Futility Closet - 152-Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Episode Date: May 1, 2017

Here are five new lateral thinking puzzles to test your wits and stump your friends -- play along with us as we try to untangle some perplexing situations using yes-or-no questions. Here are the sources for this week's puzzles. In a couple of places we've included links to further information -- these contain spoilers, so don't click until you've listened to the episode: Puzzle #1 was contributed by listener Dave Lawrence. Puzzle #2 is from listener Michael Berman. Puzzle #3 is from Paul Sloane and Des MacHale's Ingenious Lateral Thinking Puzzles, 1998. Puzzle #4 is from listener Paul Sophocleous. Here are two associated links. Puzzle #5 is from listener Noah Kurland. Here's an associated link. You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on iTunes or Google Play Music 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 we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation on the Support Us page of the Futility Closet website. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at [e-mail]. Thanks for listening!

Hello, listeners. Here's another special episode of Lateral Thinking Puzzles. These are puzzles where one of us describes a strange-sounding situation and the other has to work out what's going on, asking only yes or no questions. And thanks so much to everyone who's been sending in puzzles to us. We're always glad to get them, so please keep sending them to podcast at futilitycloset.com. We'll be off next week, but we'll be back on May 15th with our usual mix of quirky stories and a new puzzle. This puzzle comes from Dave Lawrence. In her work,

my friend doubles the number of people she sees every day. What does she do? Okay. I guess this is true. Yes. Number of people she sees. Yes. Meaning not that she meets, but that she visually perceives? Well, let me turn that around. Yeah, ask that more simple. It sounds superficially like you're saying that she encounters actual living people. Uh-huh.

And then that number doubles. Okay. Successively. I'm guessing that's not the case. Okay. I will say no to that whole sentence with every part of it added in. Okay.

He said the number of people she sees doubles every... My friend doubles the number of people she sees every day. That sounds careful. Doubles the number of people she sees every day. All right. But I'm asking, so if you took out, if you changed the, let me try it. Okay. Would you say that she doubles the number of people that she meets?

Yes. You would say that? Yes. Every day? Yes. Okay. So it's not sees. Sees isn't the trick here.

Right. Doubles the number of people that she meets every day and this is related to her job yes um and by people has meant people actual other human beings has meant people his friend is a human being his friend is a human being and His friend is a human being. And this would continue indefinitely? That's impossible. Would you say that? With the way it's worded, yes, I'll say this continues indefinitely. Doubles the number of people that she meets. Uh-huh.

Doubles the number, meaning double the number that she reports that she meets? No. She actually meets twice as many people each day. So on the first day, if she met one person, then two, then four, and so on? No. She actually meets twice as many people each day. So on the first day, if she met one person, then two, then four, and so on? No. Okay.

Doubles the number of people. Doubles the number. Meaning, can I assume for the sake of the discussion that she meets one person on the first day? Is that a crazy way to go about this? I wouldn't say she only meets one person on the first date. Do you know the numbers?

No. But she's unlikely to meet only one person in a day. Double-summered people. This is for her job? Yes. Okay, but it won't help me to pursue the actual numbers. No, it won't help you to pursue the actual numbers no it won't help you to pursue the actual numbers except that i won't agree to the number one oh oh oh she sees double no no that's clever though so then if any number of people you met

she doubles the number that she sees every day that's very clever but that's not it she doesn't see double but she does does double whatever number of people she meets. She doubles them every day. But she doesn't see double. But that's clever. That's an interesting way to... Doubles the number,

meaning she perceives twice as many as the actual number? No. That she reports twice as many as the actual number? No. That she reports twice as many as the actual number? No. Does this turn

on some meaning of the word number? Like number doesn't refer to the... No. So when you say the number of people, you mean the actual quantity of people that she encounters? Yes. My friend doubles the quantity of people whom she meets every day. Yes.

