they could just look in the water, but it doesn't matter where they actually are. It could say that they're in an immovable stone bowl or whatever, that isn't the point of the puzzle. Maybe they should have taught you how to eliminate irrelevant information in elementary school.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:06:23 2012 No.9797461 >>9797456 You are the one who consistently tries to redirect the flow of conversation, despite the fact that I have answered all of your riddles in completely reasonable ways.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:07:23 2012 No.9797466 FUCK math math can suck my fucking DICK fucking math nerdssss who look at planets fuck them

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:07:38 2012 No.9797468 Assmad nerds, assmad nerds everywhere

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:07:53 2012 No.9797470 >>9797456 Just leave it. I think everyone understands my monk explanation now, the island one is exactly the same question really. The problem I think was realising this >>9797409, but it's explained now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:07:53 2012 No.9797471 File: 80 KB, 576x768, 1348272421409.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9796919 I'll find the guy who stole the third guy's umbrella and beat his ass.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:08:23 2012 No.9797474 >>9797441 The number of closed ellipses in the number. So, 2. Smart as HELL preschoolers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:10:08 2012 No.9797484 >>9797474 HURR BUT THE "ELLIPSE" IN THE 6 HAS A POINT AND THEREFORE IS NOT AN ELLIPSE, SO THE ANSWER IS 1! Remind you of anyone?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:10:08 2012 No.9797485 >>9797474 preschoolers are now capable of critical thinking with numbers, and are starting at the age of 7+? holy fuck that's creepy

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:10:53 2012 No.9797487 >>9797484 ur mom

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:11:08 2012 No.9797489 >>9797484 this guy? >>9797450

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:11:38 2012 No.9797492 >>9797489 I really love how mad you got about this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:11:53 2012 No.9797493 >>9797489 Yup, him and the other pedants.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:12:23 2012 No.9797496 >>9797492 I've just been sitting here watching you guys go, it's been a blast

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:13:38 2012 No.9797501 >>9797496 I do not believe you have actually disproven my solutions, though. You just got mad because they were not yours.

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:14:23 2012 No.9797502

>>9797470
except your explaination is garbage.

>If you see a number of ill monks that you know should have left yesterday
why do they know this? from one day to another all they know is that there are sick monks left. that doesn't tell them shit about themselves.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:14:38 2012 No.9797504 >>9797501 no, bro, I've been watching both of you go at it. I dunno who the fuck the other guy is, but you're both fun to laugh at.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:14:55 2012 No.9797505 >>9797485 Preschoolers don't see numbers. They see thingies, and some of those thingies have circles in them. You ask them "how many circles are there" and they'll answer, even if they can't write the answer itself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:15:10 2012 No.9797509 >>9797504 I think the other guy might be autistic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:15:55 2012 No.9797513 >>9797505 In which case they're answering a different question, and the 'preschoolers can solve this in 2 minutes' is false advertising. Don't make me sue you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:16:25 2012 No.9797514 >>9797509 Autism is a spectrum that everybody is on though.... Like, do you mean heavily autistic or something?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:16:25 2012 No.9797517 >>9797504 this guy >>9797447 isn't me >>9797429

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:16:55 2012 No.9797518 >>9797502 wait.what if the disease is airborne?! omfg, if it can survive outside a host, they're all fucked

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:17:25 2012 No.9797520

>>9797502

What are you not getting about this? Are you fucking with me?
The monks are logical, they know that if there was 1 ill monk he would leave on the 1st day.
They know that if there were 2 ill monks they would leave on the 2nd day, and so on.
If it gets to the n+1 th day and the monks are still there, then there were more than n monks.
See my original spoilered post, or the xkcd explanation of the island - they're the same.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:17:56 2012 No.9797522 >>9797517 bro, I don't know who any of you are, I'm just enjoying the nerdrage

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:18:25 2012 No.9797525 >>9797520 Why would they not all go to a hospital on day one, though? This sounds like a horribly flawed premise.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:19:10 2012 No.9797529 >>9797520 but diseases can lie dormant for varying amounts of time in different people, and there was no mention of whether or not there was a means of transfering it =o they're monks, not fucking super doctors

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:19:40 2012 No.9797533 >>9797525 maybe they're alien monks and just know all this shit anyway

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:20:10 2012 No.9797537

>>9797520
time does not flow backwards. on the first day all they know is that there are between x and x+1 monks with spots where x is the number of spots they can see. they have no way of knowing whether there are in fact only x monks with spots or x+1 monks with spots. advancing days does not add to this knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:20:25 2012 No.9797539 >>9797533 Do they still need to drink? Maybe they can get some water and look to see if they have blue on their face.

