Who can solve this problem?

[Zero Alpha]

Originally posted by Vaskez: This means that the number must be ambiguous i.e. at least 2 possible age combinations add up to the house number.

not neccisarily. what if the house number is missing? or written in words in a language the teacher doesnt read?

[Vaskez]

Originally posted by Zero Alpha: quote: Originally posted by Vaskez: This means that the number must be ambiguous i.e. at least 2 possible age combinations add up to the house number.

not neccisarily. what if the house number is missing? or written in words in a language the teacher doesnt read? [/QUOTE]...and here is another genius who didn't understand the problem... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Aelia Jusa]

LOLOL - it's a logic problem people, not a cryptic crossword! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I did it similar to you Vaskez, except I started from clue 3 - obviously the violin means there is one choice that has two oldests, so I just thought of the only answer that has two oldest, worked out its sum and since obviously there are at least 2 choices because of the house number (maybe the house number's missing LMAO [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img] . Mmmm - maybe ), found the real answer. That way I avoided having to think of all the permuatations to begin with

[Vaskez]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: LOLOL - it's a logic problem people, not a cryptic crossword! [img]tongue.gif[/img] I did it similar to you Vaskez, except I started from clue 3 - obviously the violin means there is one choice that has two oldests, so I just thought of the only answer that has two oldest, worked out its sum and since obviously there are at least 2 choices because of the house number (maybe the house number's missing LMAO [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img] . Mmmm - maybe ), found the real answer. That way I avoided having to think of all the permuatations to begin with

Hmm I never said I was the smartest on IW, now I know I'm not
Hehe LOL maybe Aliens abducted the house number and erased it from the maths teacher's mind by the time he got back inside...

[Gabrielles blades]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: quote: Originally posted by Gabrielles blades: there is an oldest 'one' in the case of 1 6 6 in cases of twins people seem to note which one came out a few seconds before, and so say hes/shes the older one.

But this time is insignificant when taking the unit of measure (whole years) and level of persision (0 decimal places) in considderation. Jeesh, like Vask said, way to be too nit-picky ... [/QUOTE]/shrug, i suppose it might be nitpicky, but consider your own logic.


There is an assumption in the logic of this problem as solved by the math teacher. It naturally did have to do with the fact that he was a math teacher and so the math teacher would assume that a few seconds difference in birthing is insignificant.

So, when accounting for the unit of measure (years), the few seconds is insignificant. With this assumption of insignificance you would have only one oldest since according to a rounding of the years you would have 6 = 6.00001
as a true statement.

However, since the clincher of the question is not a mathematical matter, one would use non mathematical logic. ie, it doesnt matter how insignificant the age difference, there is still a difference that parents and children tend to actually note.

the problem to me has no solution if you dont use that assumption.
and yes there are places where supposedly insignificant numbers can have enormous ramifications even in scholastic pursuits (ie physics classes).

[Vaskez]

Hmm it's funny how the people who couldn't solve it are the ones nitpicking


There is nothing wrong with the maths. We're rounding ages to the nearest year and saying that there can only be a single oldest i.e. whatever the maximum of the 3 ages is, there can only be one. Nothing clearer than that. Anyway it was supposed to be a bit of fun....*goes off to look for another problem*

[Gabrielles blades]

ah but it is unclear, you are assuming that they have to be rounded when the problem in fact says nothing of the sort.
each hint does lead you to that assumption except the last one.

Hrm, come to think of it, if one wanted to, one could probably come up with 3 numbers which when multiplied by each other were exactly 36, and who were themselves decimal numbers, and who added to a whole number, it would probably take a considerable amount of time to ponder such a solution but it no doubt exists.

and yes it is a fun riddle, but i dont think the riddle has a real answer as it was written. I assume the original riddle was less ambiguous and so had some assumptions that it listed as you being allowed to make.

[InsaneBane]

Hmm - I remember once I had a discussion with a group of (Arrrh - I'll not tell which section of the population I am refering to - otherwise I would probably be acused of being a sexist ) that I trained in volley ball:

I argued for something and tried to make my arguments more valuable by ending my argument with "... that should be just as clear as 2 plus 2 makes 4". Then a new discussion started. It end up in that the g (errrh the group of the above mentioned section of the population as mentioned above) agreed that you couldn't be sure that 2+2 always was equal to 4. One of their arguments were, that the 2+2=4 stuff were something invented of the (Hmm - the other section of the population). If it had been up to them to come up with an answer to "such a philosophical question", the answer would have been "much clearer and understandable and would also have been much more precise".

I wonder how the ever learned to play volley ball

[img]graemlins/greenbounce.gif[/img]
Insane

[Deejax]

Originally posted by Gabrielles blades: quote: Originally posted by Night Stalker: Jeesh, like Vask said, way to be too nit-picky ...

/shrug, i suppose it might be nitpicky, but consider your own logic.

There is an assumption in the logic of this problem as solved by the math teacher. It naturally did have to do with the fact that he was a math teacher and so the math teacher would assume that a few seconds difference in birthing is insignificant.

So, when accounting for the unit of measure (years), the few seconds is insignificant. With this assumption of insignificance you would have only one oldest since according to a rounding of the years you would have 6 = 6.00001
as a true statement.

However, since the clincher of the question is not a mathematical matter, one would use non mathematical logic. ie, it doesnt matter how insignificant the age difference, there is still a difference that parents and children tend to actually note.

the problem to me has no solution if you dont use that assumption.
and yes there are places where supposedly insignificant numbers can have enormous ramifications even in scholastic pursuits (ie physics classes). [/QUOTE]While I don't agree with the reasoning above, I do agree with the point I think you are trying to make. I've often seen that people like me (who think making and solving math/physics type questions is pure fun) tend to assume quite a lot when it comes to these questions.

The problem, IMHO, is caused by the practice of 'translating' the mathematical problem (find two combinations of three numbers, whose product is 36 and whose sum is equal) to a story (about a math teacher). When I look at the story I see a mathematical question (my mistake) but there is really no reason to do so.

With the assumption that the problem is a mathematical one, more assumptions follow. For example that the teacher didn't see the children (or that he is blind or a complete idiot for not seeing the difference between a six year old twin and a 2 year old twin ) or that the children have rounded ages.

The difference in viewpoint makes the discussion about 'nit-picky' void, because one side is talking about a 'real-life' problem and the other about a purely mathematical one.

[Avatar]

Mmmm, 36 being such a good number with many factors that this is surely a linguistic problem rather.

all viable options that has the product to 36 seems okay to me as long as there is one oldest. depends how you define toddler, baby or teenager.