Oh, meaning she creates twice as many? Yes. So she encounters a certain number of people and then produces twice that quantity. Yes. Is this something in medicine? Yes. She creates twice as many people as she meets. Yeah.

I mean, she doesn't create. She helps in the production, let's say. Oh, she's like an obstetrician. Yeah, she's a midwife. Dave says, my friend is a midwife. Each mom generally has one baby, doubling the people she sees. And Dave also thought that his wording might be a little tricky, but said, who said these puzzles are fair?

At least nobody dies. Quite the opposite. This is from listener Michael Berman. On February 8th, Lee, a new father, is telling a friend about his beautiful two-year-old daughter. The friend asks when she was born, and Lee replies, yesterday.

Lee is not lying. What's going on? You said specifically on February 8th. Is that important? Not particularly. Oh, wow. I thought that was going to be a big clue. Okay. His daughter is two years old, but was born yesterday. Yes. Would you agree to all that? Yes. His daughter is a human infant girl? Yes. Okay. Does this have anything to do with like eggs that were frozen or embryos that were frozen? No, good guess though um his daughter is two years old does that mean that his daughter has celebrated two birthdays

um i'll say no okay um but was born yesterday okay trying to figure out where to start on here for the born yesterday does that mean the day before yesterday she was still in her mother's womb? Yes. Okay, so yesterday you would say her mother delivered her. Yes. Delivered a baby yesterday. Yes. Okay, does it matter the means of the delivering of the baby?

No. So the question is, if you saw the baby, would the baby appear to be one day old? Yes. The size of a one-day infant? Yes. Okay. So the question is, why does he say the daughter is two years old? Are they all on Earth?

Yes. Yeah, there's a lot of ways you could go with this. So it's Earth years we're talking about here. Why would you say the daughter is two years old uh would you say that she was conceived roughly nine months previous yes conceived like the i don't know the the cells started dividing yes to make this baby about nine months previous that's right so in what sense is she two years old? That's okay. How does he say it again? Lee, a new father, is telling a friend about his beautiful two-year-old daughter.

The friend asks when she was born and Lee replies yesterday. His beautiful two-year-old daughter. Oh, are they talking about two different girls? No. Oh. Oh, that's good. I never thought about that. Yeah, like they're just talking about two different children. I thought I had it. Okay. His beautiful two-year-old daughter, which is the same as this one-day-old baby. Yes. Is the same individual. Same, yes, person.

And why would you say she's two years old? There's got to be some other meaning of two years old that I'm not thinking of? Pursue that, yeah. What could be a meaning of two years old? Okay, when you say two years, you mean the Earth has traveled around the sun to full orbits. No. You have some other meaning for two years. For two years old. For two years old. Does it have anything to do with the number two? Not really, no. Okay. So it has something to do

with years old, two years old. Yes. Is that her name somehow? No. Touche, I don't. Okay, when you say years, are you referring to a period of time? Yes, but that's a language you're confused. When you say old, are you referring to how long something has been alive? Yes. So when you say two years old, you don't mean something has been alive? Yes. So when you say two years old, you don't mean something has been alive for two years. You mean something else. I'm trying to think of a hint. Two-year-old daughter. How can you...

Oh, when you say talking about his beautiful two-year-old, that's the baby, right? Right. The baby that appears to be one day old. Okay, I keep getting stuck on there, The baby that appears to be one day old. Okay, I keep getting stuck on they're talking about something else that's two years old. His beautiful two-year-old daughter. Lee's name is spelled L-I. Okay, so this has something to do with they're not of American culture? That's right.

And that's germane somehow? Yes. Okay. okay does it matter are they in another country yes um does it matter which country yes asian country yes um japan no china yes okay so this is something to do with Chinese culture or how Chinese talk about their children or phrases they use and what they actually mean. Yes. So what in China do you mean when you say a two-year-old daughter? You mean something different than you might mean in America? Yes. The name is two years old? Like they came up with the name two years ago?

