the.killing.44 wrote:Which of the following is/are true?
1. At least one of these ten statements is false.
2. At least two of these ten statements are false.
3. At least three of these ten statements are false.
4. At least four of these ten statements are false.
5. At least five of these ten statements are false.
6. At least six of these ten statements are false.
7. At least seven of these ten statements are false.
8. At least eight of these ten statements are false.
9. At least nine of these ten statements are false.
10. At least ten of these ten statements are false.
No cheating now
The first five are true and the last five are false...I think.
the.killing.44 wrote:Which of the following is/are true?
1. At least one of these ten statements is false.
2. At least two of these ten statements are false.
3. At least three of these ten statements are false.
4. At least four of these ten statements are false.
5. At least five of these ten statements are false.
6. At least six of these ten statements are false.
7. At least seven of these ten statements are false.
8. At least eight of these ten statements are false.
9. At least nine of these ten statements are false.
10. At least ten of these ten statements are false.
No cheating now
The first five are true and the last five are false...I think.
I agree.
For the last to be true, all have to be false, that means the last one is false, one false means the first is true. For the 9th to be true, all but the first (which we have concluded is true) have to be false, that means the 9th is false and we can conclude that the 2nd is true. And so on.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
It was a very dry, hot day in Dallas, Texas. Detective Frank was chewing on some tobacco when he got the call. "Frank, you're needed." 15 minutes later, he ends up in a medium-sized apartment, where a guy was hanging from the ceiling on a noose. However, there are nothing to stand on nearby, and the noose is too high for the guy to reach by jumping. The autopsy later shows that the cause of death was by strangulation from the noose, and everything shows that it was suicide, and not murder. The question is, how did he get up there?
Alright, I got this one from a friend of mine recently. I thought it was pretty tough.
Four men sat down to play.
They played all night till break of day.
They played for gold and not for fun.
With separate scores for everyone.
When they had come to square accounts.
They all had made quite fair amounts.
Can you the paradox explain?
If no one lost, how all could gain?
Mr. Squirrel wrote:Alright, I got this one from a friend of mine recently. I thought it was pretty tough.
Four men sat down to play.
They played all night till break of day.
They played for gold and not for fun.
With separate scores for everyone.
When they had come to square accounts.
They all had made quite fair amounts.
Can you the paradox explain?
If no one lost, how all could gain?
Mr. Squirrel wrote:Alright, I got this one from a friend of mine recently. I thought it was pretty tough.
Four men sat down to play.
They played all night till break of day.
They played for gold and not for fun.
With separate scores for everyone.
When they had come to square accounts.
They all had made quite fair amounts.
Can you the paradox explain?
If no one lost, how all could gain?
They didn't play against each other.
wrong. although I guess that could work, it isn't the right answer.
Mr. Squirrel wrote:Alright, I got this one from a friend of mine recently. I thought it was pretty tough.
Four men sat down to play.
They played all night till break of day.
They played for gold and not for fun.
With separate scores for everyone.
When they had come to square accounts.
They all had made quite fair amounts.
Can you the paradox explain?
If no one lost, how all could gain?
They didn't play against each other.
wrong. although I guess that could work, it isn't the right answer.
I am glad someone guessed this before I did, or I would have wasted my chance! I was about to suggest that perhaps that their 'play' was in fact some sort of criminal element, like a robbery gang, but reading it through one last time, 'seperate scores' really stuck out. Are they singers in a play? Some kind of theater entertainment at least?
Mr. Squirrel wrote:Alright, I got this one from a friend of mine recently. I thought it was pretty tough.
Four men sat down to play.
They played all night till break of day.
They played for gold and not for fun.
With separate scores for everyone.
When they had come to square accounts.
They all had made quite fair amounts.
Can you the paradox explain?
If no one lost, how all could gain?
They didn't play against each other.
wrong. although I guess that could work, it isn't the right answer.
I am glad someone guessed this before I did, or I would have wasted my chance! I was about to suggest that perhaps that their 'play' was in fact some sort of criminal element, like a robbery gang, but reading it through one last time, 'seperate scores' really stuck out. Are they singers in a play? Some kind of theater entertainment at least?
You and your family just moved into a new town, and you realize you need to get your hair cut. There is only one barbershop in the entire town, and there are only two barbers there. One of them has an extremely stylish cut and shave, while the other looks like a dog's been at his head. You sit down, and they ask you who you want to cut your hair. Who do you pick, and why?
The one who looks like the dog's been at his head.
If there's only one barbershop in town, the two barbers must cut eachothers hair. Since the other barber's hair looks spiffy, the one with the mess on his head must have cut his hair, and is therefore the correct choice.
