|
02 Jul 09 - 12:08 PM (#2669820) Subject: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: fogie An abbot visits a monastery and says that at least one of the monks there has a deadly but non-contagious disease. The only symptom is a red dot that will appear on the following day on the forehead of those infected. As they will die an agonising death within months, he urges those infected to kill themselves as soon as they know. But they have sworn an oath not to communicate with each other and there are no mirrors and they meet only once a day, at lunchtime. One month later, the abbot returns to find that all the infected monks killed themselves on the same day. How did they know they were infected and why did they die on the same day? OK what am I missing? this is one of those irritating mensa type problems and I cant see what the solution is. I wondered if it was something to do with bending down over water -maybe in a glass? at lunchtime. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 12:17 PM (#2669833) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Wesley S They killed each other? They looked into a pool of water to see the spots? |
|
02 Jul 09 - 12:19 PM (#2669836) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: curmudgeon Only one monk had the disease as it was not contagious. When he observed that no other monk had the red spot, he deduced that he was it. "At least" only implies the possibility of multiples - Tom |
|
02 Jul 09 - 12:26 PM (#2669841) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Ringer Does "all the infected monks killed themselves" cover "the only infected monk killed himself", curmudgeon? |
|
02 Jul 09 - 12:30 PM (#2669850) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Don(Wyziwyg)T All, on seeing nobody with a red spot went off and killed themselves. If any had seen a red spot on another, he would not have killed himself, based on the assumption that he might be clear. Therefore the Abbot was a liar. Don T. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 12:30 PM (#2669853) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: curmudgeon "All" also implies multiples, but can refer to a solitary person or thing. "One egg was all I had for breakfast." |
|
02 Jul 09 - 12:35 PM (#2669857) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: curmudgeon "...returns to find that all the infected monks killed themselves..." does not allow for "...All, on seeing nobody with a red spot went off and killed themselves...," as they were not really infected. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 12:36 PM (#2669858) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Nigel Parsons It works for any number of infected monks. If there is only one infected he will kill himself on day 2 when he realises no-one else has a red spot. If he sees a red spot he does not kill himself. If two monks are infected they will each see one red spot on day two, and think they are safe. On day 2 they will realise there must be two red spots (and they can only see one) and so top themselves (as no monks commited suicide on day 2). The logic continues for any number. The will all comit suicide on the day they realise they can see one less spot than the number of days elapsed from the initial statement! Cheers Nigel |
|
02 Jul 09 - 12:38 PM (#2669860) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Nigel Parsons Typo: it should be "If two monks are infected they will each see one red spot on day two, and think they are safe. On day 3 they ..." |
|
02 Jul 09 - 12:55 PM (#2669874) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Jeri Nigel, I don't understand why a monk would assume there's a second red spot when they can see one. All the red spots would appear the day after the abbot was there. I think multiple monks are implied. I don't think seeing the reflection is the key to this as I would think it's a no-brainer. They all wash in water, they all drink reflective liquids, maybe eat soup and maybe use shiny utensils. Maybe there's glass or brass or a pond. I think the key is figuring out why they did it on the same day. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 01:04 PM (#2669877) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Nigel Parsons Jeri If there were only one red spot the on the day after the visit (day 2) that spot would appear. All the monks (except the one with the spot) could see a red spot and believe themselves to be safe. the only monk not to see a red spot would know he must have the red spot himself, and commit suicide. If there are two red spots then those with the spot would see one red spot on day 2 and expect that monk to kill himself. The fact that no suicide happens on day 2 must mean there is more than one spot, so on day 3 two monks top themselves. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 01:16 PM (#2669884) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: curmudgeon I think that Nigel has it, especially after this explanation - Tom |
|
02 Jul 09 - 01:18 PM (#2669886) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Jeri I understand what you're saying now Nigel, but nobody ever said there was only one infected monk, so they can't assume they're safe just because they see a red spot on somebody else. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 01:48 PM (#2669914) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: gnu Two on day two, you mean, right? Now, what about the Monk, let's call him Costello, that was pissed off because the Abbott gave the cake his sister sent to another guy. What if he looked at the Abbott and fiegned shock and then sympathy? And, since they can't talk, nobody could rat on Costello even if they saw him do it. Columbo? |
|
02 Jul 09 - 02:15 PM (#2669957) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Jeri The day after the abbot was there might have been a holy day. Might be the sabbath, but Christian monks probably wouldn't kill themselves anyway. They all saw the dot in their morning tea on the appointed day (the one following the abbot's visit), but waited a day to do the deed. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 02:39 PM (#2669979) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Don(Wyziwyg)T But who said they were Christian? There are Buddhist monks too. Don T |
|