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:21:10 2012 No.9797543

>>9797529

Good point, maybe their penises are also telepathic and can tell the number of ill monks in a 1.3km radius and the monastery is circular and less than 0.65km in radius so even if a monk is on the edge of it his penis becomes erect because it is telepathic and there are ill monks nearby.

Am I doing this right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:21:25 2012 No.9797542 >>9797537 Monks bro, not computers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:22:55 2012 No.9797548 What if a monk bruises a spot on his head and it turns blue? Would he have to leave because everyone thinks he has the disease?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:23:10 2012 No.9797549 >>9797543 You're doing it the /jp/sie way, so that's something at least.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:24:10 2012 No.9797552 >>9797548 considering that they're monks? hell yes he would.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:25:25 2012 No.9797560 >>9797548 What if an ill monk is decapitated by a Lovecraftian creature from the depths of hell so that the other monks cannot see his blue spot? I'll be sure to work these in when I give this puzzle in the future, can't be too careful.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:26:40 2012 No.9797567 >>9797560 you better do that man, gotta keep this shit logical

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:27:55 2012 No.9797571 >>9797567 I could make it my life's work writing this out while accounting for every autistic possibility. Better get started.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:28:10 2012 No.9797573 >>9797349 https://xkcd.com/solution.html The solution

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:28:55 2012 No.9797574 >>9797571 do it then, we'll support you if you do

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:34:43 2012 No.9797590 ITT: /jp/ struggles to understand the concept of the puzzle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:34:57 2012 No.9797592 >>9797573 What if, every night, they guessed a different eye color. They would all be gone in easily under a week.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:38:57 2012 No.9797599 why would they leave if the disease wasn't contagious? and if it was contagious then how do you know more monks weren't infected while they were trying to figure out who had spots?

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:39:42 2012 No.9797601

>>9797590

The way I said the puzzle to start with was answerable by any reasonable person.
Then I rephrased it to be easier, and still answerable.
When the other guy fixed it again, there was no reasonable objection to any of it.
Since then it has just been trolling and an autism contest.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:40:27 2012 No.9797604 >>9797601 Except it was retarded. The puzzle does not work when there are at least five easier, more reasonable solutions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:41:12 2012 No.9797608 >>9797604 don't bully retards, that's not nice

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:41:28 2012 No.9797610 >>9797604 Does it not say anything to you that thousands of people solved the xkcd puzzle without sperging out over details? You don't think you are being unreasonable?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:42:12 2012 No.9797611 >>9797610 I just found the idea that 201 people sat for 100 days on an island doing jack and shit instead of finding a much quicker and more reasonable solution baffling. It is the stupidest possible solution.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:42:42 2012 No.9797612 >>9797610 It says that the statistics that say the majority of people are shit at lateral and literal thinking are correct?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:43:58 2012 No.9797614 >>9797612 It says that most people can follow rules (even implicit rules) for the sake of enjoying a logic puzzle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:44:42 2012 No.9797616 >>9797614 So you are telling me you think the best solution would be the one that takes 100 days instead of two?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:45:43 2012 No.9797620 >>9797601 Something tells me that if they were autistic they would figure out the actual answer easily. The people itt are just retarded and don't realize that the setting of the puzzle doesn't matter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:45:58 2012 No.9797623 >>9797614 No, it says >>9797612

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:51:43 2012 No.9797631 >>9797616 You are incapable of figuring out the more complicated solution. The point of the puzzle is to test your ability to do this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:52:28 2012 No.9797635 >>9797631 Why would I want the more complicated solution when it takes fifty times longer? There is no point in it. It is the worst possible solution.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:55:43 2012 No.9797645 >>9797635 >it takes fifty times longer Yes, it would take longer. No, it's not the best solution. But can you figure it out regardless? That's the whole point of the puzzle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:56:43 2012 No.9797648 >>9797645 But taking that as the only answer is flat out wrong. You want the best and most efficient solution; to only take the worst possible answer is flat out retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:57:59 2012 No.9797650 >>9797648 Give it up, dude. Logic puzzles are fun, and we know you understand how they work. If you can't enjoy that puzzle, you can't enjoy any of them that I have ever heard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:58:43 2012 No.9797652 >>9797650 If you refuse to accept my answers, I refuse to accept yours, because your is the worst.

