itachi-san
-
Posts
3620 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by itachi-san
-
-
close, but not quite. you're closer to solving the third stanza than anyone yetThe d'Artagnan Romances?
-
yep! that's the middle stanza. just take it a step further as hinted in this post and you'll have the answer:The Three Musketeers?
-
here's a possible giveaway and final hint, but I don't think it's fair to keep it hanging around
fictional classics that have been made into films
-
heh no. the answer would be easily provable on each lineI would say bipolar disorder but it doesn't make sense...so...Multiple Personality Disorder?
Or it could just be Oompa Loompas or the weird creatures from Alice in Wonderland...
...A PACK OF CARDS!!! 
I recommended solving the middle stanza first since that is unquestionably the most well known of the three. from there you may need to use wikipedia in a clever way to solve for the other one or two. but of course, it's more than possible to be familiar with all 3, this is just advice for those who are not
-
she was pregnant, gave birth and died from the labor. oldie but a goodie
-
did you read what i wrote in the spoiler box? in your first 'point' you put the word 'other' in bold. why? it implies nothing. in your second 'point' you're assuming an unobtainable probability. and in your third 'point' you are classifying a trait under a label that it has never been characterized under. I do literally see them, they just don't make senseHow do you not see my points?
-
oh that's funny. glad it was just a joke. good job btw
Hidden messages aren't hidden when they are shown as the newest brain teaser.
-
retorts located in your spoiler box. I don't really see what your points are.See, I don't buy that answer as acceptable given the situation.
Here's why.
And the only other existing clone with that DNA has a clean record and just so happens to work at the Try N' Save Superstore where Johnny's currently holed up.-the word 'other' does not imply they are the same age
Since they are both clones, and not clones of one another, there is an extremely high chance that they are the same 'age' - why would the chances be extremely high? you know nothing of the experiment. also, if they are the same age, I supplied the answer that one shaves his head which is essentially the same point of the answer Witch gave
You also claim that they don't have any distinguishing marks that are different from one another, whereas a hair style would be a distinguishing mark.-hairstyles are not the issue. the difference is that one is now grey or bald. no matter what, that is not a 'distinguishing mark'
-
crack the code:
47,44,32,26,53 _ 5,23,42 _ 53,23,3,2 _ 44,49,58 _ 53,31,17 _ 1,16,3,33,5,51,7,21,4,55,23,5,61!
don't bother highlighting it
-
very nice! this was the answer I was looking forOh, this one's good.
A clone isn't an identical copy. If a fifteen-year-old were cloned, the clone would not be fifteen years old; they'd have to grow up from infancy.
One clone was older and didn't have blond hair anymore. The other was blond.
GO BIOLOGY!
also along these lines:
the other clone was older and went bald by then or just shaved his head if they were in fact the same age
-
no assumptions needed. any amputation of the lower left leg would suffice. unfortunately the amount of people who have had that is quite largeIt's recently passed 7 billion.
Of course, you have to assume that there is someone with no toes on their left foot
-
Put your favorite Christmas/Hanukah/Kwanzaa/Holiday spoofs here.
Oh, Jingle Bells, Twilight smells, Edward ran away, Bella died and Jacob cried, Potter all the way!
-
I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesnt impact the lives of others. When you get down to it, who is one person to dictate what another person does as long as they are only effecting themselves? Do I have the right to limit the amount of food a fat person eats? I say no.
It doesnt matter if youre on alcohol, marijuana, prescription drugs or just over tired or distracted by your kids in the back seat, reckless driving is the same thing. it always is and should have the same penalty no matter what the cause. same thing with public disturbances. If you are drunk or just a jerk it amounts to the same crime so the cause doesn't matter. Marijuana definitely should be prohibited from being used by minors and sold to them though just like any other adult substance. As for addiction, people can be addicted to not just cigarettes and alcohol among legal substances, but caffeine, food, sex, etc... it's a slippery slope to limit what people can do and consume that leads to a big brother level society. also, notice that most people who favor prohibitions are all for it until it's something that they like or do.
-
hmm. I don't know about that. Think about the various taxes put on the sale and production of the product as well as regulations put on the company to do all sorts of things from quality control to inclusion of the nutrition facts.I can't tell if that's exaggerated or not...but I would argue that my morning cereal is not politics.
My opinion of how to make government more efficient and less corrupt is similar to the tea party although I don't agree with everything they say nor some of the off the wall candidates they have put up for election. I do support them though, just as I support anyone's right to lawful protest. But basically I think the proper way to implement govt is to have as much control on the local level as possible. Fed govt should only be worried about national defense, public safety and national transportation as far as I'm concerned. Everything else should be left up to the states, provinces, cities and towns when it comes to civil laws. In the US for instance a town in TX is going to have a massive percentage of people who want to live under completely different conditions as those from a town in the NW or NE states so I say let them do what they want and then people can choose which areas in a country to live that best suite their ideals and life objectives
-
actually scrap that...is it someone from HP?
hehe no
-
This is probably wrong but...
Golom's multiple personalities? Or maybe Golom and the ring?
from LOTR. but that is the closest guess to the answer so far
-
maybe, but not certain
cameramen? paparrazzi and nature photographers fit most of the lines. the barricade could be the shutter and the jumping could be skydivers using the gopro cameras on their helmets
-
yes that's correctI'm assuming all the info I need is in the riddle, and I am only supposed to use that.
