Futility Closet - 278-Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Episode Date: December 30, 2019

Here are six new lateral thinking puzzles -- play along with us as we try to untangle some perplexing situations using yes-or-no questions. Intro: Ixonia, Wisconsin, was named at random. Ben Franklin harnessed the power of long-term interest to make large gifts to Boston and Philadelphia. The sources for this week's puzzles are below. In two 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 from listener Gabriel Bizcarra. Puzzle #2 is adapted from Paul Sloane and Des MacHale's 2014 book Remarkable Lateral Thinking Puzzles. Puzzle #3 is from Greg. Puzzle #4 is from listener Peter Quinn. Puzzle #5 is from Greg. Here are two links. Puzzle #6 is from Sharon. Two links. You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on Google Podcasts, on Apple Podcasts, or via the RSS feed at https://futilitycloset.libsyn.com/rss. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- you can choose the amount you want to pledge, 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!

Welcome to the Futility Closet podcast, forgotten stories from the pages of history. Visit us online to sample more than 11,000 quirky curiosities from a town named at random to Ben Franklin's gift to the 20th century. This is episode 278. I'm Greg Ross.. I'm Greg Ross. And I'm Sharon Ross. This is a 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. Thanks so much to everyone who's been sending in puzzles for us to try. We can always use more, so please keep sending them to podcast at futilitycloset.com. And we'll be back next week with another dose of quirky history and another lateral thinking puzzle. This is from listener Gabriel Bizcara. A woman sees a stranger

get into her car and drive away. She immediately informs the police, who catch the stranger, and when the car is returned, the woman does not press charges. Why? So the stranger got into the woman's car. Yes. And drove away. And she informed the police, but the police don't press charges. And the woman does not.

Well, nobody does. Nobody presses charges. Right, the woman. I'm sorry. Police wouldn't press charges. She would. Okay. Is the stranger a human adult?

Yes. A chimpanzee got into the car and drove off. No one pressed charges. Yeah, no one pressed charges. Does she believe that the stranger who got into the car was just like mistaken somehow? Yes. Yes. So she thinks that the stranger thought it was the stranger's car

rather than the reporting woman. So what caused her to think that the stranger was just mistaken rather than stealing the car? Yes. Is that the heart of what I'm trying to get at or no? Or is there something else that I need to be figuring out? No, that's right. Okay.

All right. I guess I can say she wasn't sure of that at the time that she saw the person drive off. So the police found the stranger in the car? Yes. And something that happened subsequently allowed it to be clear that the stranger was just mistaken yes okay was the stranger impaired in any kind of way no drunk or no i don't know um uh was the location important no okay say this didn't happen like in a

parking lot or at a restaurant with valet parking or something. They picked up the wrong car. It's interesting. How did the stranger manage to drive off? Is it important how the stranger managed to drive off in somebody else's car? Yes. Like how she had the keys or something? Ah.

Okay. Is there something about the car so that it doesn't require like a physical key? No, there isn't. Okay. So the car did require a physical key? Yes. Had the woman left her key in the car no so the stranger somehow had a key to the woman's car yes uh um there were more there was more than one okay was the stranger performing a job function when this all happened? No.

So this wasn't part of her occupation. But she had the key to the woman's car. Had she been given it by the woman somehow? No. Even inadvertently? No. Found it? No.

Happened to have a duplicate that was identical to it. Yes. There was a key that worked in more than one car. Yes. You basically got it. And so like when she hit the fob to open the door, the doors opened to this car. And because there shouldn't have been a key that worked to more than one car, but it did. So they were the same make car, like her own car was the same make.

And somehow her key worked on this car. Basically, you've got it. Gabriel writes, this is based on something that happened to a friend of mine. There was an identical car parked next to his, and he accidentally tried to open the wrong car. The key worked, and he didn't realize he was in the wrong car until he noticed odd items he didn't recognize. In his case, he didn't get very far before noticing and turning back. The owner had witnessed this all happening, and they ended up having a bit of a laugh about it, although also concerned. Apparently, it used to be common practice to have the same key for every X number of vehicles. The probability that two of the same vehicle with the same lock being parked next to each other is tiny.

My friend had his lock changed for good measure. He adds, I guess this is not possible anymore with most cars having electronic locking systems. Oh, see, this is similar to the one we had where somebody had keys to the apartment, where the keys turned out to be the same to all the apartments. So everybody go out and change all of your keys. I adapted this puzzle from one in Paul Sloan and Des McHale's Remarkable Lateral Thinking Puzzles. Ivan spent all day outdoors. Yes. So when he came home...