02 Jul 09 - 03:07 PM (#2670001) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Paul Burke If it was non- contagious, why bother? May as well wait until it starts agonising before making a decision. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 03:09 PM (#2670003) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Eric the Viking It's a non-contagious disease. They cannot catch it or pass it on. They either all have it by being born with it or developing it such as cancer or heart disease or none has it except the one identified by the abbot. There being only one infected monk when the Abbot returns he finds that only one monk killed himself.He might have been identified by the abbot as "the one" or seen a reflection, or all the others might have run away when they saw it. (And presumably the other monks were all ok) leastways the pivot is that the disease is non contagious. At least it's wot I fink...... |
|
02 Jul 09 - 03:19 PM (#2670007) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Tug the Cox Christ, this works with 6 year olds. one monk sees two ( or more) with red spots, and pushes them together ( unless that counts as communication. In the real version with sticky spots on foreheads only talking and pointing are not allowed. The two monks then go and stand near anyone with a spot. When they are all satisfied that there is no-one else, they top themselves. Try this with a group, giving them say, 5 different colours and tell them to get into teams. Until ONE person stops thinking about their own colour, and starts helping others, there is only frustration. As soon as the first act of co-operation happens, it is solved very quickly, no matter how big the group. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 03:30 PM (#2670020) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: John P There are two possible solutions, both of which have already been given. "All" can refer to one; there is nothing about the word that denotes multiples. It just means completeness. The bit about the "same day" carries a connotation of multiple monks, but, due to the vagaries of English usage, could refer to a solo monk as well. Word puzzles do that sort of misdirection. So a solo monk could be all the infected monks and would kill himself upon not seeing any other dots. Since he was "all" the infected monks, it would logically follow that he killed himself on just one day, which would be the same day as all other infected monks (in this case, zero) killed themselves. Or two monks with dots would each know they were infected on day 3, as explained by Nigel. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 04:13 PM (#2670052) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Jeri I can't think of any disease that's an infection that isn't also contagious. (It may spread some other way than person to person, but it's still spread.) It may be more appropriate to think of an environmental illness such as poisoning. Not that that matters at all. The only thing it could possibly tell a person is that if Bernie the Monk has a red dot and Eddie the monk both has one too, and you were at the same poker game and drank the same spiked holy Koolaid, and nobody that was NOT there has a red dot, you might want to consider your options. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 07:11 PM (#2670190) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Tug the Cox Jeri, if something is contagious it specifically refers to passing on bt touch. Infectious includes this category, but also includes passing on by breathing in, contamination of food/drink. and by admixing of body fluids, with or without physical contact ( think Aids and haemophiliacs).Lots of infections are therefore not contagious. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 07:15 PM (#2670194) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: gnu Don.... Buddhist monks don't have Abbots.... unless... oh, that's a different thread. Heeeey Abboooooot! |
|
02 Jul 09 - 07:51 PM (#2670213) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: curmudgeon Problems of this type are, or at least should be, solved by deductive reasoning, a la Sherlock Holmes, using ONLY the information provided in the passage. For example,"there are no mirrors" means, no reflective surfaces of any kind. "...sworn an oath not to communicate with each other...," no touching, speaking, pointing, shocked expressions. etc. No conjectures, ie., Holy Days, what monks are like, what they MIGHT do, lies, are allowed as part of the solution. While the solution I offered may be plausible, it is too dependent on the use of the language. Thus, I find Nigel's explanation preferable. However, I don't think his solution can be expanded beyond two monks. Let's have another of these, please - Tom |
|
02 Jul 09 - 07:59 PM (#2670216) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: John P Word puzzles usually include all the information we need to solve it. The non-contagious is there to let us know that each monk either has the disease or doesn't have it, and that's not going to change. "No mirror" means that they can't look at themselves; if they could look into a glass of water or a spoon, there would have been something in the puzzle to lead us in that direction. The wording of the puzzle tells us that the only way they can find out if they have the disease is by looking at the other monks once a day. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 08:10 PM (#2670217) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Nigel Parsons Tom, Of course it can be extended beyond two monks. As shown above, if two (and only two) monks have the red spot then they will commit Hara Kiri on day 3. If, on day 3 you check all the other monks and only see 2 spots then you expect them to top themselves. If they do not do so, then as you know of only two red spots, and each of them clearly knows of only two, then each of you can logically decide that you must have the third and must commit suicide. For any number of red spots the realisation will only dawn on those with a red spot the day after the number of red spots they can count has not resulted in a mass suicide. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 08:15 PM (#2670218) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Jeri TtC, so tuberculosis isn't contagious... who knew? Actually, a disease is contagious if it's passed on by direct or indirect contact such as inhalation (such as tuberculosis) or ingestion (such as hepatitis A). Tom, I'm sorry, but I don't understand why seeing someone else has a disease means you don't have it. Here's a question: 'the abbot returns to find that all the infected monks killed themselves'--how did the abbot know which monks had been infected when they didn't have any red dots while he was there? How did he know that a few uninfected guys didn't jump off the roof too? Or did they just blow the place up and ALL die at the same time? Fogie, find the person who asked this and do whatever is needed to get him to tell you the answer. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 08:22 PM (#2670220) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Jeri Nigel, if everybody with the disease will have a red spot specifically on the day after the abbot's visit (not later), how do you get a new case each day? And if the disease were spreading (which it isn't), why are you assuming there's exactly 1 new case each day? |