The name of the daughter? No, no, no, no. The concept of having a daughter? Like they decided two years ago to have a daughter? You're most of the way there. I don't want to make you guess the whole thing. It's just what in China do you mean by two-year-old? Yes.

Two-year-old is an adjective rather than a noun? Yes. Or could it be used either way? or does it have to be used as an adjective i suppose it could be used either way okay so it comes down to how they reckon birthdays but you said she was conceived nine months ago yes so oh is it have to be that that it's she was conceived in one year and it's now a different year like so there's been two years i'll i'll i'm not getting close enough that i'll just give it to you michael writes the answer is in how the traditional chinese calendar measures age there are two factors in play babies are considered to be one year old at birth and one's age increase is not on one's birthday but at the chinese new year so lee's daughter must have been born in a year in which the Chinese New Year falls on

February 8th. So she was born chronologically yesterday but was one year old as soon as she was born traditionally and then she advances a year on the New Year which is today. Is that really how they reckon ages? Because then like so in China, if they say a child is three years old, normally in the U.S. we might consider that child to be two? According, as I understand it,

according to the traditional system, and I don't know how widely that's observed today, but that's how Michael says that's traditionally how it was done. This puzzle comes from Sloan and McHale's Ingenious Lateral Thinking Puzzles. And I've adapted it slightly. Two men were sitting in a crowded restaurant. A woman who was a total stranger to both of them walked in and told them her job.

She said nothing more, and they said nothing but looked very embarrassed. What was going on? Wow. Told them her job. Yes. I mean, named, like... N them her job. Yes. Named like... Named her occupation. Embarrassed.

Okay, do I need to know more about that? You said it's a restaurant they're in? Yes. Do I need to know more about that, the kind of restaurant it was? I mean... No. That wasn't the source of their embarrassment. Correct.

Do I need to know their occupations? No. Or their relationship? No. Is anyone else involved besides those three people? No. Is the time period important? No.

Is the location important? No. Lots of no's. We've narrowed it down. Would this have worked if there were only one man? Does it matter if there were two? It would not have worked if there was only one man. Really?

Yes. Okay. What a weird... Okay. So she comes in and tells them both her occupation yes and they're embarrassed yes but not because of the nature of the restaurant right is she in law enforcement in any way no are they embarrassed because they think they've been caught doing something wrong or embarrassing they're in an embarrassing situation is? Is that it? I'm not sure. Can you reframe the question?

Well, that's why I asked about the restaurant. I'm trying to figure out the source of their embarrassment. Right. In telling them her job... Uh-huh. I'm trying to figure out why they're embarrassed. Yeah. Okay.

They wouldn't work with one man. Right. But the relationship between the men isn't important. That's correct. Do we need to know more about what they were doing besides just sitting in the restaurant? Yeah, I suppose. Eating?

They may have been. It's irrelevant. Embarrassed. Is it connected with a religion in any way? Nope. They're not embarrassed at having been caught out or caught doing something they shouldn't have been doing? I would say that's correct.

It's correct that they... This is where we need the special words in English. I would not characterize the nature of their embarrassment as that they were caught out doing something that they shouldn't have been doing uh i think the way i think you mean it this is always tricky yeah guessing at what you probably mean but um uh okay and i'm trying to think even how to approach this. Does she have to be a woman?

Could this have worked if she were a man? If you change some other variables, yes. I mean, there could have been a similar situation, not exactly the same, but yeah, I'll say yes. Is this connected with the media in some way? Is she telling that their activities are being made public in some way? Is she telling that their activities are being made public in some way? No, but that's a good guess, but no.

Are these people's specific identities important? I mean, they're not, is this true? Did it happen to real people? You said location is important. That's correct. Embarrassed. See, there's two. I know I'm going in circles here.

