Futility Closet - 056-Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Episode Date: May 4, 2015

Here are six new lateral thinking puzzles to test your wits! Solve along with us as we explore some strange scenarios using only yes-or-no questions. Many were submitted by listeners, and most are based on real events. A few associated links -- these spoil the puzzles, so don't click until you've listened to the episode: Puzzle #1 Puzzle #3 Puzzle #4 You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on iTunes or via the RSS feed at http://feedpress.me/futilitycloset. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- on our Patreon page you can pledge any amount per episode, and all contributions are greatly appreciated. You can change or cancel your pledge at any time, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation via the Donate button in the sidebar of the Futility Closet website. Futility Closet listeners can get $5 off their first purchase at Harry's -- enter coupon code CLOSET at checkout. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at [e-mail]. And you can finally follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Thanks for listening!

Hello, listeners. Here's another special episode full of lateral thinking puzzles. I think we've said in the past, this is a popular segment, but it's also sort of the hardest to control. So sometimes when we sit down to record a lateral thinking puzzle for a given week, we actually do a bunch of them to make sure we have something that's usable for that week. And that means over time, we build up a fund of unused puzzles. So that's what this is.

Some of these are puzzles that were recorded for past shows, and a couple of them are ones we recorded especially for this week. Next week, we'll be back with our own unique brand of quirky history and other oddities. But enjoy the special episode this week. Hope you like them. So it's my turn to try to solve a lateral thinking puzzle this week. Greg's going to give me some kind of interesting scenario, and I'm going to see what I can do with it by only asking yes or no questions.

This was submitted by listener Paul Kapp. A man competes in a track and field event. After an unusually long time, his results are announced and posted on the stadium scoreboard. The crowd cheers and the man celebrates. A short while later, his teammate tells him the results and the man breaks into tears. Why? Okay. Was the man breaks into tears. Why? Okay. Was the man able to see?

Yes. Okay. So it's not. Does it matter specifically which event this is? Like which track and field event it is? Would it help me to understand that better? Yes. Okay.

Is it something jumping? Yes. Something involving jumping? Like the, how, I don't know the names of them. How far you jump? Long jump, yes. Long jump. Okay. Because then there's like how high you jump, how far you the how i don't know the names of them how far you jump long jump yes long jump okay because they're like how high you jump how far you jump i don't know jumping yeah it's the long jump so it's the long jump so his results were posted oh does this have something to do with metric versus english units

yes so he misunderstood he misunderstood the results that were posted because they were posted in one system versus the other, and he thought they were different? Yes. There's a little bit more to it than that. A little bit more to it than that. Okay. Do I need to know what country he's from? Is that important? Yes. Okay. Is he from America? Yes. Okay. So he's thinking English units, and I'm assuming these were posted in metric units? Yes. Do I need to know what country

this is taking place in? I suppose you don't. I mean, I'll tell you at the end, but you don't have to pursue that. Okay, so he sees his results posted, and he's thinking it's whatever units we use in the U.S., and it's actually in metric, so he misunderstands the results. So he thinks he did better than he did. No.

He thinks he did worse than he did. Yes. And then he cries when he hears how good he actually did. Yes. Ah, because he thought he had done badly, and it turns out, oh, I didn't do so badly after all. Yeah, I guess I can't tell whether to keep making use of the rest of it. Do I need to figure out who he is? Is this a real person? It's a real person, but you don't have to pursue that. Do I need to figure out who he is? Is this a real person? It's a real person, but you don't have to pursue that.

Do I need to figure out the time period? Like there's some other piece of information I'm missing apparently. No, well, it's hardly worth doing. Okay. After an unusually long time, his results were announced and posted on the stadium scoreboard. Oh. Why an unusually long time? Oh.

