Creative thinking question

[Montez]

The problem with the riddle is that it is based on the assumption that you spend more time working with RBY than RGB/CMYK. This is obviously not true for everyone (especially not for me, which is why my brain exploded when someone said "purple").

That's like saying that a person can't answer the question of "What is the next number in this sequence: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,?" if they don't have any knowledge of mathematics. Well yeah, of course they can't. It means there is a deficiency in your knowledge, not in the question. It's the question's fault that you are ignorant of a convention that up until about 10-15 years ago was never questioned outside of extremely specialized circles? And to correct you, the assumption is that you know of the existence of RBY, not that you spend every day mixing paint together.

Additionally the expectation of the testee answering "purple" or "red" is rather irritating.

Why? They were asking for a color for an answer.

If triangles are red and circles are yellow, trapezoids could just as well be green if you follow the logic that the actual shape of a trapezoid is derived from a square rather than being made up of multiple squares and/or triangles.

That way of looking at it kind of renders the problem unsolvable though, so obviously it is not the right way of looking at it.

From a programming perspective I'd think of rectangles, trapezoids and so on to be derived from squares (apart from squares actually being possibly derived from rectangles because a square IS a special rectangle) just as I'd think of a circle being derived from an ellipse.

Well, that's kind of the point of the riddle, isn't it? That's why it's called "creative thinking" - if you can't think outside of rote knowledge you aren't going to be able to answer it.

I'm amazed that people have such a hard time with this. Is everyone so insecure about their intelligence that they are unable to accept the simple fact that there are some questions they can't answer? How about you pose a programming riddle, and since I have no knowledge of programming outside of basic I'll pointlessly argue and complain and nitpick and finally say that the question is ridiculous. Does that give you some idea of how ridiculous debating this is? It's a riddle with a solution, you couldn't figure out the solution - so fucking what? Why the hell are people turning it into a point of pride? Guess what, you aren't omniscient, there are some things that you aren't going to figure out, the same as for me or anyone else.

 

[drachton]

That's like saying that a person can't answer the question of "What is the next number in this sequence: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,?" if they don't have any knowledge of mathematics. Well yeah, of course they can't. It means there is a deficiency in your knowledge, not in the question. It's the question's fault that you are ignorant of a convention that up until about 10-15 years ago was never questioned outside of extremely specialized circles? And to correct you, the assumption is that you know of the existence of RBY, not that you spend every day mixing paint together.

First, I'd argue that ignorance of RBY isn't a deficiency, since we just established it was wrong and of interest only from a historical perspective.

Also, from your explanation on page 1:

You could argue that a square is just two or more triangles, but then it's commonly known that people refer to circle, square, triangle as the basic shapes.

It's commonly known to whom? From my (mathematical) point of view, a circle is a lot more "complicated" in the geometrical sense than any quadrilateral, and you can actually define a circle as a regular n-sided polygon with n tending to infinity. From there I can come up with the answer that a trapezoid, and indeed *any* n-sided (where n is finite) polygon, is red, because I can deduct from the yellow circle, with no greater leap of logic than your own, that the color changes at infinity, and as everybody knows (?), it's impossible to reach infinity. Therefore, since a 3-sided polygon is red, a 4-sided polygon will also be red since a gradient to infinity will be of constant color.

There you go, I used all the information given in the riddle by using the kind of logic (put to dubious usage here, but again, no more from my perspective than your own derivation) that could conceivably be used by a scientist or an engineer (when faced with a riddle with such unrelated parameters).

<edit>Changed the last sentence because it didn't express well what I meant.</edit>
My point being, the question assumes a certain level of knowledge in geometry/color theory, and anyone with deeper acquaintance with mathematics will likely get the answer wrong. Now it can be argued that scientists and engineers possibly aren't the best material for soldier work, but that doesn't change the fact that the riddle is skewed in favour of a certain view of what is common knowledge.

 

[Murdoch]

Drachton, it is obvious why you are having issues with this thing. You are definitely not among the 'common' people, none of whom give a damn about your silly math mumbo-jumbo.

