Futility Closet - 184-Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Episode Date: January 1, 2018

Here are six new lateral thinking puzzles -- 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 few places we've included links to further information -- these contain spoilers, so don't click until you've listened to the episode: Puzzle #1 is adapted from an item that Sharon heard on the podcast No Such Thing as a Fish. Here are two corroborating links. Puzzle #2 is from listener Simon Grimes. Puzzle #3 is from listener Jean-Yves. Here's a corroborating link. Puzzle #4 is from Kyle Hendrickson's 1998 book Mental Fitness Puzzles. Puzzle #5 is from listener Alex Baumans. Puzzle #6 is adapted from W.S. Anglin's 1994 book Mathematics: A Concise History and Philosophy. 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. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at [e-mail]. Thanks for listening!

Hello, listeners, and Happy New Year. 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 for us to try. We always need more, so please keep sending them to podcast at futilitycloset.com. We are off next week, but we'll be back on January 15th with another dose of quirky history and another lateral thinking puzzle.

This puzzle is based on a piece of trivia that I heard on the podcast, No Such Thing as a Fish. Why did the owner of a famous racehorse retire the horse from racing even though it had been winning its races? That's interesting. This is true? Mm-hmm. Retired the horse from racing. Mm-hmm. Did the owner want to use the horse for some other purpose?

Not necessarily. Did the owner hope to make money or gain somehow by doing this? No. Retired the horse from racing, even though it had been winning its last few races? It had been winning its races, yeah. And this is a conventional horse. Conventional horse. What one tends to think of when one hears the word horse.

Yeah, it's what I think of when I hear the word horse. Do I need to know where this happened? No. Or when? No. Is it a horse I've heard of? I don't know what horses you've heard of. It's not a famous horse.

I think it's famous in race horsing circles, but I don't know that you've heard of it. Okay. So a horse wins a number of horse races. Okay. Right? Yeah. So a horse wins a number of horse races. Okay.

Right? Yeah. And then the owner retires it when presumably it could have gone on to compete in further races and even perhaps have won? Yes. So he's foregoing the winnings by doing this. Right? Not sure. Potentially?

Potentially. And you say he doesn't hope to gain correspondingly by... Right. So he's just giving up money potentially potentially does the owner is the owner's identity important no does the owner have another horse

that he hopes to use in no place of this one so why do you retire a horse do I need to know what happened to the horse after he retired it like exactly what happened no

is there crime involved somehow is he threatened? Nope. Are there other people involved? Not relevantly. So why would you take a horse out if you didn't have to if you know it's competitive?

Is the horse's health important? No. And you say you don't need to know what happened to the horse after that. Right. Did something happen in these few races that it won that's significant i don't even know quite what i'm asking is there some accident or something or he was worried about danger nothing like that

there aren't other people are there other horses i think i asked you well i mean just you know there are other horses and people involved peripherally that he was racing against, but... But there wasn't some evil horse that had it in for the good horse. Right. That's tricky, then. I don't... If he doesn't... If he stands to lose and doesn't stand to gain...

Well, that's the thing. When you said that potentially he could have earned money by the horse winning more races i would go with only potentially and maybe not was but the horse you said the horse wasn't injured or anything the horse was not injured so from the owners the owner expected if it ran again it might it would have competed yes i. I mean. Yes. Credibly. Yes. So in that sense, it sounds like it might have won and he might have expected to win something as a result. I think he expected that the horse would win, but he was losing expectations that he would win anything as a result of the horse winning. Okay. So we're not really talking about the horse.

We're talking about the bed, about the nature of the race? No. Not really. But you're saying he personally didn't necessarily expect to profit by this. Right, yes. He thought if the horse kept racing,

he probably wouldn't be profiting from it anymore. But he had in the past. Yes. So something changed? No, something, well, that's hard to say, but. Okay, but I think I asked, do I need to know more about the nature of the race or just the way it was conducted

or the rules of the betting or anything? No, I don't think so. So let's just say the horse runs in two. Let's say he did keep the horse going. Okay. And it ran in whatever the next race is. Okay. And one, let's just say.