Okay. Oh, oh oh oh had even possibly broken a record and they were trying to be really careful to be serious see if he had broken a record or not yes i'll just give it to you because you've got 90 of it uh this is about american long jumper bob beeman uh in the mexico city olympic games he completely obliterated the world record on his first jump. This is Paul Capp's record. Normally, the jumper's distance was measured by sliding an optical sight mechanism along a railing built at the side of the landing pit and reading the distance from the markings on the rail itself, allowing all jumper's distances to be measured quickly and accurately.

Beeman's jump landed not only past the markings on the rail, he jumped past the end of the rail itself as he'd broken the world record by an unfathomable distance of almost two feet. Officials had to measure the distance with a measuring tape, which was not nearby, since all measurements were done by the rail apparatus. The official measurement was finally announced more than 20 minutes after Beeman had jumped and was announced and posted on the scoreboard in metric measurements, 8 meters, 90 centimeters. Beeman knew that his jump was official and set a new world record, but being unfamiliar with the metric numbers, assumed that he'd beaten the old record

by a few inches at most. When his teammate told him the distance of his jump as 29 feet, two and a half inches, Beeman collapsed to the ground in tears, finally realizing the almost incomprehensible magnitude of his record shattering leap. And Paul sent a YouTube clip of this, and he actually collapses. They diagnosed it later as a cataleptic seizure. Oh. The emotion was so overwhelming that he just collapsed. That stood as the world record for nearly 23 years. Oh, wow. Just an unbelievable record.

Do they have any idea why he was able to just obliterate the world? No, you've got to see the video, too. I'll put it in the show notes. It's just astonishing to see him do it. This puzzle was sent in by Trey who said that he and his wife, Lissa, had been working on it for a while.

Trey says, the premise of the puzzle is based on a real story involving some students from my former high school which we think makes it more interesting. Okay?

Sounds interesting. Here's your puzzle. Ann, Ben, and Chris are siblings who were conceived on the same day. This year, Anne will be attending third grade while Ben and Chris attend kindergarten. Why? Wow. All right. Anne, Ben, and Chris are siblings who were conceived on the same day.

Two of them will be attending kindergarten. the third and will be attending third grade okay um okay wow so this is like based on a real situation that's what they said okay are the genders important no and you say they're conceived on the same day. Correct. But that doesn't necessarily mean they were delivered on the same day? Correct. Is that important? Yes. All right.

So it has something to do with maybe New Year's. How do you get into third grade, though? All right. There's kindergarten and then first and second grade and then third grade but there can we say that their ages are yeah were they born in different years yes two of them were born in one year and the third was born in another yes okay so the first i'm just trying to work this out i've got a calendar in my head so there's three of them all together yes one of them winds up in third grade and the two end up in kindergarten so that would mean that at least according to the calendar

one of them is counted as being older than the other two yes all right so that would mean one was born in an earlier year. So let's say one was born. They're all conceived in whatever that would be, March. And one is born on, say, New Year's Eve. Is that true? No, not necessarily. Okay.

Is one born in December? Unknown. Oh, you're kidding. I was wondering how long I should let you work on that. I was like, you didn't ask a question, so I didn't know what you were saying. Well, that wasn't going to work anyway because you can't get all the way up into third grade. All right, does solving this have something to do with the calendar or the times or dates of their births? It's not just the one that's incredibly precocious or something. That's correct.

It's not that. You stuck three things together and asked, does it have something to do with... All right, does it have something to do with the dates of their birth? No, not really. Well, not... I don't think so. I don't think the way you were thinking it, but... Okay.

I like this puzzle, wherever it goes. All right, I'm probably making some horrible assumption. You are saying that three... Are they triplets? Can we say that? Oh, were they all born of the same mother? Yes. So this one woman conceived three kids on the same date.

All three children were conceived on the same day, and they are siblings. That sounds like you're weaseling out of... I'm just restating the puzzle, dear. Is there anything unusual in the conception? Like, is this... Yes. Yes, there is. Yes, there is.

