Subject:
|
Re: King, Queen & Jack
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Dec 2000 23:05:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
140 times
|
| |
|
|
Scott A <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message
news:G5xI8M.8pC@lugnet.com...
> I read Dave's post the wrong way, I thought it one of those trick • questions
> which go around at this time of year. It got me thinking about this one
> which I read a week or so ago:
>
> Only one of the following statements about a particular hand of cards is • true:
> a. There is a king in the hand, or an ace, or both.
False, it either has to be an either/or statement somewhere in the
statement, or must have some rule that can be derived when compared against
other sentences in the statements.
> b. There is a queen in the hand, or an ace, or both.
As above. Scott, this puzzle is very badly worded, and totally illogical.
> c. There is a jack in the hand, or a ten, or both.
If we were trying to prove anything false, this statement, saying that there
is something other than an Ace and is the only one that does not have an ace
*and* a face card in it - the ten is not a face card. Possibly the one you
wanted?
> Q. Is it possible that there is an ace in the hand?
If all the statements themselves above are false, this couldn't be true, but
it's the question you're posing. IF restated, I would probably be able to
get an answer out of it. As it is, there is something like one divided by
one times number of cards in hand possibility that there exists an ace in
the hand. I'm not a maths freak, or a puzzle logistican, so you should
probably not expect to understand unless you're able to comprehend what I'm
saying.
> If you have seen before, please hold of replying for a bit. These things
> never have the same impact when one is expecting trouble - but I thought
> this would be fun.
Be a lot more fun if it was correctly worded.
Of course, there is the possibility that the person is asking whether there
are *any* cards in their hand, which they are showing to some other unknown
person, but since the statements don't tell you anything about that it's
impossible to say. The statements about the hand neglect to mention how
many cards total are in hand. There are just too many iffy portions of the
statements that have to be picked apart for anyone to be actually able to
say what is and what isn't in the hand. Otherwise you might just as well
ask God, I certainly don't know what you're talking about, but am willing to
try and theorize.
--
Cheers ...
Geoffrey Hyde
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: King, Queen & Jack
|
| The thing is, Geoffrey, that the point is not proving a, b *or* c true or false; but rather answering the question (is there, or is there not, an ace). Which is why the wording *is* actually valid... Haven't ever seen this before, but I love solving (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | King, Queen & Jack
|
| I read Dave's post the wrong way, I thought it one of those trick questions which go around at this time of year. It got me thinking about this one which I read a week or so ago: Only one of the following statements about a particular hand of cards (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