There's two men. It wouldn't work with one, but there aren't other people involved. Their relationship isn't important. Now, it could have worked with three or four men or five or more, but not with just one. There needed to have been multiple people

for this situation to have happened. there needed to have been multiple people for this situation to have happened. Is the reason they're embarrassed connected to the fact that she's a woman and they're men? No. Could a man have done her job? Yes. If she had a different job, they wouldn't have been embarrassed. This whole situation wouldn't have happened. Is the source of their embarrassment immediate?

Is it something to do with their immediate situation, or is she connected with something remote in time? I would say more immediate than remote in time. So does this have to be a restaurant? I mean, could it have happened elsewhere? It have happened elsewhere like in a bank i mean they were just two men in some public establishment yes she approaches yes and tells them her job her occupation yeah yeah what the men were doing immediately before she approached them was relevant.

And that's why you needed multiple, and this couldn't have been something that one person would, it would make a lot of sense for them to be doing on their own. Does that have to do with language? Like she was able to understand something they were saying that other people couldn't? I'll say yes. That's close. She overheard something? No. Does she work in the restaurant? No.

Do I need to know more about that? Where she came from? Was she another diner? It doesn't matter? It doesn't matter. Okay. She was actually, according to the setup of the puzzle, she was passing by outside the restaurant. And she heard them?

No. Saw something? Yes. Saw something they were doing together? Yes. Is it connected with the bill, with some business within the restaurant? No. This didn't need to be in a restaurant.

Were they doing something illegal? No. She saw them doing something. You said connected with language? Yes. Writing something? No. And you said that something that, you know,

not everybody would have been able to understand. She saw them doing something connected with language that relates to her occupation, and not everybody would have been able to have done this. Well, let me get this down. You said not writing, reading something? No, no. You have to, right, you have to, like,

think creatively here about, they were doing something involving language, and she saw it rather than overheard it but not everybody could have done this and not that's why they were embarrassed because they didn't imagine anybody would be able to do this connect with language it's not reading or writing right um and it relates to her occupation her having skills that other people don't have because of her occupation. She's bilingual? She's multilingual? No.

She's conversant with some language that they thought other people wouldn't be? No, because remember the setup is she was passing outside the restaurant, actually, and she saw them. But you're on the right track. What can you do with language besides read, write, interpret, speak? Right, yeah. They were speaking. They were speaking in another language? No.

They were speaking in... In the language that's like everybody was speaking in. Speaking with each other. Yes. In some language. That's why it has to be two men. Yes. And she was passing by outside

but didn't hear them correct she saw them are they using sign language no i suppose they could have been that would work for the puzzle in this specific puzzle though because it relates to her her yeah her job. They were speaking in a language. Yes. With one another. Yes. In a language that she understood.

Yes. But she. And she saw them. But you say that could equally well be a language that everyone there was speaking. Yes. And they thought they'd be safe because she was outside the restaurant and they were in it. Lip reading. That's right.

She's a lip reader. That's her occupation. And they were in it. Lip reading. That's right. She's a lip reader. That's her occupation. And they were saying offensive things about her. Oh, about her. Okay. Yeah. As a matter of fact, according to the puzzle, they were speculating about what her occupation might be in offensive kinds of ways.

Okay. And then she walks in and tells them that she's actually a lip reader, that that actually is her occupation, and they just don't say anything. That's good. That's good. That's cover. This episode is brought to you by our patrons and by Harry's. Jeff and Andy are two ordinary guys who were fed up with getting ripped off when buying razors, so they started Harry's to fix shaving.

They bought their own blade factory to ensure quality, and now by taking less profit and selling directly to you over the internet, Harry's offers their blades at half the price. So that's just $2 a blade compared to the $4 or more you'll pay at the drugstore. Harry's has sent me some of their razors to try, and I've been impressed with their quality. Their blades really do give a close, smooth, comfortable shave, and you can't beat the convenience. They ship them right to your door. Harry's is so confident that you'll love their blades, they're giving you their trial set for free. Just cover $3 shipping. Your free trial set includes a weighted ergonomic razor handle,

five precision-engineered blades with a lubricating strip and trimmer blade, rich lathering shave gel, and a travel blade cover. That's a $13 value for you to try. Stop messing around and get started shaving with Harry's today by claiming your free trial offer, a $13 value for free. You just cover shipping. To get your free trial set, including a razor handle, a five-blade cartridge, and shave gel, go to harrys.com slash closet right now. That's harrys.com slash closet. This is from listener Paul Sofoclaus. A man watched a TV show and as a result, he died.

