Skip to main content

Mindstretching time

Come on, it's Friday. Take a moment to give the leetle grey cells a spot of exercise. (Shut up, Hercule.) You may have heard this problem before. Don't stop reading if it seems familiar, though, we are going way beyond the usual conclusion.

Every morning a man gets into the lift (elevator) on the floor of the high rise block he lives in and rides down to ground level. Every evening he comes home, gets in the lift, rides up to the tenth floor (four floors below his own), gets out and walks the rest of the way. Why?

If you haven't heard it before, think about it for a while before reading on.

P
L
E
A
S
E


T
H
I
N
K


B
E
F
O
R
E

S
C
R
O
L
L
I
N
G

Now an extra piece of information. The man was easily tall enough to reach every button on the lift's control panel. Think about the problem some more. (I throw this in because the conventional 'right' answer is that the man is too short to reach any button higher than the 10th floor. But I'd like to expand your thinking beyond that 'right' answer.)

P
L
E
A
S
E

T
H
I
N
K

B
E
F
O
R
E


S
C
R
O
L
L
I
N
G

There are many possible solutions. The man could want a little exercise, but four floors of stairs are enough. He might suspect his wife of adultery and want to surprise her. He could stop off at a friend's flat four floors below for a drink each evening. And so on. But what if he actually has to get out rather than wants to - surely the conventional solution is now the only one? No. The higher lift buttons could be broken. The owners of the building could charge for each floor you ride up. He only has a ten floor ticket, so he has to walk the rest. Or there is building work going on in the afternoon which restricts the travel of the lift. Feel like arguing with these solutions? The traditional solution is equally frail - whenever there is someone else in the lift, a short person can get to the right floor. Or he could use a stick.

There are two useful lessons here. The first is that a late arriving piece of information can totally change your knowledge base - and it's difficult to give up an established position. The second is to observe just how many solutions there are - and how conditions can be used to question any idea, however valid. And a not so useful lesson - this also demonstrates why Sherlock Holmes style deduction is rubbish: there are always too many variables to strike lucky as often as he does.

If you come across such 'logic problems' in the future,  please look for alternative solutions.

Image from Wikipedia

Comments

  1. Very Interesting post and commentary about Holmes's methods of deductions!

    As an avid Sherlockian, I must say your post is quite refreshing and thought-provoking :)

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...