Puzzle Corner

[Keefkey]

Here's one I saw in a newspaper, reasonably simple: "Jugs Of Water"

You have 1 x 3 litre jug, 1 x 5 litre jug (both empty) and a water supply (e.g. a tap). You can only go to the water supply 3 times (i.e. filling up either of the jugs counts as one visit). Using only the 2 jugs, you must end up with exactly 4 litres of water. How's this done?

Fill the 5 litre jug. Then fill the 3 litre jug with water from the 5 litre jug. Now you have 2 litres of water in the 5 litre jug. Empty out the 3 litre jug and pour what's in the 5 litre jug into the 3 litre jug. Then refill the 5 litre jug, and fill up the 3 litre jug to the top. Since there were already 2 litres of water in the 3 litre jug, 1 litre is removed from the 5 litre jug, leaving 4 litres of water in the 5 litre jug.

[daamon]

@ Keefkey - Interesting solution, and using the water supply only twice. Even better than the solution I came up with (uses water supply 3 times).

Welcome to the thread, got any good puzzles / riddles etc.?

fill the 3l, pour into the 5l. fill the 3l, pour into the 5l, until 5l is full. now empty the 5l. now pour the remainder from 3l into 5l. now fill 3l and pour into 5l. job done

This is how I did it too.

[northcat_8]

That's a spin off of the "Die Hard" water puzzle. That one is pretty easy daamon

[daamon]

That one is pretty easy daamon

Yeah, I know - It was early and the thread had stalled so I thought I'd bung it in, in the hope we'd get some new decent puzzles... (Nudge, nudge... )

[daamon]

New quandry: Whodunnit?

A lone man is on the edge of a desert and will set out in the morning to cross it. He has two enemies.

During the night, one of the enemies sneaks into his tent, empties out the water from the man's spare water bottle and replaces it with a clear liquid poison that has no scent or taste.

The second enemy, unaware of this, enters the tent later that evening and punctures a small hole in the water bottle.

The man sets out as planned in the morning, initally drinking from his primary water bottle, while his spare empties. He dies of thirst.

Q: Who is responsible for the man's death?

[SquirrelDip]

I'm going to guess the lone man himself. Did he forget to take his spare bottle?

[jimmalenko]

The second enemy. His action ruled the first enemy's action out. Having nothing in the spare bottle ultimately led to his death from lack of water, not the poison put in by enemy 1.

[daamon]

Did he forget to take his spare bottle?

No, he took it. Though not specifically stated, it's not a trick question (well, not in that respect anyway).

The second enemy. His action ruled the first enemy's action out. Having nothing in the spare bottle ultimately led to his death from lack of water, not the poison put in by enemy 1.

Interesting - but consider this: He died of thirst, i.e. he died from a lack of water. If the second enemy hadn't struck, would he not still have not had any spare water and so died (be it from thirst or poisoning)? So does that still make the second enemy responsible?

Thus leaving the dilemna - who's responsible?

[jimmalenko]

The second enemy. His action ruled the first enemy's action out. Having nothing in the spare bottle ultimately led to his death from lack of water, not the poison put in by enemy 1.

Interesting - but consider this: He died of thirst, i.e. he died from a lack of water. If the second enemy hadn't struck, would he not still have not had any spare water and so died (be it from thirst or poisoning)? So does that still make the second enemy responsible?

I've changed my mind.

The act of removing water from the bottle in the first place meant that regardless of what happened after this, this contributed directly to the death as all things being equal, he would have still had water in his spare bottle had this first act not been committed.

[daamon]

I've changed my mind.

Have you ever done jury service?

The act of removing water from the bottle in the first place meant that regardless of what happened after this, this contributed directly to the death as all things being equal, he would have still had water in his spare bottle had this first act not been committed.

I disagree - "he would have still had water in his spare bottle had this first act not been committed". No he wouldn't (when he came to need it), because of the act of the second enemy.

If only the first enemy struck, the victim would be dead and it'd be clear who did it.
If only the second enemy struck, the victim would be dead and it'd be clear who did it.

You could argue that the second enemy saved the victim from "death by poisoning", but the second enemy isn't responsible for the victim's "death by thirst" because he didn't remove the water. His actions removed the poison.

On the other hand, you could argue that the first guy isn't responsible because the victim didn't die of poisoning and the removal of the water by him is immaterial because it would've gone anyway because of the second enemy.

They both struck and he died of thirst - there must be a cause and so there must be blame to be apportioned - So, who's responsible?

[jimmalenko]

You could argue that the second enemy saved the victim from "death by poisoning", but the second enemy isn't responsible for the victim's "death by thirst" because he didn't remove the water. His actions removed the poison.

On the other hand, you could argue that the first guy isn't responsible because the victim didn't die of poisoning and the removal of the water by him is immaterial because it would've gone anyway because of the second enemy.

If he died of thirst, then the removal of water is the only key issue. Therefore, enemy 1.

[daamon]

You'll notice I've purposefully not sided one way or the other - just played devil's advocate.

I'll leave it there, having chucked a few different views into the mix and see if anybody else cares to contribute...

[flaninacupboard]

It's neither enemies fault, the guy should have checked he had an adequate water supply before setting out on his journey. both enemies could be accused of attempted murder, but the actual death was caused by the guy not notcing half his reserve "water" was gone.

[northcat_8]

you guys are killing me

[Tommyknocker]

You know, I was going to say number one, but when I remember the movie Lethal Weapon, they said the women in the beginning of the movie was murdered because she was poisoned, even though she had already jumped to her death before the poison took effect. So I'm on the fence.

[jimmalenko]

And the answer is ????

[daamon]

And the answer is ????

I'd forgotten about this...

