The Hardest Riddle I Know

[Nemasis Enforcer]

The one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater?

Lou (got that damn song in my head now!)

Your so close infact your so close I may aswell tell you...

What is big, purple and eats people... A Big Purple People Eater!!!

 

[Guest]

Your so close infact your so close I may aswell tell you...

What is big, purple and eats people... A Big Purple People Eater!!!

*GROAN*

What's green and goes up and down, up and down?

Lou

P.S. I LOVE the last smilie in your siggy.

 

[Nemasis Enforcer]

*GROAN*

What's green and goes up and down, up and down?

Lou

P.S. I LOVE the last smilie in your siggy.

I have no idea what's green and goes up and down, up and down?

(If you want one like it go to www.planetsmilies.com and look in fighting smilies)

 

[Guest]

I have no idea what's green and goes up and down, up and down?

(If you want one like it go to www.planetsmilies.com and look in fighting smilies)

A gooseberry in a lift.

Kewl, I keep finding cool smilie sites. Another one to bookmark.

Cheers!

Lou

 

[Nemasis Enforcer]

A gooseberry in a lift.

Kewl, I keep finding cool smilie sites. Another one to bookmark.

Cheers!

Lou

No problem Lou...

Ok wwhats this then? see (pic)

 

[Guest]

No problem Lou...

Ok wwhats this then? see (pic)

Venus?

A speck of dust on a lense?

A black spot?

Lou

 

[Nemasis Enforcer]

Venus?

A speck of dust on a lense?

A black spot?

Lou

NO

NO

and NO

Its a Polar Bear in a snow storm

HEHEHE HAHAHA

 

[Guest]

NO

NO

and NO

Its a Polar Bear in a snow storm

HEHEHE HAHAHA

Oh, bloody hell!!!

PMSL!

Lou

P.S. *GROAN*

 

[Nemasis Enforcer]

Oh, bloody hell!!!

PMSL!

Lou

P.S. *GROAN*

I can't think of any more now

I'll just go and look at the smiles I can add to my sig line

 

[Boboosethemoose]

Gothgodees, you are right about the answer. The sun is the first answer, but let see who can come up with the second answer.

 

[gothgodess]

hows bout science?

science created lazer eye surgery
men are often blinded by science and
science invented time keeping?

 

[Boboosethemoose]

is it the sun?

The blind can often see light.
the seeing are blinded by the sun
and its position tells time

That is one of the answers. Who will find the other? Good luck to you all.


I will be a little nice and tell you all to think of ways to measure time. Weather it be new or old.

 

[snooper]

OK you clever ones ...

... try this.

When my friend's will was opened it was found to contain the following clauses:

I leave ten of my books to each of Low, Y.Y., and 'Critic', who are to choose in a certain order.

1 No person who has seen me in a green tie is to choose before Low.
2 If Y.Y. was not in Oxford in 1990 the first chooser never lent me an umbrella.
3 If Y.Y. or 'Critic' has second choice, 'Critic' comes before the one who first fell in love.

Unfortunately none of the three gentlemen, Low, Y.Y., or 'Critic' could remember any of the relevant facts; but the family solicitor pointed out that, assuming the conditions to be properly constructed (i.e. they contain no statement superfluous to the resolution of the order) the relevant data and order could be inferred.

So the questions were: "What was the prescribed order of choosing?" and "Who lent him an umbrella?"

Composed by Struan Marshall and published in 1932.

 

[Boboosethemoose]

Re: OK you clever ones ...

... try this.

When my friend's will was opened it was found to contain the following clauses:

I leave ten of my books to each of Low, Y.Y., and 'Critic', who are to choose in a certain order.

1 No person who has seen me in a green tie is to choose before Low.
2 If Y.Y. was not in Oxford in 1990 the first chooser never lent me an umbrella.
3 If Y.Y. or 'Critic' has second choice, 'Critic' comes before the one who first fell in love.