Later, the man's widow wrote to the stars of the show to thank them. Why? Oh. Huh. Okay. Watched a TV show, and as a result, he died. Would you say that he took his own life? No.

Would you say that he allowed his life to be terminated? No. Okay. As a result, he died. Did he take some action after watching the TV show that I need to figure out? I think I'll say yes. Okay.

That's not quite how I'd put it, but yeah. Okay. See, I'm imagining, did he have some condition or specific situation that I need to work out? I will say no. Okay. Did it matter where this happened? No. No.

Time period important? No. Do I need to guess what kind of TV show it was? Yes, that would help. Oh, that really would help. Okay. Would you say it was a fictional TV show, like either a sitcom or a drama, you know, like with stories, fictional stories? I think I'd have to say yes. You think you'd have to say yes. Okay. Was it a TV show that would have appeared regularly,

like it would normally come out once a week or something like that? Yes. Yes. Was it a TV show that would have appeared regularly, like it would normally come out once a week or something like that? Yes. Yes. Was it a sitcom? Yes. It was a British television comedy. Okay. Do I need to know more than that?

No, you don't. It wasn't Monty Python, was it? No. Okay. That's the only one I know. I'll tell you at the end, but you don't have to know which one it was. Okay. So he watched a British television comedy and then died.

Yes. Okay. Did he die laughing? television comedy and then died. Yes. Okay. Did he die laughing? Yes, he did. Are you serious? He died laughing? In 1975, Norfolk bricklayer Alex Mitchell laughed so hard at the British television comedy The Goodies that he died of heart failure.

Mitchell laughed for 25 minutes after watching a martial arts sketch in which Timbrook Taylor, dressed as a Scotsman, used a set of bagpipes to defend himself from Bill Oddie wielding a black pudding. His wife wrote to the stars to thank them for making his last moment so enjoyable. This puzzle comes from Noah Kurland, an entertainer shot to fame after releasing the best-selling comedy album in American history. Previously an unknown comic from the sticks, he was suddenly playing to packed houses in Las Vegas and appearing frequently on primetime TV.

This lasted for about a year and then abruptly ended. Within a single 24-hour span, his records were pulled from shelves nationwide, his nightclub bookings were canceled, and TV spots that he had recorded were never aired. In some cases the tapes were physically destroyed. What caused his swift and utter banishment from show business?

I assume this is true? This is definitely true. And you said it's the United States? The United States, yes. Um, would it help me to work out when this happened? Yes. Okay. Um, all I know is that it happened in the United States would did it happen in the 20th century yes because he appeared frequently on primetime tv that's a clue okay the um

primetime tv so does it happen after 1960 yes and this all happened you said in the space of a year yeah yeah after 1960 uh after 1980 no was it in the 1970s a year-ish? Yeah, yeah. After 1960? Yes. After 1980? No. Was it in the 1970s? No. Okay, so the 60s sometime. Yes, yes. Somebody got sort of blackballed as a comment.

Was it because, okay, but you say that's important for me to know, that it was during the 60s. Yes. Was he, however you want to put it, banished because of something he said? Not specifically, no, no. Because of who he was? No. Would you say this... Are there other people involved

that I need to know about? Yes. Oh, all right. Was he part of a team? No. He might have worked as part of a team for some of his routines, but that's not it. There's one other person involved? I'd say there's one other person that's very relevant to the story.

Okay. And this is a comic someone I've heard of. Whose name I've heard of. I don't know if you have or haven't. I had not heard of him. Oh, all right. That might help. But I don't know that many comics from the 60s.

All right. So this person. But I don't know that many comics from the 60s. So... Okay. All right. So this person was doing great. Yes. And then had an interaction with this other person, would you say? He did not. Did he ever have an interaction with this other person? Not that I know of. Did he say something?

I mean, something to do with their relationship or something connecting the two of them that led to his downfall? That's very relationship or something connecting the two of them that led to his downfall? That's very broad, something connecting the two of them. Well, what I have in mind is he said something about this person or offended America by... That's not it. Not exactly. No, that's not really the right track. But it did have something to do with what happened to another person in the 60s.

In the United States? In the United States. Man, there's a lot going on in the 60s in the United States. Yeah, I know, I know. Is the other person famous, well-known, something I would have heard of? Yes, definitely. An entertainer? No.

A politician? Yes. Okay, so you've got a comic and a politician. Yes. But it's not that the comic says anything about the politician, which is what comics tend to do. Right, yeah. It's not really that. Does this have anything to do with identity?

Like he was aping or pretending to be or declaring that he was this politician? Not quite. That's kind of close, though. Okay. The comic's identity. Claimed identity. Not claimed identity, but something kind of close to that. Was he an impressionist? Yes. Yes.

Really? Yes. I wonder if I've heard of this. So an impressionist shot to fame. Yes. And I guess did an impression of this politician? Yes. And that brought him down. fame. Yes. And I guess did an impression of this politician? Yes. And that brought him down. No.

No. That's not exactly what brought him down. Okay, so he was famous among other things for doing an impression of this politician. He was famous specifically

for doing an impression of this politician. Was the politician the president? Yes. Wow. Johnson? No.

Kennedy? Yes. Okay, so you got a comic who's known for doing impressions of John F. Kennedy? Yes. Okay, so you got a comic who's known for doing impressions of John F. Kennedy. Yes. And then something happens and he falls from grace. Is that how you put it? Yes. Something like it? Yes.

Was he, okay, when he did this, whatever it was, was it part of his act? Yes. Okay, so it wasn't. But it's not something that he did specifically. But he fell from the public's good opinion. That's not exactly it.

It's not so much something he did. Is it something the president did? You could say that, in a way. Was he... All right, that's probably not it. Was he associated with Kennedy in some way? Does this have to do with Kennedy's assassination? Yes.

Really? Yes. Okay, so was it, but it wasn't part of his act. It's not that he was somehow mimicking or making fun of the assassination in his act, and people thought that was a terrible thing to do. Right, he did not. He was, he impersonated Kennedy, though. That was his act and people thought that was a terrible thing to do. Right, he did not. He impersonated Kennedy, though. That was his act.

And then Kennedy got assassinated. Oh, and so he had no one to impersonate anymore because Kennedy was out of office? Well, no, it was just considered in very bad taste to be impersonating. Wow. Yeah, so Noah wrote, In 1962, Vaughn Meter gained notoriety for his comedic impression of John F. Kennedy.

He built an entire act around this impression, and he was in high demand for most of 1963. As soon as Kennedy was assassinated, Meader's schtick was rendered not just obsolete, but taboo. Yeah. He tried to revive his career as a conventional comedian, but he was so typecast that nobody would hire him. And I read about this a bit, but he was so typecast that nobody would hire him. And I read about this a bit, and it was just what Noah said. He just absolutely shot to fame and fortune in his 20s. I mean, hugely famous, only to have it completely yanked out from under him about a year later. On Wikipedia, it says, according to several sources, stand-up comedian Lenny Bruce went on with his November 22nd nightclub show as scheduled.

Just hours after Kennedy's death, Bruce walked on stage, stood silently for several moments, and then said sadly, boy is Von Meter bleeped, which was true. So thanks so much to Noah for that puzzle, in which I guess unfortunately somebody did die. And if you have a puzzle you'd like to send in for us to try, please send it to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com.