▲ 34 points
back
14 comments
I only looked at the first "puzzle" and then came back here in some kind of frustration. The "solution" includes apportioning 9 camels to the first son, but 9 isn't 1/2 of 17. Maybe I'm pedantic, but if the solution is allowed to approximate or change the aportionment, then that should be specified in the puzzle statement! I felt tricked. Anyone else?
In addition to the observations in the sibling comments, note that "one half of the camels should go to the eldest heir, one third of the camels should go to the second heir, and one ninth of the camels should go to the youngest heir." -> 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/9 = 9/18 + 6/18 + 2/18 = 17/18ths, not 18/18ths. The will "happens" to be incorrect and fails to allot the full inheritance in exactly the way it needs to be for this to work.
If someone says they'll pay $8.50 but then they round up and give you $9, you wouldn't say they didn't give you the $8.50 due, right? It's in the $9.
I think implicitly with the inheritance is the assumption that the father is promising at least 1/2, 1/3, and 1/9 of the flock to the respective sons, not the exact fraction. There's a solution where each son gets what's promised, and then a little more.
There's a Wikipedia page about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17-animal_inheritance_puzzle
You are correct that it's not solvable in a rigorous mathematical sense as stated.
I added a sentence: “(Warning: This is sort of a trick question, so don’t expect a textbook-style answer!)” I hope that this will prevent others from being similarly frustrated.
What confuses them is the point of the puzzle, to learn that problems can be solved by expanding your perspective and challenging your assumptions. Instead they attack it for being outside their perspective and assumptions.
So I dislike the clue; it undermines the puzzle IMHO. You'll never please everyone!
No, it's that I don't believe the given solution solves the problem as stated. I think if it had said "at least 1/2", "at least 1/3", etc, then it would be fine. Like, if I asked you "how do you paint a 10 square foot wall white with only an ounce of white paint?" and then revealed the answer as "add a bunch of blue paint! The wall is painted white now (also blue, but still also white). Haha!"
That's why it's a puzzle and not a textbook word problem. Though maybe word problems should be puzzles more often so that students don't just plug the numbers into a formula and report the result without thinking whether it would be a good solution in the real world.
Note that the integer solution leaves no son cheated out of their inheritance. Everyone gets their apportionment, and a little more.
That's like saying, if I have 9 apples, and I give you 3, how many apples do I have? 4! Get it? I have 4 apples, and I have 2 more, but that still means I have 4 apples! I still argue that, since 9 > 8.5, this is a trick question rather than a puzzle. If the puzzle said "how do we apportion the camels so that the three sons are satisfied" that would be different.
The part you're missing is that the solution includes the solver gifting a camel to make 18, then taxing back the leftover camel at the end.
Of course, that's still got the same kind of 'but that's not in the rules' issue, but I think the bigger element is that it's not really meant as a "puzzle", but more showing off the unintuitive nature of the results.
> (Warning: This is sort of a trick question, so don’t expect a textbook-style answer!)
Puzzle 1 as written has an error. "with the remaining one-eighteenth of a camel left for the vultures" should be "with the remaining 17/18th of a camel left for the vultures"
Thanks for catching this! I fixed the error.