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:58:58 2012 No.9797653

>>9797648
>But taking that as the only answer is flat out wrong.
No shit sherlock. It's a lot easier to say "well they could just look in the water!". That's the first fucking thing that crossed my mind when I saw the puzzle. But the point is to test your ability to figure out a complex problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 08:59:43 2012 No.9797655 >>9797652 Fine. You're not invited to my birthday party. So there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 09:04:30 2012 No.9797660 >>9797652 >>9797655 No! Get along guys! How are we ever going to figure out how to get to Gensokyo if we keep arguing?!

Anonymous Sat Sep 29 09:07:29 2012 No.9797670

>>9797612
From >>9797349

>I've done my best to make the wording as precise and unambiguious as possible (after working through the explanation with many people), but if you're confused about anything, please let me know. A word of warning: The answer is not simple. This is an exercise in serious logic, not a lateral thinking riddle. There is not a quick-and-easy answer, and really understanding it takes some effort.

>The answer is not simple. This is an exercise in serious logic, not a lateral thinking riddle. There is not a quick-and-easy answer, and really understanding it takes some effort.
>not a lateral thinking riddle

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 09:11:18 2012 No.9797678 >>9797670 All that should go without saying, really.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 09:25:03 2012 No.9797718 1/6 or ~16,666%

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 10:54:15 2012 No.9798042 >>9796977 The Dunmer did it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 10:58:14 2012 No.9798057 A travelling salesman wants to visit 20 cities then arrive back where he started. How can he do this with the lowest fuel cost? If you have an answer, email it to me and I'll give you $15. Nobody else will give you a better deal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 10:59:29 2012 No.9798061 >>9798057 Have somebody else pay for his fuel, obviously.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 11:32:39 2012 No.9798175 >>9798057 ebin :--D

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 12:17:53 2012 No.9798315 >>9798057 If siphons gas out of other people's cars while stopping to throw out his piss bottles he will save a good amount of fuel. He could also put the locations he's attempting to visit in a circle, the beginning being the ending.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 12:19:38 2012 No.9798321 >>9798057 If he siphons gas out of other people's cars while stopping to throw out his piss bottles he will save a good amount of fuel. He could also put the locations he's attempting to visit in a circle, the beginning being the ending.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 12:35:29 2012 No.9798353 >>9798057 Jokes on you, i already have a local search algorithm set up to do this. Give me the graph and i'll tell you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 13:03:15 2012 No.9798416 >>9796991 Cudder-san, please post more often on /prog/

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 13:07:45 2012 No.9798430 Why is neo-/jp/ so dumb? The OP question was easy as fuck but you guys managed to misinterpret it and turn it into something entirely different. I am out of here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 13:09:30 2012 No.9798432 File: 376 KB, 600x600, 8368164.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9798430 I thought it was supposed to be some sort of Kogasa reference.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 13:20:32 2012 No.9798449 >>9798430 Haha. That's why I love /jp/ so much and it has always been like this. Back to /a/ with you

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 13:23:17 2012 No.9798460 >>9798449 No. Old /jp/ was smart and cunning and could solve a 900+ posts /sci/ discussion in less than 25 posts; neo-/jp/ is just dumb.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 13:25:17 2012 No.9798463 >>9798460 I'm sure we could today too, it's just that we don't want to and turned your stupid offtopic thread into a worthwhile discussion

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 13:26:19 2012 No.9798470 Three identical-looking 2hus are sitting upright in a stand. Assuming the owners don't check their 2hus' labels, what percentage chance is there that only 2 people will fuck their own 2hu?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 29 13:33:35 2012 No.9798499 >>9798470 Maybe it's because I'm stupid, but the riddle feels easier to work out this way. Answer is still 0% and I'm still wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 30 10:52:53 2012 No.9803264 Oh god, puzzle anons, this reminds me of the time I tried explaining the monty hall problem to someone and he kept saying how he didn't care about the car without answering the actual question. I feel your pain.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 30 13:28:29 2012 No.9803779 test

Reply to thread

Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Action

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/jp/ - Otaku Culture