Okay. Was... All right. Let me think about this. So is there anything like sperm or egg donation or in vitro fertilization yes yes okay conceived on the same day the three were conceived on the same day and you said of the same mother right okay and there's three of them all together so let's do this systematically shall we okay were any of the three conceived and delivered in just the regular way no none of them none of them okay so there are three of them conceived of the same woman's meaning from the

same woman's eggs yes one two three does it matter who the father is it one father yes do i need to know that it's one father it's just one father okay so all these conceptions took place outside of the mother's body yes at the same time though on the same day right you pretty much have it just put it together so they were all because there's a lot of ways this can get tricky they're all conceived in the same way meaning um they're all conceived outside of her body but with her eggs right and the father's sperm right on the same day would mean and they all went to term and they all right they were all conceived in vitro fertilization through in vitro infertilization. Oh, I see.

And then what? Implanted in different women to carry them? No. Implanted back into the mother? Yes, but... I'm still not getting it. You're saying I almost have it. I thought you did.

Yes, but at different times. Yes. Oh. I got it, but I didn't even see it. So they were all conceived on the same day. Yes. And some were frozen for later use. And she carried them at different times.

Right. Because I couldn't see how you could get all the way up into third grade. That's impossible no matter how you... This actually happened. Because they implant a see how you could get all the way up into third grade. That's impossible no matter how you... This actually happened. So, you know, because they implant like a group of embryos. Yeah. And the woman got pregnant and had the first baby, but the rest of them were frozen for later possible use. And so a few years later, they went and had more eggs implanted into the woman.

And this time, two of them took, and she had twins. Do they count as triplets if they were all um yeah that's the funny thing um trey says that they actually are considered siblings rather than triplets although i mean like science i guess needs new definitions and stuff you know because it's like they are from the same batch of eggs and the same batch of sperm and conceived at the same time, they just weren't all carried at the same time. Yeah, that's a tricky thing. So that was excellent. Thank you so much, Trey and Lissa. Yeah, thanks. That was a good one. This episode is brought to you by our patrons and by Harry's, who remind you that for many of us, shaving is a pain. It's uncomfortable. If you

don't have good blades, it can be painful. You get nicks and cuts and razor burn, and the blades can be ridiculously expensive. You can pay $32 for eight blades. That's how the folks at Harry's feel about shaving, too, so they solved the problem for you. They found high-quality German-engineered razors that they love, bought the factory, and went into business for themselves. You've heard me talk about these guys before. Harry's was co-founded by the same guys who started Warby Parker, and now they're disrupting the shaving industry the same way they've been disrupting eyewear. Thanks to them, you can now get high-quality, high-performing German-engineered blades shipped for free right to your door, and you get factory-direct pricing. Harry's razors cost about half the price of other big-branded blades.

On average, if you shave every day, you'll save $150 each year on blades using Harry's. And the starter set is a really great deal. For $15, you get a razor, moisturizing shave cream, and three razor blades. And I can vouch for them. I'd given up and switched to an electric shaver. I'd forgotten what a close shave you really get with good blades. And you can't beat the convenience here. Everything's shipped to your house for free.

There's no more trips to the drugstore, more unlocking that plexiglass case. And your satisfaction's guaranteed. So get a clean, close, comfortable shave with Harry's. Go to harrys.com now and they'll give you $5 off if you use the coupon code CLOSET with your first purchase. That's h-a-r-r-y-s.com and enter coupon code CLOSET at checkout for $5 off and start shaving better today. This one appeared this month on the Stack Exchange puzzling website posted by a user there named Joe Z. Okay. Sometime in the early 20th century, a fire occurred in a crowded theater. Although the exit doors were not blocked on the outside, the panicked attendees could not get out of those doors and hundreds of people in the theater died

from the fire. What happened to trap everybody in the theater? This really happened? Yes. Oh, wow. Okay, does it matter where it happened? No. No. Does it matter specifically when it happened,

other than it was the early 20th century? No. Okay. And it doesn't matter where it happened. Was there something unusual about the moviegoers at that event? Like it was a movie screening for blind people or a movie screening for handicapped people? No, no. So there wasn't like that the whole audience had some kind of defining characteristic that made this challenging for them. I don't know how you would have a movie screening for blind people. I guess somebody could

be standing there describing the movie. Yeah, I see what you're asking there. Okay, so the doors weren't blocked from the outside. Were they blocked somehow from the inside? No. No. Were there doors that led to the outside? Yes. Was it that people couldn't see the doors?

