Apolitical Intelligence Tests With Important Point to Follow

Not so much an algorithm as a sort of broken symmetry. After I came up with my answer, I googled to see if I was correct and the only other answer to the problem I saw had a completely different pattern on the sixth line - which was strange. I can't find that solution now but the first 5 lines were exactly the same but the sixth went something like 13121231 or something like that.

I loved the von Neumann quote, btw..........such a genius. Solved the problem of travelling such vast distances across galaxies so elegantly.

 

You walk into a room with two large gates. One leads to heaven, the other to hell. Each gate is guarded by one angel. The angel which guards the gate to heaven always tells the truth. The angel who guards the gate to hell always lies. You may ask one single question to one of the angels before choosing a gate and entering.

 

Well, if you feel you have made some important point that is good for you, I suppose but you tried to pass this off as an intelligence test which it is surely not. You confirmed it with your "well-educated friends did you, lol? What is the important point you feel you have validated so emphatically?

Because the answer is subjective to the reference frame of the poser, it is more an exercise in tricking those who play with word games whereby only those who accidentally follow the same logical starting point as the original framer are going to come up with the same conclusion as you do. I think many on this thread have tried to point this out to you so I will leave it there though I am reminded of a limerick that was passing around the department where I worked in the early days of the internet:

Forget the balance and check
Screw peer review, what the heck
Send all your crap to the internet. Zap!!
Who cares if it's nothing but dreck

 

This is a play on one I remember from high school whereby you have a tent with all sides facing south and a bear comes along. What colour is the bear?

An oldie but goodie

 

Ask the angel "Which gate would the other angel says leads to Heaven."

The hell daemon would say "The gate I guard"
The heaven daemon would say "The gate the other daemon guards"

In both cases you take the gate not specified and end up in Heaven.

 

Close Enough, the traditional answer to ask an angel what the other angel would say about their own gate.

The angel which lies will say that the other angel would say their gate leads to hell, and the angel who tells the truth would say the other angel would say their gate leads to heaven. The opposite is true on both accounts.

 

I'll repeat. Neither test is simple. This is evidenced by the number of viewers who didn't bother to attempt to answer even one of them. All the information is accessible to anyone who reads the stories, but some can't figure out the answer. Others derive incorrect answers and very few solve one much less both of them correctly.
This is akin to the arguments regarding climate change, Neo-Darwinism, Intelligent Design, and atheism. Accessing the very same information, two disparate sides arrive at what each thinks is logical and valid but opposite conclusions.
How could you miss that?

And here you are in the middle of that "dreck" as you call it. Your words are wise, while the words of others are "dreck".
What the heck.

 

The OP made it partisan with his ridiculous responses in attempt to his hijacking of his own thread with his dig at people who disagreed with him.

 

Which is precisely why I said "the OP did indeed throw in a dig at leftists".

This thread has been interesting because it has gotten people discussing various brain teasers. If one is seeking to fling poo, I suppose the opportunity is there, and it looks like you too are itching to take part. The majority of this thread however has been blissfully separate from aimless political bickering.

 

The OP was the first to hijack his own thread and "fling poo." He indeed is the culprit that took away the fun and made it a partisan issue.

 

....and you are standing in line to fling some back regardless of the fact that there truly isnt a political issue involved in the concept of brain teasers. To me, that makes you two peas in a pod.


FWIW...at least the OP could argue that he had to include something political or the thread would be moved to another forum. The poo flinging returners have no such excuse.

 

I missed it because it has nothing to do with your original problem and proves nothing about arguments on Darwinism, climate change or anything else.

If you are trying to make a point about climate change, your point is no different that being lectured on science by people who could not solve a differential equation or calculate a standard deviation. People start with fallacious assumptions as points of reference and continue from there with almost no intention of considering evidence, facts or others points of view.

If your "important point" is that people have different political opinions based on their frame of reference, well, that is hardly Earth-shattering news, now is it? The dreck is because you tried to pass this off as a test of intelligence.

But you've managed to get 5 pages of responses so........mission accomplished, I suppose.

 

LOL....so it's ok for the OP to make this thread a partisan issue yet you are whining about people firing back?? What a lame excuse.

 

Please go fling poo elsewhere. I am not interested.

 

Then quit your whining and stop responding to my posts.

 

I asked you nicely. Please fling your poo elsewhere. I am not interested.

 

You're beginning to grasp my "point." Keep trying.
Meanwhile, "science" has innumerable complex niches. For you to pretend that every individual well versed in science of any sort MUST be able to do calculus or statistics is absolute nonsense, and you should know it, but evidently do not.

The Wright Brothers did a fabulous job of aeronautical engineering with no training, no calculus, no standard deviations.
This was eight years after the world's premier scientist, Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, said "Heavier than air human flight is impossible." Q.E.D. Arrogance such as yours has no place in science, but sits at the table of Scientism.

 

Thank you, Friend. I have more good stuff for you. Send me a private note if you would like to see it. I got a whole bunch yanno.

 

Well sure there have been lots of self-made people who have made great contributions to knowledge and industry. And scientific theory is always ready to be overturned by new discoveries just as Einstein revolutionized Newtonian ideas of motion and gravity.

But in general, you are going to be better informed understanding the opinions of people who have actually studied and been trained in a subject. Expert opinions, while open to being proven wrong, are in general going to have a better understanding of the complexities and and a deeper knowledge of a subject than someone who has not disciplined themselves in structured study - including mathematics which is a valuable tool for understanding the natural world.

For instance, if you had cancer surgery, would you want to be operated on by an actual surgeon who has spent years studying the subject within the constraints of a disciplined program of education and practical experience, or someone who watched a lot of "Secrets of the ER" on TV?

And you can call me arrogant all you want but I'm not the one trying to pass of a 150 year old word game as a measure of intelligence and then dissing anyone who disagrees.

 

Not quite correct. The third prisoner is blind and cannot see what color the others are wearing. He must deduce the info from the others' answers.

 

I knew that was too easy.

 

True, but sighted or blind doesn't really matter. What threw me was the possibility of both RBB and BBB being possible, without realizing that it doesn't matter because both are black hats.

One of those stupid mistakes I make.

 

Maybe this one is too easy too?

I have cities, but no houses. I have mountains, but no trees. I have water, but no fish. What am I?

 

a map?