-
yep =)I get
zero
all it takes is for one person to have no toes on their left foot
-
this is not an original question, just one I came across recently that I liked. I searched and didn't find it so apologies if you've seen it before
There are roughly 6,984,895,594 people in the world right now according to the population estimation clock. What would be your estimation if asked to multiply together the number of left toes each person has?
-
now you are the closest to the answer. Same ballpark. Probably at the infield. But not quite near home yet =) keep in mind that the answer is plural as wellStrider, or rather Aragorn
but I don't recall if he was ever replaced with a sun
-
I came to this conclusion too, but 2 of the games have the same overall score (11) so it violates rule #3. I've been waiting to see others' solutions, but I think there is a typo in the OP or somethingGot it.
There must be 6 games - each team is paired with every other.
There are 4 teams, which we'll abbreviate S, T, U, and V. Each won a different number of games, so one must have won zero. Furthermore, this makes ties impossible; for teams to win 3, 2, and 1 games each, we need 6 victories, which means every game has a victory.
We'll focus first on figuring out who lost all of their games. By the rules, this is the only team with a 3-point loss. We will also figure out who won all of their games.
S: 1, 3, 7
T: 1, 4, 6
U: 2, 3, 6
V: 2, 4, 5
We can eliminate scores as we assign them to teams.
S did not lose all of their games. They had to have won at least 1.
T looks like a good candidate, but if we assume that they lost all games and try to assign a different number of victories to each team, respecting the "no matching games" and "only one 3-point loss and no greater" rules, we end up with two answers that both make it impossible to set up 2 rounds where 2 teams score equal numbers of points. So T did not lose all their games.
Could U have lost all 3 games? Maaaabye, but V looks more promising.
If we assume that V lost all 3 games, they had the 3-point loss. This would have to have been to S, 7-4. The two teams that scored 6 must them have scored 6-4 and 6-5, since 6-3 would have made a second 3-point win and 6-2 is even worse. In addition, by elimination, we now know that U won all of their games. Taken together, this gives us "T-U: 6-4, U wins", "T-V: 6-5: T wins", and "U-V: 3-2, U wins". Following this logic even further, we get "S-U: 2-1, U wins" and "S-T: 3-1, S wins."
This is promising! I never proved that U wasn't the team that lost all 3, but let's keep following this hunch for now.
SV: 7-4, S wins
TU: 6-4, U wins
TV: 6-5, T wins
UV: 3-2, U wins
SU: 2-1: U wins
ST: 3-1: S wins
Notice that we can set up the first two rounds as ST;UV and SV; TU and fulfill the "two teams with equal scores" rule. This leaves the final round as SU; TV.
Final round:
S scores: 1 (Bobcats)
U scores: 2 (Domestics) - VICTORS
T scores: 6 (Cougars)
V scores: 5 (Alleycats)
To check my work for errors:
Round 1 (or Round 2):
Sexton Bobcats vs. Treble Cougars: 3-1, Bobcat victory
Ulster Domestics vs. Verdue Alleycats: 3-2, Domestics victory
Round 2 (or Round 1):
Sexton Bobcats vs. Verdue Alleycats: 7-4, Bobcat victory, Alleycats trounced 3-1
Treble Cougars vs. Ulster Domestics: 6-4, Domestics victory
Round 3:
Sexton Bobcats vs. Ulster Domestics: 2-1, Domestics victory
Treble Cougars vs. Verdue Alleycats: 6-5, Cougar victory.
Great puzzle!
edit: nevermind... I just realized that 'score' meant both individual numbers... jeez I spent so long trying to figure out why it wasn't working out perfectly... lol
-
hmm. that's true, but unintended. my fault for not eliminating it. let me amend the OP to try to get the other intended answer. but you get credit for solving it originally and very quickly too. Also, I'll eliminate that first answer. I was debating whether that one was too easy or not and I'd like the riddle to last a little longer. although with the braindenizens on the case...Ok, my second possibility is that
Both clones aren't right beside each other.
You merely stated he saw them both, but if one wasn't visible from where Ima Neverwrong is standing, that that cannot be the suspect. So I'm assuming he walked up to the one she was looking at.
-
yes. this is one of the answers I was looking for. good job. but what if Ima were to have reported that Brian just got to work and didn't have time to dawn his uniform or a nametag?Just a guess
Since you said they didn't have time to dawn a disguise, I'm voting that he arrested the guy who wasn't in a work uniform for the Try N' Save
Laterally speaking
in New Logic/Math Puzzles
Posted
I don't think lateral thinkers are for you. Take this classic one for instance:
you can argue all day that:
but you'd be wrong because once the answer is revealed it is apparent that that was the riddles intention despite the many arguments you can make against it or the other strange solutions you can come up with
or take this classic: you can argue all day about the many places he could live or how the men died, but it would be silly and pointless
I wont bother providing more examples or pointless arguments. hopefully you get my point that despite how many solutions you can come up with there is one that best fits the given scenario and is satisfying to realize as opposed to something simple and bland like the answers you have provided thus far. also, the very fact that someone answered the intended solution is proof enough that the puzzle was effective and solvable