No. Were the moviegoers aware that the doors were there? Yes. But is it the case, so it's the case that the doors would not open? Would you say that? Would you say the doors would not open for the moviegoers, for the general audience? No. The doors would not open?

No, he said carefully. No, meaning what I said was just wrong. I'm not sure what no means. Oh, no. No, it's not the case that the doors would not open. Okay. So the doors could have been opened. Yes.

But weren't opened? Correct. Were the people confused about the source of the fire? No. Were people aware that there was a fire? Yes. Does it matter how many doors there were uh no does it matter where exactly in the theater the doors were no okay um does it matter and this is a movie theater like i would think of as a movie theater yes there's not something unusual about the theater that i need to know about well it was

a live performance but yeah it's a theater it's what you think oh i was thinking a movie theater oh but it was a live performance, but yeah, it's a theater. It's what you think of as a theater. Oh, I was thinking a movie theater. Oh, but it was a live performance. Yes. Did they think the fire was part of the performance? No, good guess. Oh. Okay, so people, the audience, understood that there was an emergency situation.

Correct. They understood that they needed to leave the theater. Yes. Were they told not to go out the doors? No. And the doors would have opened if they had tried them. The doors would only open under certain circumstances? Yes.

The doors would only open under certain circumstances. Were the doors, did somebody need a key to open the doors? No. Um, did, did somebody need a key to open the doors? No. Did, uh, were the doors rigged so that they could only be opened at a certain time or after a certain situation, like at the end of the play or? No. At intermission or?

No. Um, does this whole thing hinge on why the doors wouldn't open? Yes. So I'm pursuing the right line of inquiry here? Yeah, and I'll just say broadly, be careful not to make assumptions. You know very specifically how you're phrasing questions. Okay, okay. So the doors to get them to the outside.

Yes. The audience did not open these doors right right they could have been opened yes if something was done correctly uh yes but don't assume anything yeah the answer to that question is basically yes i'm just trying to be yeah okay um okay the doors could be opened, but not by a general audience member? Incorrect. The doors could have been opened by anybody. Right. Under any circumstances.

Yes. The doors could have been opened by anybody under any circumstances. Did anybody in the audience try to open the doors? Yes. And they had the impression that they didn't open? Okay. Okay. Let me back up. Yes. And they had the impression that they didn't open? Oh, okay. Okay, let me back up. Somebody in the audience tried to open a door.

Yes. Did the door open? No. No. And that's what I need to figure out is why the door didn't open? Exactly. They tried to open the door. Oh, was it like, I don't know, they were pulling and the door needed to be pushed or something along those lines?

Yes. That's basically it. Is that they had the wrong signs on them for like how to open them? This was all the doors opened inward. Let me, let me explain. Okay. December 30th, 1903 is when this happened is with the Iroquois Theater in Chicago. And it was awful.

It was at the time the deadliest single building fire in US history. At least 602 people died. I have simplified the puzzle somewhat just to make it a good puzzle. Okay. The answer to the puzzle is people were trying to, the doors opened inward, so people were trying to pull on them. But there was such a mass of people trying to push outward that they just crushed everyone into the doors and there was no room to open the doors inward. That's horrible. It's horrible that hundreds of people died.