Square, Triangle, Circle.
Red, Blue, Green.
These are the basic things you learn in kindergarten, and obviously unlearn in math class.

 

[Mikey]

OK, so if you decide you prefer RGB or Potato to RBY, why not just go and form your own branch of the SEALs, rather than joining an organisation that is obviously anti-potatoist?

 

[drachton]

Murdoch: Don't you have to take calculus in your last year of high school, though?

Mikey: I see what you mean, but I don't actually have an issue with the SEALs using this question on their test, I simply disagree with Montez that there is one logical answer, and that to come up with anything different is somehow a failure.

 

[Murdoch]

Murdoch: Don't you have to take calculus in your last year of high school, though?

That was...(counts on fingers and toes)...8 years ago? Yeah, like 8. And I did poorly. And the semester I took in college I was grateful for the D, and that with visiting the prof ona weekly basis to figure it out, he was probably just sorry for me.

Derivatives, pshsh. I can only understand something I can see and interact with, not a string of numbers on a board.

You see my point though, right? Granted, most NMAers are smarter and more math oriented than me, but still, few of us use math to the extent that you do in 'solving' that problem.

 

[Montez]

First, I'd argue that ignorance of RBY isn't a deficiency, since we just established it was wrong and of interest only from a historical perspective.

"Historical Perspective"? I never agreed that that was the case, I just thanked you for the information. People do still use it, and after talking to some people that I work with that are art students I can say that the color wheel and RBY is still around. Regardless of that, there is no argument about it being a deficiency in terms of the problem - it is knowledge related to color theory, and if you lack that knowledge then there is a deficiency in your knowledge of color theory, yes? You can argue that it is no no way a serious deficiency, or that deficiency might be too strong a word to describe it, but there you are.

t's commonly known to whom?

Pick any bunch of random people on the street and ask them to name three basic shapes. Type "basic shapes" into google and see what results you get. As Murdoch pointed out, this is simple stuff.

From my (mathematical) point of view, a circle is a lot more "complicated" in the geometrical sense than any quadrilateral, and you can actually define a circle as a regular n-sided polygon with n tending to infinity. From there I can come up with the answer that a trapezoid, and indeed *any* n-sided (where n is finite) polygon, is red, because I can deduct from the yellow circle, with no greater leap of logic than your own, that the color changes at infinity, and as everybody knows (?), it's impossible to reach infinity. Therefore, since a 3-sided polygon is red, a 4-sided polygon will also be red since a gradient to infinity will be of constant color.

Ok, there you are. That's all I was asking for, an actual reasonable alternate solution instead of people nitpicking my solution. I have to ask you though, do you find that solution satisfying in any way? Does it make any sort of internal logical sense?

There you go, I used all the information given in the riddle by using the kind of logic (put to dubious usage here, but again, no more from my perspective than your own derivation) that could conceivably be used by a scientist or an engineer (when faced with a riddle with such unrelated parameters).

Not to be insulting, but I would call them a pretty stupid scientist if they are so dull-witted and unimaginative that they are unable to identify and answer a simple riddle without a rote application of mathematical proofs, and I would doubt their ability to display any ingenuity or creativity in the field of science.

My point being, the question assumes a certain level of knowledge in geometry/color theory, and anyone with deeper acquaintance with mathematics will likely get the answer wrong.

As I said before, anyone who is unable to think outside rote knowledge, who is completely unable to display any metal flexibility or creativity will get it "wrong", or more correctly be unable to see a simple solution, or even more correctly be unable to see it as a GAME instead of something that must be solved through mathematical analysis. It doesn't matter if they are a mathematician or a scientist or a secretary or whatever. It's a puzzle that is about finding a simple solution that has a simple internal logic to it, and that's it. I wonder if any mathematician is able to play or enjoy sports or video games? Nah, they'd have to analyze it and frame it in terms of equations first, right?

Now it can be argued that scientists and engineers possibly aren't the best material for soldier work, but that doesn't change the fact that the riddle is skewed in favour of a certain view of what is common knowledge.