|
02 Jul 09 - 08:26 PM (#2670222) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: curmudgeon Nigel, if I follow you correctly, it would seem to take more days for more red spotted monks to catch on, thus negating the fact that "...all the infected monks killed themselves on the same day." But maybe I'm not really following you. Jeri, you've got it backwards;"When he observed that no other monk had the red spot, he deduced that he was it." Fogie, at least come back and comment. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 08:58 PM (#2670233) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Jeri "When he observed that no other monk had the red spot, he deduced that he was it." The above only works if only one monk has it, and the original post said 'at least one of the monks'. What if he sees one or more monks have red spots? He won't know he doesn't have one as well, and the monks who have red spots won't have any way of knowing they have them. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 09:36 PM (#2670250) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: heric It was a mass murder/suicide on day 3 by one really pissed off monk. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 09:42 PM (#2670256) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: BK Lick Fogie appears to have given us a confused version of this well known puzzle. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 09:46 PM (#2670259) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: frogprince God told the infected monks that they were infected. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 10:00 PM (#2670265) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: curmudgeon "'At least' only implies the possibility of multiples." |
|
02 Jul 09 - 10:12 PM (#2670267) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Jeri BKLick, thanks. With time a factor, the solution makes more sense to me. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 11:08 PM (#2670281) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Janie Where's Bill D. when you really need him? |
|
03 Jul 09 - 02:47 AM (#2670348) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: fogie Thank you all, and BK lick who has found what is probably the original conundrum. I thought Nigel Parson got it first, and wonder if he'd ever heard it before - if not well done Nigel! This was set as a question by a Rotarian colleague for a competition, the proceeds of which are to go to charity - I will not be claiming any prize but will give my donation on behalf of Mudcat. The puzzle was driving me spare - thanks again. |
|
03 Jul 09 - 04:44 AM (#2670419) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Monique Here is the solution and many more riddles |
|
03 Jul 09 - 04:54 AM (#2670429) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: bubblyrat All this talk of Red Dots has me thinking of brake-fluid.Do monks have cars ?? |
|
03 Jul 09 - 07:32 AM (#2670526) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Dave the Gnome Do monks have cars Of course they do. Never heard of Monkswagons? :D (eG) |
|
03 Jul 09 - 07:53 AM (#2670535) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: catspaw49 Of course they have cars. Where else would they get the gasoline? Spaw |
|
03 Jul 09 - 08:15 AM (#2670554) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Jeri My first thought was the red dot had something to do with a laser sight, but I had the good sense to keep it to myself. |
|
03 Jul 09 - 11:01 AM (#2670676) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Ringer Congratulations, Nigel Parsons. Good answer. |
|
03 Jul 09 - 12:48 PM (#2670755) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: katlaughing Mine was that they'd all converted to Hinduism! |
|
03 Jul 09 - 01:12 PM (#2670771) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: greg stephens Nigel Parsons solution only works if each monk is (a) as clever and logical as Nigel Parsons and (b) is prepared to assume that all the other monks are as clever and logical as Nigel Parsons. There is nothing in the wording of the question to suggest this is the case. Many of the monks may be as thick as two short planks, and many of the other monks will know this as they all live together. In which case, Nigel's solution falls down. Orry, but that's logical. |
|
03 Jul 09 - 03:17 PM (#2670874) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Art Thieme The monastery set up a restaurant at a nuclear electric plant. Two monks tended the counter. One was the fish friar. The other one was the chip monk. Art Thieme |
|
03 Jul 09 - 03:19 PM (#2670875) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Art Thieme Nuclear fission chips! Art again |
|
03 Jul 09 - 04:14 PM (#2670909) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: Nigel Parsons Greg, With no television, and no conversing with the other monks, they all have plenty of time to think. |
|
03 Jul 09 - 05:26 PM (#2670978) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: SharonA Waitaminnit -- the abbot visits the monastery where they have sworn an oath not to communicate with each other, and the abbot SAYS something? ...and the monks LISTEN to this communication???? |
|
03 Jul 09 - 05:32 PM (#2670986) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: gnu Ahhh... ya gotta know the order of things, SharonA... hehehe. |
|
04 Jul 09 - 10:25 AM (#2671394) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: GUEST,Guest And then there was the BLACK SPOT ! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrrrrr Jim lad ! |
|
04 Jul 09 - 12:33 PM (#2671482) Subject: RE: BS: a conundrum solution wanted From: gnu Someone correct me if I am wrong, please... SharonA... Abbotts can speak and monks can speak to the Abbott when he grants. My "cake" scenario above is predicated on the fact (again... ?) that an Abbott can do such things. |