Just for scrupulousness here, there were a lot of other awful circumstances here. Some of the doors had unfamiliar locks. Some were locked outright. There were three levels in the theater and they had metal gratings on them to keep people from buying cheap seats up at the top and then sneaking down to the better seats at the bottom. So the whole thing was just a real disaster waiting to happen. But the point here for purposes of the puzzle is that the doors opened inward,

which prevented hundreds of people from getting out who otherwise could have. So after this fire, the building code was changed to require that all doors in public buildings must open outward toward the direction of egress. This was also the beginning in the United States of what's called the panic bar, which is what we've all seen in public buildings, which is just a bar on the door that if you hit it will open out and get you out of the building quickly, which didn't exist before and saved, I'm sure by now, millions of lives. This puzzle was actually written by me. Wow. Yes, I read a interesting little supposedly true story and thought that would make a good lateral

thinking puzzle. So here you go. After a botched attempted robbery at a store, the suspect flees across the street and scales a fence to join a group of other people. Although none of the authorities had seen the suspect, they were able to quickly spot him in the group and arrest him. How? This actually happened? This actually happened. Okay. Do I need to know, are specific identities important? No.

Uh, do I need to know where this happened? No. Or when? No. Do I need to know, okay, let me back up.

A botched attempted robbery. Yes. Would the same result have happened if the robbery had succeeded? In other words, the, the point of the puzzle is just that someone was trying to lose himself

in a group of people and failed. Right. All right. Is the fact that he has a scale of fence important? Only minorly. Is the fence there for a reason? Yes. Is the nature of the robbery important?

Do you know the kind of store or whatever it was? And the means of the robbery, whether was a okay no so it's really just a guy is trying to hide and he's trying to flee yeah all right so he scaled a fence uh-huh uh and the fence was there for a reason does the fence the sort of the the boundary of a institution or a you know like if it was a prison or something um vaguely along those lines does the does the fence um how do i say this okay the people inside the fence are apparently all visually distinct i mean they have something in common i guess yes that he can't prevents him from blending in yes among them yes does that good thinking identity have something to do with the fence? Somewhat, yeah. Yes. You see what I'm trying to humblingly ask?

Okay. But he didn't know that. He was just trying to get away. Yes. All right. Okay. So here's where we are then. There's a group of people.

Yes. I don't need to know exactly how many. No. That have something in common visually. Yes. Because of their clothing? Yes. They're all wearing something in common. No. They're not wearing clothing? Yes. They're all wearing something in common.

No. They're not wearing anything? Yes. This really happened? Yes. A man screws up a robbery, climbs a fence, and finds himself among a group of naked people. Yes. That's true.

That's true. And the fact that he's wearing clothes means the police can spot him. That's exactly it. This happened in 2012 in Kissimmee, Florida. A young man attempted to rob a Lowe's Home Improvement Store and was chased by the clerks and customers. He scaled a wall into the Cypress Cove nudist resort and spa, where being one of the only people in clothing, he was easily spotted by the sheriff's deputies. That's a bad day. Like, when your robbery goes bad, that's bad enough.

The owner of the resort said, We usually don't get the outside world coming through our gates like that. We don't get a lot of crime in the cove, so this was definitely unusual for us. Definitely a lot of excitement. That could have worked if he climbed almost any other fence. That would have been fine. This podcast is supported primarily by our amazing patrons. We are currently at about 80% of the goal that we set for continuing the show.

So if you enjoy our podcast and want to help ensure that we can keep on making it, check out our Patreon campaign at patreon.com slash futilitycloset or look for the link in our show notes. Every pledge is appreciated, and if you pledge at least a dollar an episode, you get access to our activity feed where you can read behind-the-scenes comments, listen to outtakes,

including some extra-lateral thinking puzzles, and find out what Sasha, our show mascot, has been up to lately. Thanks so much to everyone who has been supporting Futility Closet. This week we're going to use a puzzle from Paul Sloan and Des McHale's 1998 book, Ingenious Lateral Thinking Puzzles. A policeman stopped a man for dangerous driving.

As the policeman walked toward the car, the man rolled down the window and waved his fist at the policeman. Later, he thanked the policeman for saving his life. Why? Okay, when you say he stopped the man for dangerous driving, meaning the man was driving dangerously. Yes. Driving a car. Yes. And by car, we mean what I conventionally think of as a car.