Has anyone ever heard of logic puzzles? You know, those things in newspapers or bookstores next to the crosswords? Has anyone ever taken any sort of intelligence test? It has nothing to do with being a navy seal, that's just another example of the obtuseness that is being shown. The riddle is skewed in favor of people who like to solve logic problems or puzzles, it has nothing to do with any specific profession. You're leading me to believe that you and others have virtually no experience with anything in life except for studying math or computer science.

 

[Elric]

I still don't see it very logic, it's just childish... "Hey let's say Mr Square is Blue and Mr Triangle is Red..." Logic tests are far more intuitive, direct and, er..., logical than this 'puzzle'.
This is just silly. We could assume that if you divide a trapezoid in squares and triangles each component would maintain its colour. Why should the two colors blend together? If it's logics, we aren't discussing a material colour, but a philosophically plausible abstract concept of said colour. That doesn't mean it respects the physical laws of the 'real' colour. BUT, this could after all imply that these abstract simulacra of colours have inherent properties that allow them to have mutual influences over each other. Nevertheless, this coul create an identity problem: purple is purple, or is purple red and blue? Or perhaps is purple blue or red? Is purple ontologically consistent? Does it have an original nature of its own, is there an innate idea of purple?
Mr Pink says no. No tip for the waitress.
Is there a point in all this? Does this make any sense?
No, then again, point a post in this thread that does.

 

[drachton]

From my (mathematical) point of view, a circle is a lot more "complicated" in the geometrical sense than any quadrilateral, and you can actually define a circle as a regular n-sided polygon with n tending to infinity. From there I can come up with the answer that a trapezoid, and indeed *any* n-sided (where n is finite) polygon, is red, because I can deduct from the yellow circle, with no greater leap of logic than your own, that the color changes at infinity, and as everybody knows (?), it's impossible to reach infinity. Therefore, since a 3-sided polygon is red, a 4-sided polygon will also be red since a gradient to infinity will be of constant color.

Ok, there you are. That's all I was asking for, an actual reasonable alternate solution instead of people nitpicking my solution. I have to ask you though, do you find that solution satisfying in any way? Does it make any sort of internal logical sense?

I have to say, no, but I didn't like yours any better, which is why I tend to agree with those who maintain the riddle is badly constructed.

Not to be insulting, but I would call them a pretty stupid scientist if they are so dull-witted and unimaginative that they are unable to identify and answer a simple riddle without a rote application of mathematical proofs, and I would doubt their ability to display any ingenuity or creativity in the field of science.

I simply used the most basic knowledge of geometry imaginable, no proofs. There is no such thing as a "rote application of mathematical proofs", and if you're implying the using knowledge other than common sense to solve a riddle is somehow a failing, allow me to disagree.

As I said before, anyone who is unable to think outside rote knowledge, who is completely unable to display any metal flexibility or creativity will get it "wrong", or more correctly be unable to see a simple solution, or even more correctly be unable to see it as a GAME instead of something that must be solved through mathematical analysis.

And refering to circles and triangles as "simple shapes" but to trapezoids as being complex is what? Creative? Logical? No, you're simply making assumptions based on the breadth of your knowledge of geometry, but that doesn't make your derivation of a solution to the riddle more correct.

rote

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It's a puzzle that is about finding a simple solution that has a simple internal logic to it, and that's it.

My solution is no more complex than yours, and it's a hell of a lot shorter. It's not because mine makes use of simple notions learnt in high school that your own grade school-inspired approach is any more valid.

I wonder if any mathematician is able to play or enjoy sports or video games? Nah, they'd have to analyze it and frame it in terms of equations first, right?

Where the hell does this come from?

Montez, you say yourself in your solution to the riddle that you chose to accept your own conclusion because you felt it was the most likely amongst many candidates. I just showed you that by going just a tiny bit further, you can end up with two possible solutions with no convincing way of prefering one over the other. I'm not trying to piss you off, I'm just trying to explain why I think the riddle is a bad one.

 

[Montez]

I simply used the most basic knowledge of geometry imaginable, no proofs. There is no such thing as a "rote application of mathematical proofs", and if you're implying the using knowledge other than common sense to solve a riddle is somehow a failing, allow me to disagree.