Yeah. Would he have earned as much as a result as he had in the past? No, probably not. That's what he was expecting. Because the odds changed? Yes. I guess you'd say the odds changed

now that i think of it so he'll run the horse yeah but the horse is is that all it is that the horse is doing so well that it's now favored and so it's less of a winning bet yeah it's actually that the horse was winning every single race it was entered into and nobody would any longer bet against it so he couldn't earn anything anymore. That's really interesting. This was a British racehorse named Eclipse because it was born during the solar eclipse of April 1st, 1764. Eclipse is considered to be possibly the greatest racehorse in history as he not only won every one of the 18 races he was entered into, but generally won by a considerable margin of 10 to 20 furlongs or one to two and a half miles. Apparently, many famous racehorses trace their lineage to eclipse.

That's a funny problem. It was just such an amazing racehorse that nobody would bet against it anymore. So he was just losing the possibility of winning, earning anything from it winning because it was just so good. That's funny. That makes perfect sense once you hear it, but I never would have. That's really interesting. This is from listener Simon Grimes. Two runners set off on a race. After some time, they cross the finish line. One is exhausted, gasping for

breath and near to collapse. The other, who has not even broken into a sweat and has a slow, steady pulse, wins the race. How did the winner do this so effortlessly? Okay. Two runners set off on a race, you said? Yes. And after some time, they both crossed the finish line. Yes. Would you say that they both ran the same distance? Yes. They did? Okay. I was thinking like one did several laps around and one did only one lap around, but you would say that they both ran the same distance. Yes, I would. Okay. All right.

Are they both adult humans? Yes. Is there anything about the runners that I need to figure out? Anything specific about the runners? No. No. Anything about where they are? Yes.

Ah. Are they at like a high altitude? No. One of them is more adapted to high altitude than the runners? No. No. Anything about where they are? Yes. Ah. Are they at like a high altitude? No. One of them's more adapted to high altitude than the other? No, good guess though. Okay. So it has something to do with where they are. Are they underwater? No. Are they on the surface of the earth? Yes. Let's go with that. Okay. They are on the surface of the earth. So they're not in space. They're not underwater. Are they running up something like running up side of a mountain or anything no no okay so you would say they stay on the surface of the earth the entire race yes and they're running you would say yes by running do you mean what i usually think of as running

yes faster than walking using your feet yes okay um uh but you said the location matters. When you say the location matters, do you mean like what continent or country? Yes. Aha. Okay. Did this take place in North America? No. In Europe?

No. In Africa? No. In Asia? No. In Antarctica? Yes. It took place in Antarctica? Okay. That's a big hint okay that's a big hint that's a big hint um where do they wearing was one of them or were they wearing different gear from each other like

you would say somebody was wearing something that the other wasn't no or using some device that the other wasn't no but it's a big hint that it's in antarctica um and they're both humans and they're both running this isn't like sled dog racing or anything um were they running on snow uh on top of snow yes that's not important and it's not important so it's not like one has snowshoes and one doesn't that's right or one is running on ice and the other's trying to run through snow. Yeah, that's not it. Did this really happen? No. Oh, okay. Not that I know of, no. Not some

famous race that I need to know about. It could have, though. It could have happened. Is the time period important? No. But it needs to be in Antarctica. Very, very broadly. Let's not go down that. Did they run at the same time as each other, pretty much? Yes. They weren't doing it on different days or in different weather conditions. Yes. They were running at the same time as each other, pretty much. Yes. Like they weren't doing it on different days or in different weather conditions.

Yes. They were running at the same time. Yes. So the weather was the same and everything for both of them. That's right. That's right. But something was obviously different. And you said it's not personal characteristics that I need to know about either one of them.

That's right. Or something about their physical fitness or their cold adaptation or anything. No, these are all excellent guesses. Think about Antarctica. What's in Antarctica? A lot of snow and ice. Besides penguins. Yeah, cold weather.

