- #106
Enigman
- 640
- 312
It may be...logic please.
the next is 6 and the one after that is 5.Enigman said:Next one:
Find the next in series
3,1,4,1,5,9,2,_?
zoobyshoe said:the next is 6 and the one after that is 5.
I spent 20 minutes on it and then (DOH!) realized I should have seen it in a second.
collinsmark said:I want another clue about the Sherlock Holmes story.
Enigman said:I wear and tear my socks as I don't change them too often...*
.
.
.
.
------------------
*true fact.
You both are over-thinking things...Doyle said:"Your neighbor is a doctor," said he, nodding at the brass plate.
"Yes; he bought a practice as I did."
"An old-established one?"
"Just the same as mine. Both have been ever since the houses were built."
"Ah! Then you got hold of the best of the two."
"I think I did. But how do you know?"
"By the steps, my boy. Yours are worn three inches deeper than his. But this gentleman in the cab is my client, Mr. Hall Pycroft. Allow me to introduce you to him. Whip your horse up, cabby, for we have only just time to catch our train."
lendav_rott said:There has to be something else.. it's Holmesian deduction after all, his deductions were always ironclad.
My watch doesn't have a second-counter, although if the hour&minute hands were between 1 or 2 and coinciding then it can only be like 1:05-1:10 am or pm somewhere around that time. Cba to do the math right now.Enigman said:Next one (one of the more sillier ones)
In a clock all the hands are exactly placed between numbers 1 and 2. What time is the clock showing?
Does the clock have a second hand?Enigman said:Next one (one of the more sillier ones)
In a clock all the hands are exactly placed between numbers 1 and 2. What time is the clock showing?
Borg said:Does the clock have a second hand? If so, I don't think that they can all align exactly.
I was thinking of the wrong time when I wrote that but I still think that the time differs based on whether or not it has two or three hands. So which is it?Enigman said:Oh they can! Remember think out of the box- when you remain inside the box your fate is as uncertain as the cat's...I love opening boxes...<sinister laugh>
Yes it does with reference to your question.
This is a 'silly' puzzle I believe I mentioned. Also at that time all hands will be exactly in the middle of 1 and 2...looking at a clock really might help...Borg said:The hour hand moves [tex]360^\circ / (12 *60) min = .5 ^\circ / min[/tex]
Similarly, the minute hand moves [tex]360^\circ / 60 min = 6 ^\circ / min[/tex]
If we start at 12, you need to subtract one hour's rotation from the minute hand such that we have the following equations:
[tex]\theta_{hr} = t * .5 ^\circ[/tex]
[tex]\theta_{min} = (t - 60) * 6 ^\circ[/tex]
Solving for t:
[tex] .5t = 6t - 360[/tex]
[tex] t = 360/5.5 = 65.4545 \hspace{2 mm} minutes = 1:05:27[/tex]
When the minute and hour hands align, the second hand would be around 27 seconds.
Enigman said:Next one (one of the more sillier ones)
In a clock all the hands are exactly placed between numbers 1 and 2. What time is the clock showing?
nopeGad said:1:38?
Not that silly...just think out of the box...not out of the watch.zoobyshoe said:Since you said the answer is "silly," then I'm going to venture the guess that the clock is showing it's time to get a new clock. The gearing in an analog clock is such that the hour hand and minute hand can't possibly both be in the position you suggest at the same time. The clock's gears must be stripped.
Gad said:Lol! NOON!
I have two analog clocks right in front of me. I tried cranking the hands on one to the position you require and the gearing will just not allow it. If the hour hand is right between 1 and 2 the minute hand has to be at 6. If the minute hand is between 1 and 2, the hour hand has to be slightly past one, it cannot be exactly between 1 and 2.Enigman said:Seriously, has anyone looked at a nice clock with all 1-12 numbers on the dial after reading the Enigma? I face-palmed myself as soon as I saw one...When I was solving it myself that is.
Enigman said:And Gad Scores the Goaaallll!
Too sleepy to give an Enigma wait till I wake up
:zzz:
zoobyshoe said:I don't think the one suggested by collinsmark makes a lot of sense, since people tend to abandon doctors who don't cure them quickly and they try elsewhere. Recall I described Watson's predecessor as "successful," "popular," and "sought after."
Here's my non-googled thinking:collinsmark said:Sorry about that, but I was unable to resist the temptation to put a twist in the my answer.
It does remind me a riddle (so to speak) based on a true story though.
During WWII, statistician Abraham Wald was asked to help the Allied Forces decide where to add armor to their bombers. After analyzing the records, he recommended adding more armor to the places where there was no damage!(This is an easy one to research yourself with a quick Google search. So if you wish to figure it out for yourself, you'll have to stay away from Internet sleuthing.)
The Air Force was initially confused. Can you explain?
Enigman said:And Gad Scores the Goaaallll!
Too sleepy to give an Enigma wait till I wake up
:zzz:
zoobyshoe said:Here's my non-googled thinking:
Since his recommendation is counterintuitive on the face of it, we have to wonder why.
I happen to have read a lot of stories about the B-17 bombing raids on Germany out of England. There are a lot of accounts of planes making it back that, never-the-less, look shot to hell. On the other hand, a lot of planes got shot to hell and never returned.
Wald must only have had planes that made it back to examine. He probably concluded that the damaged parts of these planes were not critical. The planes that didn't make it back must have been damaged in places where these planes were undamaged. Those would be the critical areas, the areas that should be reinforced.
collinsmark said: