rookie1ja

check my pictures on page 2

no probs, there are many such posts on my forum that made me laugh

already posted - check this topic this thread is locked

it's just a puzzle to tease your brain and have some fun ... don't take it too seriously

if you had 700 people then: 1. No two inhabitants have the same number of hairs on their head ... so 0 hair (1st person), 1 hair (2nd person) ... 699 hairs (700th person) ... each one - out of 700 - will have unique number of hairs 2. No inhabitant has exactly 518 hairs ... oops - I have to take this into account for the line above ... so so 0 hair (1st person), 1 hair (2nd person) ... no one with 518 hairs ... 700 hairs (700th person) 3. There are more inhabitants than any inhabitant's hair in the town ... so there would be 700 people and the last one has 700 hairs ... soooo there can't be 700 of them

already posted - check puzzle called One-Way Street where the discussion can continue this topic is locked

This leads to a logical fallicy though. I forgot the formal name for it. The concept is that you could never get from point A to point B because of the infinities involved. To get from A to B you must reach 1/2 way. Then you must reach 1/2 way again, then again, and so on for an infinite number of 1/2 way points. Therefore you never reach point B. We all know this is untrue in the "real" world even though it's mathmatically proveable. The fallicy lies in ignoring that at some point, your unit of travel will encompass the entire distance from A to B and you can ingore that 1/2 way point and all future 1/2 way points because you will have arrived at B. Achilles and the tortoise

Whaddya know, I was gonna say the same thing. it actually does mention the same month

as I mentioned a few lines above - it is listed as a sophism if you have a great paradox, you can send me an e-mail and I can add it to my page

what, in particular, are the reasons why my solution does not work?

tricky workarounds ... however, you are not allowed to do that

I wrote the following: Slice (or as you wrote: cut) the rectangle with a hole in its centre into 2 sections so that you could make (or as you wrote: move the boxes) a square 8x8 (without that hole in the centre). You may suggest better wording (for other puzzles as well). I thought that it could be understood from my wording (which is not perfect)

nice ... the same principle is applied in the following brain teaser called Igniter Cords and if you like that type of puzzles, be sure to check the following pouring water and weighing puzzles

here are a few "trapped" puzzles as well

that's right ... fyi, there is solution on the first page of each puzzle (search for "Spoiler for Solution" underneath the puzzle and click on the button that says "Show")

that's right ... fyi, there is solution on the first page of each puzzle (search for "Spoiler for Solution" underneath the puzzle and click on the button that says "Show")

no

It wouldn't matter how thin the bridge is. The left edge will ALWAYS be 9.5m. If it were a thin bridge, it will STILL be 9.5m. Thus, it can span the same distance as the thin bridge with the right side also resting firmly on dry ground. stability of bridge was questioned (and joelbernardo03 did some math on that) ... see picture below for better understanding

the following wording might be better: A sea serpent, 45 metres long, lies hidden under the surface of the water. The animal is bent horizontally and vertically, but doesn't touch itself anywhere, not even diagonally. Its head (1) and tail (45) are visible, as well as one other part of its body (23). The figures outside the diagram indicate how many parts of the snake can be found in each row or column. The black squares are rocks where the animal can't be. Can you establish its exact position?

actually, it is listed as a sophism

right

already submitted - check this thread this topic is locked

some discussion on the challenge is already here this topic is locked

I see your point ... however, I still think that my interpretation (2 'todays') makes more sense - at least to me

seems good ... however, there is just phpbb3 rc7 (and not phpbb3 stable version), so there are no update packages for all lower versions ... and I saw somewhere that there won't be any support for my version (phpbb3 beta 5) ... let's see when phpbb3 stable version comes out