I don't know what's in Antarctica. Polar bears? The key is the actual course they ran. The key is the actual course they ran. But you said, okay, you said it stays on the surface of the earth and it doesn't go up does it go down significantly no and it does it matter what the surface of the course is like whether it's snow or ice or anything like that no okay but this couldn't have happened on another continent but it couldn't have happened on another continent well there's there's one other place it could have happened

okay i'm trying not to be too mysterious but to be intriguing are they and they're not wearing anything special no or lacking wearing something special um oh oh okay does it have something to do with no you said they ran they both ran the same distance Oh, oh, okay. Does it have something to do with, no, you said they both ran the same distance pretty much. Would you say they ran the same course? Yes, but I'll give you a hint by saying they arrived at the finish line from opposite directions.

But they ran the same distance. Like if I'd measured. If I'd put a device on each of them. To measure how far they'd run. They would have both run the same amount. Yes. Across the same amount of ground. Yeah.

Oh one of them's running. I don't know. Into the wind. And the other has the wind at their back. No. Does it have anything to do with like weather elements or weather type elements no actually it doesn't is it easier to run in one direction than the other in antarctica and i just don't know this fact the the total time running time for each of

them was reckoned by taking their starting day and date and reckoning the difference between that and when they finished. Oh, okay. And so the direction that you run, you're crossing date lines or timelines or something. You're very close now. The person who was considered to have won didn't need to go as fast

because that person figured out that they were going to be crossing the date line in such a way that like they'd gain a whole day on the other person so they could go real slow yes that's basically it is that basically it simon writes by running around the south pole in opposite directions one crosses the international date line going west to east and has thus gained a 24-hour handicap no No matter how fast they run, they have no hope of matching their opponent, who takes a leisurely stroll. Simon adds, this athletic conundrum was suggested to me by Dr. Hal Lister, glaciologist on the Commonwealth Transantarctic Expedition, 1955-1958, who ran our scientific program on the Greenland ice cap. Wow. This puzzle comes from Jean-Yves, who thankfully provided me with some very helpful

pronunciation tips. A murderer is convicted on the basis of witness testimony. The judgment is sound and well-founded, despite the fact that when the crime was committed, there wasn't a single person around to see it other than the murderer and his unfortunate victim. Wow, that's interesting. Is this true? It's based on a true story. Okay, so someone's convicted of murder on the basis of witness testimony, and yet, is it accurate to say there were no witnesses to the crime?

I'll say that's inaccurate. Okay, it would sort of have to be. Um, but you're saying, okay, so someone was murdered. Let's start with that. One person killed another person. Yes. Um, and you're saying the person who, someone testified that they saw this, witnessed it in some way, right? I wouldn't completely agree to that.

Okay. Someone killed another person. I'll agree to that. Were there witnesses to the crime? I guess I'll say yes. Human witnesses? No. Ah, there we go. Is it a parrot? It is a parrot. Did you hear this story? I mean, I've heard there are such cases. You just seem so shifty. I thought it had to be some kind of animal or something. It just makes no sense otherwise.

Yeah, the witness was a pet parrot who was found repeating the victim's begging for mercy in the victim's voice. And Jean-Yves says, this is based on the following true story. Martin Durham lived with his wife, Glenna, and their pet parrot. During a heated argument, Glenna decided to kill her husband and commit suicide. She shot her husband and herself in front of their pet parrot. But while her husband died, she survived her gunshot wound and claimed she remembered nothing of the event. When the investigators found them, they also found the parrot reciting parts of their last argument,

including the clear words, don't shoot, in Martin's voice. The puzzle does diverge slightly from the true story, however, since the parrot's testimony was not, in fact, relied upon in court. You know, that's amusing, but it's also an awful story. That's terrible that that really happened. Yeah, yeah. This is from Kyle Hendrickson's 1998 book Mental Fitness Puzzles. Alfonso was taking an important exam. Although the examiner was standing 20 feet away and had his back turned,

he interrupted Alfonso by saying, You can stop right now. I know you're cheating. What led to Alfonso's undoing? Oh, goodness. Okay. He had his back turned. Did he hear something? No. Would you say that he saw something even though his back was turned? The examiner?