Yes. Are there other people involved? No. Saving his life. Was other people involved? No. Saving his life. Was the man choking? No. But in some distress? Yes.

While he was driving? Yes. While he was driving? Yeah. But that's not why the policeman stopped him. So he was... The policeman stopped him for dangerous driving is what the puzzle says. And he was probably driving dangerously because he was in some distress.

Yes. Okay. W in some distress. Yes. Okay, waved his fist. Yes. Why did he do that? He didn't do that aggressively. Correct. He was trying to indicate something to the policeman. Yes.

His distress indicate his problem. Yes. Was he having, okay, but some health problem, I guess we could say? Yeah, yeah. Like a heart attack? No. Was he injured? No.

Do I need to know more about the car? No. Waved his fist. Would you call that a gesture? Was he pointing or indicating something, like trying to direct the policeman's attention toward something? Yes. Something about the car? No no something about himself no i don't think so in the way that you mean it

but toward something yes and the policeman followed that and saw what he wanted yes him to see yes uh okay but it's not something about the car i asked you he's injured and you said no he's not injured not what you'd call asked you if he was injured and you said no. He's not injured. Not what you'd call injured. But some kind of physical distress? Yes. And then the policeman helped him? Yes.

And resolved the problem? Took appropriate action. Called an ambulance? Sure. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So. Okay. So why did he wave his fist?

That's what we're down to, Ann. Okay, so he's not injured, but he's impaired, would you say? What do you mean by impaired? Well, he was not able to drive the car. Yeah, I mean... But I guess, yeah, that's not going to give me much information. Did this, I don't know what to call it, an attack? Did this condition come on him while he was driving?

Yes. So it was pretty recent. And then he started driving wildly and the police pulled him over. So he's capable of pulling over a car. He's not dying. Not his second, but... But he thanked the policemen for saving his life. Right, yeah.

Let's say he hadn't... Let's say he had died. Like, I guess if the policemen hadn't been there. Okay, okay. Would he have... You said it wasn't a heart attack. Correct. Would he have died because of lack of oxygen?

I mean, what would have been the cause of death? Are you able to say that? Not with what Sloan and McHale give me, but I could make an estimated guess, an educated guess, and say that that might be what it would have been, would have been lack of oxygen. Was it an allergic reaction? Yes.

Like asthma? Yes. Like asthma? No. Or just he was reacting to like a bee sting? No. No. I mean, they have, well, but why would you wave your fist if you were having a severe allergic reaction? Well, what I have in mind is that he just couldn't breathe, but you're saying you're

not sure that would have been him. Well, they don't specify in the answer, but let's go with that. Like anaphylaxis? Yeah, yeah. Like he was swelling up? Yeah, yeah. Do I need to know the cause of that um why would he wave his fist um to indicate that he couldn't speak that's what i'm thinking that's not it yeah there's a better answer than that to uh indicate that he needed some kind of treatment? Right, but why his fist?

Why wave your fist? Is there something in his fist? No. Close. He's pointing to some... He's not pointing. Or he's indicating some... He is. ...remedy.

No. Oh, that's not it. That's not it. He's not indicating a remedy. He's indicating the allergen, the cause of the thing that produced the reaction. No. He's showing the policeman how to find the remedy? I'm running out of options here.

No. Is the policeman aware from looking at him that he's having some kind of allergic reaction? Probably could be, yeah. But why would he specifically wave his fist? But why would he specifically wave his fist? Because his fist is related to the source of the allergen? No, no. I keep thinking of a bee sting.

No, no. If you have severe food allergies. Oh, he's got a medical alert, right? Yes, yes, yes, yes. So he can't speak, so he's trying to give the police officer the information the police officer needs. Okay, that works. I'm so bad at picking these for you that I'm going to let you pick. Pick a number from one to three. Three.

