The story behind Einstein's riddle is that Albert Einstein created it in the late 1800s, and claimed that 98% of the world population couldn't solve it. I am not sure of the true origin, but I have seen this one floating around the internet, and it is a good brain exercise. Here it is:
- In a street there are five houses, painted five different colors.
- In each house lives a person of different nationality
- These five homeowners each drink a different kind of beverage, smoke different brand of cigar and keep a different pet.
Einstein's riddle is: Who owns the fish?
1. The British man lives in a red house.
2. The Swedish man keeps dogs as pets.
3. The Danish man drinks tea.
4. The Green house is next to, and on the left of the White house.
5. The owner of the Green house drinks coffee.
6. The person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds.
7. The owner of the Yellow house smokes Dunhill.
8. The man living in the center house drinks milk.
9. The Norwegian lives in the first house.
10. The man who smokes Blends lives next to the one who keeps cats.
11. The man who keeps horses lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill.
12. The man who smokes Blue Master drinks beer.
13. The German smokes Prince.
14. The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.
15. The Blends smoker lives next to the one who drinks water.
Originally posted by Ramiri15 I heard that the correct answer is "the german might own the fish, but it is not certain because it never said in the riddle that anybody owned a fish." So that's why 98% don't get it.
I think the German owns the fish too. If you follow the hints, you can figure out where everyone lives, what color their house is, what they own, what they smoke, and what they drink.
Originally posted by angelswings I think the German owns the fish too. If you follow the hints, you can figure out where everyone lives, what color their house is, what they own, what they smoke, and what they drink.
Yes I know, but it never says in the riddle that anyone actually owned a fish; it simply posed the question. So the reason why 98% of people wouldn't get it is because they would solve the riddle without qualifying their answer.
Originally posted by Ramiri15 Yes I know, but it never says in the riddle that anyone actually owned a fish; it simply posed the question. So the reason why 98% of people wouldn't get it is because they would solve the riddle without qualifying their answer.
the are 5 people - and it is stated they each own a pet.
their are 4 animals mentioned within the hints.
and so, you get to the point where one of the men does not own a pet - its a logical assumption to suggest he owns the fish.
The German co-habitates with the fish. They are equal partners. Fish are people too! Why wouldn't you write it down. Why does not using a readily available tool make you less intelligent? We don't tell people they are dumb chess players because they use their Queen to checkmate. Einstein's point was that people are too lazy to ever put in the effort to actually work the problem out.
Originally posted by Shinidoki It is an educated assumption.
What Proof, or arguement can you provide to suggest the German owns X pet?
Your only arguement is a crap one - because it doesn't say what it is it could be anything....anything, including a fish.
The Question suggests someone owns a fish, and if its not the brit, dane, sweed, etc it must be the german, or none at all
That's where I think you're wrong. The question does not imply someone owns a fish. The answer could be... "Nobody owns a fish, the German has a crocodile."
Assuming the question leads to an answer of "(somebody) owns the fish." is the type of logic that I think Einstein was trying to break. If you want the answer to fit nicely with the question, you start to make errant assumptions like somebody has to own a fish. If you get to the end of your proof and have not found conclusive proof of an answer, you should ask a new question or get more information.
So while I would agree your assumption was educated, it just wasn't very educated. Therefore your arguement is CRAP... and bring it... I want to hear how you reply to this. Your scientific reasoning should be no problem to outmatch.