Yes. No. And I'll change my answer. Okay. Or did he hear something? Yes, he heard something. Yes, he heard something. He heard something that Alfonso did or produced, a noise that Alfonso produced. produced a noise that Alfonso produced.

Was it Alfonso's answers? Yes. Okay. Uh, does it matter what kind of exam this was? Yes. Okay. Was this,

is this the type of exam that you would take in a normal academic setting like college or high school or university? No. No. Was this a driving exam? That doesn't make sense. You wouldn't have your back to somebody no was this some sort of uh performance exam like a performance of music like you're trying

to perform music oh no good guess no um but it's an exam would you say it's an exam to get like a professional license no or to get some kind of a degree or certification? No, I wouldn't quite say that. No. Okay. Not to get a degree or a license or a certification. Alfonso. Does it matter when this happened?

No. Where? No. Does it matter what method Alfonso was using to cheat? That would help, yes. I was going to say, was he using some sort of electronic equipment of any kind would you say no ah shoot i thought he was like providing yeah his answer or whatever something electronic okay um but it would matter how he was cheating was he was his method of cheating did it involve somebody else no somebody trying to feed him answers or help him out in some way no but he was still cheating was he trying to pass off something was he taking

a drug screening test no you're coming up with great guesses i wish i could say yes to these oh man no that's not he's supposed to be like urinating into a cup and the guy heard something to let him know like it was like boring oh darn that was such a good answer perfectly that's why the guy would have his back turned yeah that's very good darn um okay was he taking some kind of medical would you say any kind of medical or health-based exam uh generally i'd say no i mean you wouldn't you could really bend over backwards and say yes but okay that you're not terribly far off with not terribly far off um with medical or health-based um but screening for something like um something along the lines of like drug testing or drug screening

like vaguely along those lines no nothing not testing for some criminal activity but like i don't know testing to get you into like the military or something yes oh he was trying to get into the military he was trying to get into the military um whatever he was doing would normally the examiner have their back turned or was this just set up that way for the puzzle. No, I think you could say that. That normally the person would have his back turned. Was he trying to do something that you would say was physically exertious, like some sort of exercises or... No, but the test was designed to... Test his fitness in some way?

His fitness, yeah. In some way. Some physical ability. Was he supposed to be reading an eye chart? Yes. And how did the guy know that he was cheating on the eye chart? Like somebody had given him the answers and he was reading the wrong line or reading them off too quickly or. You're terribly close.

I could just give it to you. He was trying to pretend he could read the eye chart better than he was able to read the eye chart. Right. And how might you do that? How would you prepare yourself to pass an exam like that if you didn't really qualify? It's not that somebody else gave him the answers. He was doing it with his glasses on and they were supposed to be off, or he was reading the wrong line,

or he was just making it up and hoping that the doctor didn't know what the letters really were. You're so close, I'm just going to give it to you. Alfonso was undergoing an eye examination required for entering the armed services. The examiner knew Alfonso had memorized the chart because the examiner had recently begun using a new chart, and unfortunately for Alfonso, he had memorized the outdated one. But you're close enough. I didn't know you could get a hold of them in advance to memorize them. That's a good tip. Plus you get bonus credit for all the other perfectly valid answers you've thought up along the way. This puzzle comes from Alex Baumans with a minor rewording by me.

In 1943, a military research laboratory at Wright Field, Ohio, was under investigation by the FBI in connection with a bank robbery. They turned out to be completely innocent. What had happened? Wow. I guess this is true. What had happened? Wow. I guess this is true. This is true. Okay. What kind of facility was it that was under investigation?

It was a military research laboratory at Wright Field, Ohio. Okay. In connection with a bank robbery. Yeah. Do we need to know where the robbery took place? Was there anything unusual about... Okay. Obviously, there's something unusual about how the robbery was carried out no no no there was not and i'll say the the

robbery took place locally near the base where the research laboratory was yes so they suspected that's actually important they suspected the people from the lab had participated in the robbery they suspected that yeah they suspected that the people in the lab had helped facilitate the robbery. In some technological way? Yes. Okay. All right, but you say it was sort of a conventional robbery? I mean, it was...