Unfortunately none of the three gentlemen, Low, Y.Y., or 'Critic' could remember any of the relevant facts; but the family solicitor pointed out that, assuming the conditions to be properly constructed (i.e. they contain no statement superfluous to the resolution of the order) the relevant data and order could be inferred.

So the questions were: "What was the prescribed order of choosing?" and "Who lent him an umbrella?"

Composed by Struan Marshall and published in 1932.

Here is my answer to this problem.

The order of chosing should be 'Critic', Low, Y.Y. and Low lent him the unbrella.

I may be wrong but this is my guest.

 

[snooper]

Re: Re: OK you clever ones ...

Here is my answer to this problem.

The order of chosing should be 'Critic', Low, Y.Y. and Low lent him the unbrella.

I may be wrong but this is my guest.

Not so, though the second chooser did lend the umbrella.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

The world's hardest riddle is Tom Riddle.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: OK you clever ones ...

... try this.

When my friend's will was opened it was found to contain the following clauses:

I leave ten of my books to each of Low, Y.Y., and 'Critic', who are to choose in a certain order.

1 No person who has seen me in a green tie is to choose before Low.
2 If Y.Y. was not in Oxford in 1990 the first chooser never lent me an umbrella.
3 If Y.Y. or 'Critic' has second choice, 'Critic' comes before the one who first fell in love.

Unfortunately none of the three gentlemen, Low, Y.Y., or 'Critic' could remember any of the relevant facts; but the family solicitor pointed out that, assuming the conditions to be properly constructed (i.e. they contain no statement superfluous to the resolution of the order) the relevant data and order could be inferred.

So the questions were: "What was the prescribed order of choosing?" and "Who lent him an umbrella?"

Composed by Struan Marshall and published in 1932.

I'll try it.

Critic, Y.Y., Low

Y.Y. lent the umberella

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Re: Re: OK you clever ones ...

I'll try it.

Critic, Y.Y., Low

Y.Y. lent the umberella

Can't be. No person who has seen him in a green tie is to choose before Low. If none of them saw him in a green tie (the only way for Low to be last) the 1st statement would have been superfluous to the resolution of the problem.

I think it's important to explain why, or it will all become a guess game, and this post of mine (together with snooper's response) has just reduced the field to two possible answers.

I'll give this some thought after lunch.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: Re: Re: OK you clever ones ...

Can't be. No person who has seen him in a green tie is to choose before Low. If none of them saw him in a green tie (the only way for Low to be last) the 1st statement would have been superfluous to the resolution of the problem.

I think it's important to explain why, or it will all become a guess game, and this post of mine (together with snooper's response) has just reduced the field to two possible answers.

I'll give this some thought after lunch.

Ack!

I should leave logic puzzles for days when i am not a space cadet

-Colly

 

[CharleyH]

No one who has seen you in green tie chooses before Low. Must infer that everyone has seen him in green tie, therefore Low is first.

Must infer that YY was not in oxford because it is stated, therefore Low never lent umbrella.

If Low is first then YY or Critic are 2nd.

Critic must be second because he can't come before Low, yet he does come before the one who is in love. Therefore YY is last.

Low
Critic
YY

Supposing that each is mentioned in some personal way, the only one who is not is Critic, therefore critic lent the umbrella.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

No one who has seen you in green tie chooses before Low. Must infer that everyone has seen him in green tie, therefore Low is first.

Why?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

For the record, the riddle is fundamentally flawed. The order you got,

Low
Critic
YY

is correct, but the way you got there isn't.

 

[CharleyH]

I will await your highness' proof.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

OK, this may be difficult to explain, but try to follow.


from 1: No person who has seen me in a green tie is to choose before Low.

- this tells us that at one or two people (other than Low) have seen me in a green tie, and therefore Low will not be the last to choose.

