Go back
Einstein's Riddle

Einstein's Riddle

Posers and Puzzles

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
This isn't science. It's a riddle.
Ah, but Einstein was a scientist, and may have been trying to prove a point about scientists making unfound assumptions.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by mrstabby
Ah, but Einstein was a scientist, and may have been trying to prove a point about scientists making unfound assumptions.
I believe he was trying to make a point that the general population lacks the critical thinking skill to solve the riddle.

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Without any original sources we can't really come to any conclusion. Google's not much help on this so far...
Even snopes wasn't much help, but I did find this...
http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/chess.htm
so no need to worry any more

Vote Up
Vote Down

Fact 1)
Everyone owns a Pet.

Fact 2)
By logical deducation (via clues) we can assert that: -
"Everyone's pet (Except the German) is accounted for".

thus, the most accurate awnser we can give is: -

Without further information it is impossible to know for certain that the german does own the fish, On saying that however, The Fish must belong to the German, or, is owned by none of them.



To state that the German owns the fish with any certainty (given the current wording) is incorrect.

Vote Up
Vote Down

where did you get this? it's cool.

Vote Up
Vote Down

I googled Einstein's riddle and the first couple sites listed the German as the correct answer without any mention of ambiguities in the question itself. So I suppose the general consensus is that the German is the correct answer. However I do like the idea that the answer should be qualified (i.e. the German is unaccounted for, so he is the only person who could conceivably own the fish) and I think any scientific mind like Einstein's would agree that a mention of the assumptions should be a part of the answer.

Vote Up
Vote Down

i believe its obvious that the point of the riddle is to solve for who owns a fish. not some answer based on the wording of the question alone. if he took time to create a riddle in which there was only ONE answer, dont you believe his intent was for you to get there too?

Vote Up
Vote Down

If he took time to create such a riddle, dont you think he would take 10 seconds to see if its waterproof?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by MikeOldehoff
i believe its obvious that the point of the riddle is to solve for who owns a fish. not some answer based on the wording of the question alone. if he took time to create a riddle in which there was only ONE answer, dont you believe his intent was for you to get there too?
No. Einstein believed in original thought, not re-hashed thought.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Gastel
No. Einstein believed in original thought, not re-hashed thought.
Right, because taking a well-constructed logical puzzle and turning it into a "Simon says" type game is so wonderfully original. 🙄

Vote Up
Vote Down

Obviously the Iranian owns the fish......Moo

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Right, because taking a well-constructed logical puzzle and turning it into a "Simon says" type game is so wonderfully original. 🙄
As is using smiley's to try to make a point that your brain cannot. Einstein would be the type to want the reader to READ the WHOLE puzzle and thinking about it a bit before trying to solve it. He is the type who would have credited the thinker who realized that there is no definative proof.

This is why 2% get it. Which group are you in?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Gastel
As is using smiley's to try to make a point that your brain cannot. Einstein would be the type to want the reader to READ the WHOLE puzzle and thinking about it a bit before trying to solve it. He is the type who would have credited the thinker who realized that there is no definative proof.

This is why 2% get it. Which group are you in?
Forget about the fish for a bit. Do you agree that it's possible to solve for all the other humanoids, pets, smokes, and drinks with each house?

Did you bother solving the logical part, or did you just claim "insufficient data"?

Vote Up
Vote Down

[WORD TOO LONG] purple growing bannana's

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Forget about the fish for a bit. Do you agree that it's possible to solve for all the other humanoids, pets, smokes, and drinks with each house?

Did you bother solving the logical part, or did you just claim "insufficient data"?
Why would I solve the rest (although it is not difficult)? The question does not ask - "What does everyone have for pets, smokes, houses and drinks?" It asks, "Who owns the fish?"

Why waste time solving everything that is not asked? Did you determine or conclusively disprove the existence of gravitons before posting? If not, why not?