Ok, I used "mathematical proofs" incorrectly. What I wanted to get across is that you were implying that anyone who has advanced knowledge of math is not going to be able to make heads or tails of this problem, which is untrue. A lot of creative or lateral thinking problems are in fact made by people who are scientists, programmers, etc. I was not trying to imply that using knowledge to solve a riddle is a failing.

Where the hell does this come from?

It comes from your seeming to imply that knowledge of math renders a person unable to see any other solution to the puzzle than a mathematical one, or to see any worth or sense in the puzzle at all - which if true would presumably carry over to other "illogical" areas of life. Which I guess I should have said in the first place.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Rote (Noun):
(1) The use of memory usually with little intelligence
(2) Routine or repetition carried out mechanically or unthinkingly

Rote (Adjective)
(1) Learned or memorized by rote

The dictionary definition is the same sense I used it in.

My solution is no more complex than yours, and it's a hell of a lot shorter. It's not because mine makes use of simple notions learnt in high school that your own grade school-inspired approach is any more valid.

Ok, I insult you, you insult me, let's let it end here.

Montez, you say yourself in your solution to the riddle that you chose to accept your own conclusion because you felt it was the most likely amongst many candidates. I just showed you that by going just a tiny bit further, you can end up with two possible solutions with no convincing way of prefering one over the other. I'm not trying to piss you off, I'm just trying to explain why I think the riddle is a bad one.

That's fine, and I'm sorry if I came across harshly. I was assuming that everyone had done these sorts of puzzles before and was arguing for the sake of arguing or just being poor sports, which I guess isn't the case.

I might as well add something to the thread since I'm sure everyone who is reading it is bored out of their minds and I don't think that anything more I have to say will be worth much. So..... If you thought that jiujitsu's riddle was bad, you certainly won't like these:

http://www.wilk4.com/humor/humore14.htm
http://www.ram.org/ramblings/other/lateral_questions.html
http://www.stheno.demon.co.uk/puzzles/lateral.html

(There are a few repeated questions between the three pages)

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Drachton, it is obvious why you are having issues with this thing. You are definitely not among the 'common' people, none of whom give a damn about your silly math mumbo-jumbo.

Square, Triangle, Circle.
Red, Blue, Green.
These are the basic things you learn in kindergarten, and obviously unlearn in math class.

No you tool, it's Red, Blue and YELLOW!

The "problem" (if I may use that word) with every riddle has always been what assumptions you have to make. Some riddles work the opposite way by the way they're worded. They lead you to make an assumption which you then have to dismiss (For example the number 2 here. Wording leads to the assumption that the surgeon is his dad and not his mum, which is the answer - you could also argue step-dad, biological vs adopted parents and so on).

As Montez said, you could just as easily have a go at the Sphinx. The point I think people here are trying to make though, is that the answer isn't "right". In fact, there is no "right answer" as such to most riddles. Any answer you can come up with that:

• Uses all available information
• Fits the available information
• Can be explained according to some defined and accepted rules of logic

... would be equally correct. It's simply that some answers are "more correct" than others.

 

[Murdoch]

No you tool, it's Red, Blue and YELLOW!

psst, that was part of the joke!

 

[Per]

Someone probably already said as much, but personally I think this question and a lot of others like it are complete bullshit. They don't test logic or creativity. They test your ability to deconstruct the problem, guess what whoever came up with it was thinking, and thereby figure out the desired answer. There is no "simplest" or "most logical" answer to be derived from the arbitrary groupings of threes.

 

[Sander]

Actually, you're wrong, Ratty. You can decompose any trapezoid into squares and triangles, but the system of one square and two triangles can only work with the height equal to the smaller base.

No shit. Read my post more carefully:

A general case of a trapezoid doesn't meet that prerequisite and therefore can't be decomposed into squares and triangles in any reasonable fashion.

You can decompose a freaking circle into squares and triangles if you really want, but that would be absurd. A trapezoid can be decomposed into n squares and m triangles in any concievable fashion, but that turns a clever logical problem into a pointless mathematical one and is far from a reasonable approach to the problem.