Three. This was submitted by listener Ken Murphy. A man fishes a quarter out of his pocket. A moment later, he walks into the next room, says, Go to hell, and leaves the building. What happened? What? Okay, a man fishes a quarter out of his pocket. A moment later, he walks into the next room, says,

Go to hell, and leaves the building. What happened? Okay. Obviously, there's some backstory here. All right, let's start with a man fishes a quarter, meaning a 25-cent piece of American currency. Yes. And fishes it out of his pocket, meaning he pulls it out of his pocket of some clothing that he is wearing.

Yes. Okay. Is there anything about the quarter that I need to know? No. Okay. Man fishes a quarter out of his pocket, goes into the next room. Yes. Is there anybody in the next room?

Yes. Is there more than one person in the next room? No. There's a specific individual in the next room. Yes. Is there anybody in the next room? Yes. Is there more than one person in the next room? No. There's a specific individual in the next room? Yes. Known to the man? Yes. Somebody with a relationship with him?

Yes. His wife? No. A romantic partner? No. A sibling? No. A child?

No. Somebody he works with? Yes. His boss? Yes. Okay boss? Yes. Okay. Oh, was it that he like tossed the coin to decide whether or not to tell his boss to go to hell? No.

Although that's very good. Okay. So he walks into the next room, tells his boss to go to hell. Yes. And then walks out of the building. Yes. Do I need to know more about what the building is that he's in? No.

Okay. Okay. then walks out of the building yes do i need to know more about what the building is that he's in no okay um okay um so i need to know why he told his boss to go to hell did something ensue between fishing the quarter out of his pocket and his uttering go to hell did some other event occur that i need to know about yes okay um is it what something he did with the quarter? Yes. Did he put the quarter into some kind of a machine? No. You know, like a jukebox or a vending machine or anything? No. No. And it's not like he flipped it to make his decision.

That's right. You know, like heads this, tails that. Correct. Okay. And you said there's nothing funny about the quarter that I need to know about. That's right. It's a standard quarter. Yes.

Okay. Did he compare the quarter to something? No. So he walks into the other room and then performs an action? No. Or does he, he performs the action before walking into the next room? Correct. Okay.

Has a quarter in his hand. Yes. Does the quarter leave his hand? No. Has a quarter in his hand. Does he, is he leave his hand? No. Has a quarter in his hand. Is he holding anything else or carrying anything else that I need to know about? Yes. One other object that I need to know about?

Yes. Another coin? No. Metal detector? I don't know. Scale? No. Another object that interacts with the quarter in some way?

Yes. Okay. Is this other object able to fit comfortably within one hand? Yes. A typical household object? I guess I wouldn't say that, no. A typical workplace object? No.

No. Do we own one of these? No. Have I seen one of these in my life? Yes. Okay. It narrows it down a little bit. Not something I have to imagine or invent.

Okay, so he's holding another object in his hand, and that other object in some way interacts with the quarter. Okay, is this other object, would you say that part of it is sharp and intended to be sharp? Like scissors, a knife, a razor, you know, anything with a sharp edge on purpose? No. Okay. Is it something that a quarter would go into typically? No. Something you'd put a quarter into? And you said it fits comfortably within the palm of his hand. Is it larger than a quarter? Yes. Significantly larger than a quarter?

Is it a stack of other quarter? No, you said it's not other coins. You said it's not other coins. By goodness, how do you narrow down what an object is? Is it made of metal? No. Is it made of wood? Is it made of paper?

Yes. It's a book? No. more than one sheet of paper no a sheet of paper yes he's holding a single sheet of paper technically technically is it a standard um sheet of paper like printer paper standard? No. Smaller than that? Yes. An envelope? No. A piece of stationery? No. Paper with printing on it? Yes. A single sheet of paper with printing on it?

Yes. Does it matter what the printing is, what the printing says? Yes. Is it something from his boss? No. Like a memo? Is it a memo or a note or nothing like that? No. Is it written on by a human hand? No. Like a memo? Is it a memo or a note or nothing like that? No.

Is it written on by a human hand? No. Is printed? Yes. From like a computer printer? Something like that, yeah. No, or like printed like a book or a newspaper is printed, like professionally printed? Yes.

