Originally posted by chess kid1 - 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?
------------------------------
Is it possible that the solution to this problem comes down to these two words?
"keep" and "own"
When my neighbor goes on vacation, I might “keep" their pet for a while.
Even though one of the neighbors in this problem may be keeping, lets say a bird - the problem statement allows that this bird might actually be owned another neighbor.
In this case, the answer would be nobody or unknown.
Originally posted by Gastel 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?
Originally posted by preachingforjesus I would like to point out that assessment of a problem can be achieved with out solving. Eg. sum[(f{x}=7x+4),(R={17....134})]
and before you ask, No I did not solve for mr. fishie either. I am far more entertained by reading 300 posts about how unsolvable something is.
[edit] sum=64990
Hmm, shouldn't the sum be 62835?
I disagree that assessment of difficulty is possible without solving. At a minimum, you should successfully solve at least one problem of similar type before claiming such problems are 'easy'.
Originally posted by dmnelson84 In all likelyhood, the semantics are just that...semantics. I think "The German owns the fish." is what Einstein was looking for.
Insufficient data! What are the odds that a German would own a fish? They probably prefer cats or dogs as pets. You need to do a survey of German pet-owners before you presume to know what kind of pets they have. Einstein wants you to think outside the box, dammit! 😵