I thought it was quite reasonable, Ratty, and the problem suggested as much to me: you need all information, and you can deconstruct any trapezoid into squares and triangles in a finite number of steps, even with a rather simple algorithm. You can't deconstruct a circle into a finite number of squares and triangles, though, so your remark seems a bit silly.

In any case, as multiple people have said here, riddles like this tend to have multiple solutions, and would therefore need to give you an opportunity to give your reasoning as well. As there are obviously multiple possible answers, as long as you are able to provide valid reasoning for your answers, you'll be right.

 

[Fyu-jon!!!]

Maybe we're meant to pick the answer whose set of all possible explanations has the greatest cardinality.

 

[Elissar]

Ahem: Montez answer = logical


My answer, as a CH-47D Crew chief is:

Who cares, Is that Trapawhatever gonna keep my rotors turning or prevent my transmissions from chipping out? Will it keep my engines securely attached to my airframe? No? Then why should i care? I've got some flying to do.

Elissar - Annoyed that his mission got canceled tonight.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

Someone probably already said as much, but personally I think this question and a lot of others like it are complete bullshit. They don't test logic or creativity. They test your ability to deconstruct the problem, guess what whoever came up with it was thinking, and thereby figure out the desired answer. There is no "simplest" or "most logical" answer to be derived from the arbitrary groupings of threes.

If only everyone realised that it was all arbitrary to begin with. No math or logic involved...just guesswork.

What can I expect from Per the creator of "the" guides and moderator of these hollowed halls of posting, but to sum it all up like that.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[drachton]

I might as well add something to the thread since I'm sure everyone who is reading it is bored out of their minds and I don't think that anything more I have to say will be worth much. So..... If you thought that jiujitsu's riddle was bad, you certainly won't like these:

http://www.wilk4.com/humor/humore14.htm
http://www.ram.org/ramblings/other/lateral_questions.html
http://www.stheno.demon.co.uk/puzzles/lateral.html

(There are a few repeated questions between the three pages)

Actually those are great. I was unaware of the existence of lateral thinking riddles as a separate genre of riddles. The difficulty assessment on this one really blew my mind.

 

[Montez]

I love how a lot of them are so morbid too. "Jason is lying dead, he has an iron bar across his back and some food in front of him. Why did he die?" lol.

I was talking about them with my boss yesterday and he gave me a variation on this one - this one is a little better phrased so I'll use it instead:

There are three prisoners brought out by the warden and offered a chance for freedom. The first prisoner has two eyes, the second prisoner has one eye, and the third prisoner has no eyes (blind). The warden sits the three prisoners in chairs facing each other. The warden informs the prisoners that he has a total of five hats; two red and three white. He then puts one hat on each prisoner's head. Each prisoner; therefore, has a chance to see the other two prisoners' hats, but not his own. If any of the prisoners can guess his own hat color, he may go free; but if he gives a wrong answer, he will be shot. If the prisoner can not be certain, he may pass, and stay in prison.
The two-eyed prisoner looks at the other two hats, and is unable to give a confident answer. He passes. The one-eyed prisoner waits for the first prisoner to finish answering, then looks around, and passes because he can not be confident in his answer. Upon hearing this, the blind prisoner confidently states the color of his hat, and the warden releases him.
What is the color of the blind prisoner's hat, and how did he know?

Logic problem rather than lateral thinking. Any takers?

 

[Sander]

The two-eyed prisoner didn't know for certain, so that means at least one of the other two prisoner had a white hat, because if he had seen two red hats he'd know he had a white hat.
The same goes for the one-eyed prisoner.
Now, suppose that the blind prisoner had a red hat. Then the two-eyed prisoner must've seen a white hat on the one-eyed prisoner's head to be uncertain about his own, and the one-eyed prisoner must've also seen a white hat on the two-eyed prisoner's head to be uncertain. But he'd also see the red hat on the blind prisoner's head, and combining that fact with the two-eyed prisoner's uncertainty, would know that he had a white hat.
Hence the blind prisoner cannot have a red hat, and must have a white hat.