Yes, like that. And it's not, is it money? No. Is it printed by an institution a specific institution you know like a bank or a government institution not like that not like that or driver's license or you know is issued by a specific institution. Yeah, it's kind of, I don't want to, no matter what I say, I'll mislead you. Okay. Is it printed only in black ink?

Uh, no. It would have colors on it? Yes. Specific colors? No. Just colors? Is it a picture? No.

It's writing? Yes. No. It's writing. Yes. Does he do anything with this piece of paper, such as sign it, or does he have to put writing on it himself? No. He reads this piece of paper.

Yes. And somehow he interacts this piece of paper with the quarter. Correct. But he doesn't put the quarter in it. That's right. He puts it on top of the quarter? No. He puts it put the quarter in it. That's right. He puts it on top of the quarter? No. He puts it under the quarter? Yes.

He has a quarter on top of a piece of paper with printing on it. And you said it's not an envelope. Is it a jury duty summons? No. Something from a doctor's office? Do you want a hint? Um, okay, let me think just a little bit more. Okay, you said, okay, this wouldn't be issued by a government.

Well. A branch of a government, a government agency. I sort of need to say yes to that, but I think it's going to mislead you. All right, something to do with, like, jails? Uh, no. The justice system in any way? No. Criminal, like, police or anything to do with?

No. No. I wouldn't pursue this because it's just going to confuse me. Okay. All right. Should I try to pursue what's written on the piece of paper? I'm trying to even come up with... Well, you know the porter interacts with this thing, whatever it is.

So focus on what the interaction is. It's a single sheet of paper. Is it folded or made into origami in some kind of way? It's a single sheet of paper. You could read it, and you say it's not even folded. That's right. Is the exact size of it important? Is it a playing card?

No, but closer to that than a sheet of paper. Closer to like a playing card. So like something a little thicker than a sheet of paper, like cardboard or pasteboard or something like that. A business card? No. Is it about the size of a playing card? Roughly, yeah.

Larger than a playing card? Maybe a little bit. An index card? No. And that's why it would have colors on it, but it's not a playing card. Is it like a tarot card? No. Okay, maybe you better give me a hint.

Work on the interaction. Well, I don't understand how you can interact with a coin and a piece of paper. Okay, that's what I don't get. Does he balance the coin on the sheet of paper? No. Does he carry the coin on the card or whatever it is? He doesn't put it in. Okay, is he holding both in his hands?

Yes. Does the coin ever leave his hand? No. Does the paper ever leave his hand? No. Does the paper ever leave his hand? No. Claps them together. No. Is there anything on the sheet of paper other than some kind of printing that I need to know about?

Some kind of, it's treated with some kind of substance? Yes, I have to say yes to that. Does the sheet of paper change color? In an important way? Sort of. That would be an odd way to say it, but yeah. An odd way to say it. Somehow he interacts the coin and the cardboard or whatever it is,

and the cardboard undergoes some kind of change. Yes. By interacting with a quarter. And then he goes into the next room. And tells his boss to go to hell. Why would you tell your boss to go to hell? Because you're quitting your job. You're really mad at your boss.

Right. He feels he's been duped or frauded somehow. No. Why else might you quit a job? Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh. He's won the lottery. That's it? Yeah.

Oh, I was thinking he was mad at his boss. Oh, okay. Because you don't tell your boss to go to hell just because you won the lottery. That's it? Yeah. Oh, I was thinking he was mad at his boss. Oh, okay. Because you don't tell your boss to go to hell just because you won the lottery, but I guess you would if you hated your boss. This guy did. He hated his job. Okay. So thank you, Ken Murphy, for that. And let me take this opportunity to implore you to send in more puzzles because Sharon's knocking them down very fast.

Not this one. Not this one. But we just did a couple before this that she did in like two minutes. Yes. So if you want to send in a puzzle for us to use, and we would love for you to do so, you can send them to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com.