It was. Did it... All right, there were robbers, there were people who went into a bank... Yes. ...and demanded money. Yes. Do I need to know how many of them there were? No, and I actually don't know a whole lot about the bank robbery itself. And was it successful? They got... Yes....the money. Yes. Do I need to know how many of them there were? No. And I actually don't know a whole lot about the bank robbery itself.

And was it successful? They got the money. Yes. And it was because it was successful. And one of the reasons that it was successful that the FBI thought that the research laboratory had been helping them. Had helped them out. Does this have to do with the weapons that they were using?

No. Does this have to do with something to do with identification? No. Did the military facility use this bank? I don't know. Possibly not. Possibly not. Does this have to do with what they did with the money afterward?

No. Does this have to do with what they did with the money afterward? No. Is there any connection to the police or law enforcement here being involved or corrupt or anything like that? No connection to the police or law enforcement being corrupt. Apart from the FBI. You said the FBI was investigating the... Right. So that's...

I guess I'm confused. Ask your question again. I'm just trying to figure out what the connection is between... Right. So that's... I guess I'm confused. Ask your question again. I'm just trying to figure out what the connection is between... Right. What led them to consider... Right. That the research lab had been helping them. Okay. So it sounds like I need to know what the lab was working on. Yes. That would help, or figuring out how, what happened

around the robbery that made them think that the lab was involved. Did, okay. Either way. So they would say, the FBI would say that they suspected that the lab had helped somehow. Yes, yes. In some phase of the robbery. Yes. But it sounds like it's not in the robbery itself. Right. Actually, that's a very good question. Yes. In some phase of the robbery. Yes. But it sounds like it's not in the robbery itself. Right. Actually, that's a very good question. Yes.

In the getaway? Yes. Okay. Does this have to do with trace? Okay. You said it doesn't have to do with what happened to the money. So they didn't trace the money to the lab. Right.

Does it have to do with the vehicle they used? No. Did they use a vehicle? Yes. Okay. Actually, I don't with the vehicle they used? No. Did they use a vehicle? Yes. Okay. Actually, I don't even know. I take that back. I actually know very little about the robbery itself, which says none of the details about

the robbery itself were important. All right. Well, this is getting somewhere. So one or more people robbed a bank in some mostly conventional way and then got away successfully with some money. Yes. Perhaps in a vehicle. Yes. Let's a vehicle. Yes.

Let's assume they did. In a way that seemed to implicate the lab. Not in a way that something that happened during the getaway made the FBI suspect the research lab. Did they interact in some way with... Did who? Who was they? The robbers.

Okay. In some way on the road with someone Who is they? The robbers. Okay. In some way on the road with someone else. Let's start with that. No. As a matter of fact, any question starting with, did the robbers interact in some way? The answer is going to be no. Oh, it was an automated vehicle that...

No, this was 1943. That would be great. That would be great. Okay, so they fled. So wait a minute, let's back up from what you just said. Any question that starts with how the robbers behaved? Right. I'll just say not relevant to.

Were the robbers human? Yes. I hadn't thought about that. It's nothing that the robbers did. As a matter of fact, the robbers probably didn't even know any of this was going on because the research lab was innocent.

They were not collaborating with the robbers, right? And the robbers probably had no idea that anything was happening that accidentally helped them out. Like they had probably no idea about any of this. Accidentally helped the lab out? No, accidentally helped accidentally helped them out. Like they had probably no idea about any of this. Accidentally helped the lab out? No, accidentally helped the robbers out.

But something conceivably did. Something the lab was doing. Something the lab was doing. Happened to help the robbers. Happened to help the robbers, exactly. And so the FBI thought it was deliberate. Okay. And it involves the getaway.

This event, whatever it was, did it somehow occupy the local police to prevent them from... It didn't occupy the local police, but it did prevent the local police. Yes. Okay. So some test or something they were doing at the lab. Yes. Messed up the local police. Stopped the police from pursuing them on the road?