Possible orders:

Low > Y.Y. > 'Critic'
Low > 'Critic' > Y.Y.
Y.Y. > Low > 'Critic'
'Critic' > Low > Y.Y.


from 2: If Y.Y. was not in Oxford in 1990 the first chooser never lent me an umbrella.

- this tells us that Y.Y. was not in Oxford in 1990, or this whole sentence would be irrelevant, and that someone (or two) lent 'me' an umbrella. It doesn't exclude any possible orders.


from combining 1 and 2:

- if Low lent 'me' an umbrella, he can't be first:

Y.Y. > Low > 'Critic'
'Critic' > Low > Y.Y.

(but this would make statement 3 irrelevant and the correct answer impossible to find, so Low didn't lend 'me' an umbrella)

- if Y.Y. lent 'me' an umbrella, he can't be first:

Low > Y.Y. > 'Critic'
Low > 'Critic' > Y.Y.
'Critic' > Low > Y.Y.

- if 'Critic' lent 'me' an umbrella, he can't be first:

Low > Y.Y. > 'Critic'
Low > 'Critic' > Y.Y.
Y.Y. > Low > 'Critic'


from 3: If Y.Y. or 'Critic' has second choice, 'Critic' comes before the one who first fell in love.

- this tells us that if Y.Y. or 'Critic' come second, 'Critic' won't be last.

Possible orders:

Low > 'Critic' > Y.Y.
Y.Y. > 'Critic' > Low
'Critic' > 'Y.Y. > Low
Y.Y. > Low > 'Critic'
'Critic' > Low > Y.Y.


from combining 1 and 3:

Possible orders:

Low > 'Critic' > Y.Y.
Y.Y. > Low > 'Critic'
'Critic' > Low > Y.Y.


From this, we can infere that only one person saw 'me' with a green tie, or else the answer would obvioulsy have to be

Low > 'Critic' > Y.Y.

and statement 2 would be superfluous to the resolution of the order.


If Y.Y. saw 'me' with a green tie, possible orders are:

Low > 'Critic' > Y.Y.
'Critic' > Low > Y.Y.


If 'Critic' saw 'me' with a green tie, possible orders are:

Low > 'Critic' > Y.Y.
Y.Y. > Low > 'Critic'



from combining 2 and 3:

- if Y.Y. lent 'me' an umbrella, he can't be first (but if Y.Y. or 'Critic' are second, 'Critic' can't be last):

Low > 'Critic' > Y.Y.
'Critic' > Low > Y.Y.

- if 'Critic' lent 'me' an umbrella, he can't be first (but if Y.Y. or 'Critic' are second, 'Critic' can't be last):

Low > 'Critic' > Y.Y.
Y.Y. > Low > 'Critic'


So, we have that

If Y.Y. saw 'me' with a green tie, and lent me an umbrella, the possible orders are:

Low > 'Critic' > Y.Y.
'Critic' > Low > Y.Y.

and there is no logical way of finding a solution, so the order can not be inferred; the logical conclusion is that Y.Y. did NOT simultaneously see 'me' in a green tie and lent me an umbrella.


If 'Critic' saw 'me' with a green tie, and lent me an umbrella, the possible orders are:

Low > 'Critic' > Y.Y.
Y.Y. > Low > 'Critic'

and there is no logical way of finding a solution, so the order can not be inferred; the logical conclusion is that 'Critic' did NOT simultaneously see 'me' in a green tie and lent me an umbrella.


If Y.Y. saw 'me' with a green tie, and 'Critic' lent me an umbrella, the only possible order is:

Low > 'Critic' > Y.Y.


If 'Critic' saw 'me' with a green tie, and Y.Y. lent me an umbrella, the only possible order is:

Low > 'Critic' > Y.Y.


In conclusion, the answer to the first part of the riddle is, unequivocally, Low > 'Critic' > Y.Y., but there is no possible way to respond the second question. If Y.Y. saw 'me' in a green tie, then 'Critic' lent me an umbrella; if not, it's the other way around.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Bow before my superior intellect.