Here are a couple of trivial questions intended to b-muse:
No prizes for correct answers, just pride!
Truman State: a small public university in Kirksville Missouri. Home of about 5,850 students, the Bulldogs basketball team, and now an innovative twist on the classic collegiate game of Assassins.
For those of you unfamiliar with Assassins (which would be unsurprising in this modern age of all-too-real campus shootings), the classic format is this: you are given some other student’s name on a piece of paper. It may be someone you know, or on a decent sized campus, someone you don’t. Your mission is to “assassinate” that person by some established method. When Anthony Edwards played in the 1985 Cold War comedy Gotcha!, players used realistic looking guns with suction-cup darts. When I played in the mid-nineties, we’d been reduced to rolled-up socks in order to, I don’t know, be more lame. In any case, once you assissinate your target, then you are given that person’s target and you keep going until someone assissinates you or you’re the last person standing. Part of the fun is not knowing who all the other players are, how many there are, or who has you as his or her target. It makes those long walks across campus much more exciting.
So here’s the twist that Associate Provost Marty Eisenberg, senior Max Eisenbraun and junior Cody Sumter came up with: rather than using any physical weapons, make the battle a pure match of wits. Players each submit one not-necessarily-original puzzle, which must have a clear and definite solution. They are then emailed their target’s puzzle; solve it, their target is toast, and they get the next puzzle. If someone solves their puzzle first, they are out of the game.
Although still perhaps not quite as cool as the original, an advantage of Thinking Person’s Assassins is that it can be played not just on a college campus but on a global scale. All you need is someone to organize it, collect the puzzles, and send out the emails. Someone like, perhaps, Puzzle Monster? Stay tuned!
I got another email asking for help, this time from LaQuanda:
Engineers’ Week Math & Logic Puzzle #1: Marble Madness
A scientist gave one of four sealed boxes containing red and/or green marbles to the following people; Joe, Bob, Susan, and Kim. There were 3 marbles in each box, and the number of red marbles was different in each one. There was a piece of paper in each container telling which color marbles were in that container, but the papers had been mixed up and were ALL in the wrong containers. He then told all of them to open the box, take 2 marbles out of their box, read the label, and then tell him the color of the third marble.
So Joe took two red marbles out of his box and looked at the label. He was able to tell the color of the third marble immediately.
Bob took 1 red marble and 1 green marble from his box. After looking at his label he was able to tell the color of his remaining marble.
Susan took 2 green marbles from her box. She looked at the label in her box, but could not tell what color the remaining marble was.
Kim, without even looking at her marbles or her label, was able to tell the scientist what color her marbles were.
Can you tell what color marbles Kim had? Can you also tell what color marbles the others had, and what label was in each of their boxes?
CAN SOMEONE HELP WITH THE ANSWER PLS?
This is what is known as a meta-puzzle. Although you are not given all of the information needed — the label in the box — the fact that someone with that information was able to solve it is itself enough information to solve the puzzle. Raymond Smullyan wrote a number of terrific puzzles in this style in his book Alice in Puzzle-Land.
This particular puzzle is not as clearly written as it should be; there appear to be some unstated assumptions. Do the students know what marbles the other students pulled out, and what their responses were? It seems they must, or else Kim would not be able to identify the color of her marbles without looking at her own marbles or slip of paper. Based on this assumption, we can proceed to solve the puzzle.
SPOILER ALERT: DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO TRY TO SOLVE THE PUZZLE YOURSELF!
Let’s start with Joe. He pulled out 2 red marbles, so we know the box contained either 3 red marbles or 2 red marbles and 1 green one. We also know that after he looked at the label, he was able to identify the third marble. What could the label have said to make Joe certain of his answer? Suppose the label said “3 green.” Obviously it’s false, but it would be false regardless of the color of the third marble. It’s not enough information to identify the third marble. Since Joe was able to identify the third marble, this must not have been the label he saw. Suppose the label said “2 green, 1 red.” Again, obviously false, but again not enough information. Suppose it said “2 red, 1 green.” Then Joe would know the remaining marble had to be red, since the label was false. If the label said “3 red,” Joe would likewise know the remaining marble was green. But without knowing which of those two labels Joe saw, we can’t tell the color of the third marble.
Now consider Bob. He pulled out 1 red and 1 green marble, so he either has 2 red and 1 green or 2 green and 1 red. He’s already heard Joe’s response; if Joe had said his third marble was green, so that he had 2 red and 1 green, then Bob, knowing he couldn’t have the same pattern as Joe, would know his third marble must be green without having to look at the label. Since he did have to look at the label, we know Joe must have said his third marble was red. So Joe had three red marbles, and his label said “2 red, 1 green.”
Back to Bob. If his label said either “3 red” or “3 green,” he would not have enough information to tell the color of his third marble. His label couldn’t have said “2 red, 1 green,” because Joe’s did. So his label must have said “2 green, 1 red.” Since the label was false, Bob actually must have had 2 red and 1 green. His third marble, then, was red.
On to Susan. She pulled out two green marbles and looked at her label, but still could not figure out the color of her third marble. Suppose her label had said “3 green.” Since she knows the label is false, she could have confidently said her third marble was red. Since she didn’t, that couldn’t have been her label, assuming a reasonable level of intelligence (more on this later). Her label must have said “3 red,” which wouldn’t give her any clues; she could have either 2 green and 1 red or 3 green.
Finally, we have Kim. By process of elimination, she knows her label must say “3 green.” She also knows, like Susan, that she must have either 2 green and 1 red, or 3 green. But since her label must be false, she can’t have 3 green, so she knows she must have 2 green and 1 red — all without looking at her marbles or her label. Susan, by process of elimination, must have had 3 green. Puzzle solved!
One final comment: aside from the assumptions, this puzzle contains a flaw. There is forced stupidity on Susan’s part. If Kim could identify what marbles she had based on the information that was already revealed, why couldn’t Susan? Yes, her label said “3 red,” and with two green marbles she couldn’t tell if she actually had 3 green or 2 green, 1 red. But she could have applied the same logic Kim did, and deduce Kim’s label and marbles — and then her own, by process of elimination. So why didn’t she?
Because then the puzzle would be unsolvable. If Susan had been able to identify her third marble, we could not have been able to tell whether it was because she had a “3 green” label or if she had performed the logical steps described above. In order for us to be able to solve the puzzle, Susan had to be smart, but not too smart — at least, not as smart as Kim.