This is often used on law students - it's one of those "which came first - the chicken or the egg?" kinda questions.

There is no definitive correct answer - it's one of those unsolvable quandries. It's designed to stimulate thought and debate amongst students and VideoHelp forum posters alike... Which is exactly what happened.

Personally, I'd go with flaninacupboard's answer... But, hey, I'm no lawyer.

[adam]

You want the legal answer? Attacker #2 is the only individual who could be charged with murder, so in the legal sense he is clearly the one responsible. If the victim didn't die of poisoning then attacker #1 did not kill him, regardless of the fact that he had the intent to do so. You don't charge crimes in the hypothetical. The State is charged with proving, among other things, the manner and means with which the victim was actually killed. If they can't prove he was poisoned, and all attacker #1 did was attempt to poison him, then they can't prove he committed murder. They could charge him with attempted murder though.

There have been instances where a victim appears to be murdered, by stabbing for instance, only to later find out that the victim maybe died of a heart attack the day before. In these cases the most the person was charged with was attempted murder. There was an actual case where two completely unrelated people tried to kill one very unpopular man. One individual snuck into his house and stabbed him in his sleep. The other climbed a tree outside his window and shot him...in his sleep. The whole case revolved around who did this first.

This scenario is similar to one that I learned in my Crim. Law course. The lesson is just that there must be a connection between mens rea (intent to kill) and the killing. It goes like this:

You are a soldier during wartime. You hate your commanding officer and resolve to kill him. You take your rifle, aim, and fire only to realize that you have just accidentally shot one of the enemy. This is justifiable homicide. Later that day you spot an enemy soldier in the distance. You take aim and fire only to realize that you have just shot your commanding officer. This is justifiable homicide as well.

Even though you had the unjustifiable intent to kill a specific individual, and you did kill that individual, these two elements were not contemporaneous and not related, so you have not committed murder.

[daamon]

@ adam - Wow... That explains why you are also well up on copyright law etc. in other threads.

But, I'm still not clear on something - The "victim" died of dehydration, i.e. a lack of water in his water bottle. Assassin #2, although having the intent to kill, was responsible for emptying the 2nd water bottle of poision, not water. How is this the direct cause of the "victim"'s death?

I'd guess that some hot-shot lawyer might even argue that the actions of assassin #2 could have saved the guy's life had he managed to find a water hole in the desert... But only in the US would they try a stunt like that...

[jimmalenko]

If they can't prove he was poisoned, and all attacker #1 did was attempt to poison him, then they can't prove he committed murder. They could charge him with attempted murder though.

attacker #1 tipped the water out in the first instance though, and he died of dehydration (lack of water perhaps ?)

I know his intent was to murder by poison, but death still occurred directly because of him emptying out the water.

[adam]

I misread, sorry. Somehow I thought that he added poison to the water, and the later guy emptied it all out. I missed how the first guy emptied the water to begin with. The quandary makes much more sense now.

So, I hate to say it but I change my answer because I agree with what you both said. The first guy poured out his water and that was what killed him. No it doesn't matter how you intend to kill him, just that you do. Intent to kill can easily even transfer from person to person.

[jimmalenko]

That's OK adam. We'll let it slide just this once

[ViRaL1]

He'll still get off on appeal.

[NamPla]

OK...

Imagine a tunnel drilled down through the centre of the Earth and out the other side (in China).

a) If you fall in, do you slow up & stop in the centre of the Earth?

b) Or do you fall to the other side, then fall backwards & bounce back'n'forth until you reach equilibrium at the centre?

It's an old question, but do you know the answer?

[daamon]

OK - this is what I reckon:

Assuming that the tunnel is in a straight line through the centre of the Earth...

A person standing on the edge of this tunnel would have a certain amount of potential energy due to the Earth's gravitational pull towards the centre of the Earth, and their distance from the centre where gravity acts from.

If they fell or jumped in, this potential energy would be converted to kinetic energy, accelerating them to a maximum speed at the centre of the Earth.

As every body will remain at rest or at a constant speed unless a force is applied, the person would continue unhindered past the centre turning their maximum kinetic energy back to potential energy due to gravity decelerating them as they move away from the centre and as they approached the "end" of the tunnel (which is in China for some reason - depends where you're drilling from).

So, excluding the effects of air resistance as negligible (and the fact that the person would be toasted out of existence), the person would pop out the other side at a nice and easy rate - just enough to land on their feet quite comfortably.

[daamon]

How far can you get?

www.corwin.ca/gridlock/

There's no questions or answers here, just a fun online puzzle.

The objective is to move the bluey-grey block out of the exit and into the next challenge. It's been ages since I did it, so can't remember how far I got...

[jimmalenko]

a) If you fall in, do you slow up & stop in the centre of the Earth?

b) Or do you fall to the other side, then fall backwards & bounce back'n'forth until you reach equilibrium at the centre?

the person would pop out the other side at a nice and easy rate - just enough to land on their feet quite comfortably.

Is this answer C) ?

BTW, I'll lock in B. Gravitational forces will cause you to swing back and forth until you finally reach equilibrium in the middle.

[daamon]

the person would pop out the other side at a nice and easy rate - just enough to land on their feet quite comfortably.

Is this answer C) ?

Yeah, I guess it is... Failing that, if it truly isbetween A) or B), I'd got for B) too.

[flaninacupboard]

If you think of it, when you reach the centre of the earth you will be pulled with .5g in every direction. wonder what that feels like.....

[Capmaster]

You would fall, but your rate of descent would slow slightly the entire fall until you would be barely moving as you approach the center.

Gravity is determined by mass. As you approach the center of the earth, there is less mass ahead of you and more appearing behind you. At the very center you would be weightless, or close to it