Let's say hindered the police from pursuing them on the road. Something technical or technological that affects their cars? Hmm. Their weapons? No. Their information in any way? Yes. Radios?

Yes. Something the lab was doing interfered with the police radio so they couldn't effectively pursue the robber. Yes. That's good enough. That's exactly. Let's go with that. That's exactly what happened. Alex says, the team at the lab was working on an airborne communications jammer, the ART-3 Jackal to be precise, which was to disrupt German tank radios. Unfortunately,

several Ohio police forces used the same frequency band for their car-to-car communications as the German tanks did. It so happened that during one of the test flights, there was a bank robbery. The robbers managed to get away because the police radios had been rendered useless by the jamming signals from the plane. The FBI found out where the jamming signals had come from and being suspicious people instigated a full scale investigation to see whether it was a true coincidence or whether someone on the research team had been in contact with the robbers. The research team turned out to be completely innocent, and now they at least knew that their device worked under practical conditions. That does look pretty guilty from the police point of view. Exactly. But I'm saying like the robbers had no idea. Like they would not have ever even

known that this was happening. Yeah, that's good. Alex also said, you have to feel for the guy in charge of the project. That would be a certain Lieutenant Colonel George Holler. Here you are developing something that will aid the Allied war effort. Tests are going well and you are congratulating yourself on a job well done. Then suddenly you have the FBI in your office asking if you know something about jamming police radios. This is a story that's told about the Scottish mathematician John Napier. He knew that one of his servants was stealing from him, but he didn't know which one. I like the psychic rooster. Okay. So the servants had to go one by one into a darkened

room and pat a rooster, basically. Is there anything important about the patting? Yes. Really? They had to pat the rooster? I was going to like just, okay, let's just cross that off, you know, like get that out of the way. No, that is important. They really had to pat the rooster. Well, if the story is true, I have no idea, but yes. Okay. So they had to touch the rooster, basically? Yes. Or did it have to be patting?

No, touching is enough. Touching. Okay. Okay. Maybe I need to understand what they were stealing. Would that help? No, actually no. It doesn't matter what they were stealing.

No. But they had to touch a live rooster? Yes. This was actually a live rooster. Yes. This was actually a live rooster. And the person, did he expect them to have something on their fingers? Yes. And I'll tell you, he had prepared the rooster by coating it lightly with soot. This is before the age of fingerprinting, so I'm imagining that.

Yeah, that's not it. So he expected them to have something on their fingers that soot would stick to, and then he could just look and see who had sooty hands afterwards? Right. So what did he... Oh, he expected them to be sweating, because they would be nervous. Oh, good guess. No, I said it. Oh, shoot.

Like an early lie detector test, right? If you're sweating and you get soot on your hands from the psychic rooster. Actually, I don't know. What time period is this? Does it matter? I think it's the 17th century, but it doesn't matter. Would have been a very early lab detector test.

Yes. Okay. So he expected that the thief would have something on his or her hands. Does it matter the gender? No. Are there any other characteristics about the thief that I need to work out? No. So he was just going to ask each one to show his or her hands after they came out of the

closet, and then the one with the soot on their hands was the guilty party. No. No. The one without the soot on their hands was the guilty party. Yes. Oh. I got this backwards. So the thief would have something on his or her hands that would prevent soot from sticking

to it. No. The thief would have gloves on? No. The thief had no hands. Okay, so he was going to have everybody come out of the closet and he was going to check their hands. Right.

And the one with the clean hands would be the thief. That's right. The question is, why would that be? Why? Oh, oh, oh, because the thief wouldn't want to touch the psychic rooster. Exactly. Napier had coated the rooster with soot, and this appeared on the hands of the innocent servants. The guilty one, who hadn't dared to touch it, was the only one with clean hands.

So this relied on everybody believing that there were psychic roosters. For all I know, this is a true story. I'm just assuming it's apocryphal. Maybe they did this all the time back then. Well, if anybody else has a puzzle they'd like to send in for us to try, whether it involves psychic animals or not, you can send it to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com.