Came home, he ran a bath. Ran a bath means draw a bath, means fill a tub with water. Yes. There's no trick there. Correct. And then he let that water sit for five days. Yes. And then just drained it from the tub.

Right. And he never got into the tub. But the word so is in there, meaning he drew the bath because he'd been outside. Yes. That's fair to say? Yes. So did he need that water for some other reason? I'd say yes.

But it was a reason related to his having been outside? Yes. Does that have to do with the temperature outside? No. The weather? No. He'd been outside all day. Yes.

Was he planning to drink the water? No. Would you say he used any portion of the water that was in the tub during the five days? No. No. Was he hoarding water for, against some emergency? No. And it's a bathtub, just a regular bathtub? Yes. Are there other people involved? No. Well, okay. So then the thing to look at is, do I need to know what he was doing outside all day? Yes. Is his occupation important?

No. Why would you? Okay. Okay. So he was at some task all day, the same task. Yes. Did it leave him in some state that required? Well, he didn't use the water for anything. Yes. Did it leave him in some state that required... Well, he didn't use the water for anything. Correct. Oh, he... Phrase that again? Did he use the water for some purpose? He must have.

It depends exactly how you mean that question for whether or not I can answer it. Could you try restating it? Okay. He drew a bath. He filled a bathtub with water. Yes. He did that for some reason. Yes. And I guess at the end of five days, that reason had been fulfilled? Like he did it? Correct. Okay. So he felt that he'd accomplished what he'd set out to do. Yes. When he drained the tub. Yes. And in draining the tub, he was just getting rid of the water. He wasn't accomplishing something else. Right. Okay. In filling the tub, was he taking the water from some other place that he wanted to remove it from?

No. Is the length five days significant somehow? No. Okay. Okay. So he obviously didn't need to take a bath, didn't plan to drink the water, didn't, but you're saying arguably he was using it for some purpose. Yes.

Was he, I don't know how to say this, withholding it from other, some other person or application elsewhere? I was having trouble answering your question because he wasn't using the water for himself. He was using it for someone else? He wasn't using it at all. He was providing a service or doing a favor for someone else. He was helping someone else by doing this. No, I wouldn't say that.

Was this some kind of insurance, like he was guarding against some prospect, like a fire or something? No. And it relates to his having been outdoors. He wouldn't have done this if he hadn't been outdoors. All day. Right. Well, it didn't have to be all day, but he was outdoors for some period of time. Is it because he saw something while he was out?

No. He did something? Yes. See, it's hard to guess what that could have been. Was it some physical work he was doing? I'm not sure. Did he do it alone, whatever it was? Yes.

Does it matter where this happened? No, not necessarily. See, it's hard to guess, you know, a man did a thing. Right, right. Well, I guess maybe what else could you use the water for? It's not for himself. It's not for anybody else. He's not hoarding it or guarding against some insurance.

He doesn't plan to consume it. He's not putting out a fire. He's not using it for himself. He's not going to directly use it in any way himself. But that makes me think he's storing it for someone. No. Is any part of the water consumed while he's... I don't think so. I don't think he's holding it'll say holding it. Say it is. He's not watering plants or something. And his occupation isn't important, but I guess you'd say maybe his hobbies are.

That's what he was doing outside. Gardening? No. Um... And I said there were no other people involved. Well, pets, like animals? Not pets. Yes, animals.

Wild animals? I guess you'd say yes. Not domesticated animals. Did those animals, okay, benefit by the water in some way while we held it? Did they drink it? No. Were the animals ever they drink it? No. Were the animals ever inside the house? Yes.

So they swam in the bathtub? Yes. Are they like ducks? No. Birds? No. Mammals of some kind? No.

Fish? Fish. He filled the tub having come oh is he like fishing yes he spent the day fishing on a lake and he put some of the fish in the tub to keep them alive for a few days before eating them that makes sense francis the first of france ordered his jesteroulet, to be put to death for making jokes about the queen. But Triboulet had served him well, so he allowed him to choose the manner of his death. How did Triboulet induce the king to spare him?

Oh, no. So he came up with something super clever. Yeah. Okay. Did he come up with some method of death that if he were to die, he'd take somebody with him? That's very good. No, that's not it. Like if he can choose the method of his own death and he's like, okay, sire, I will fight you to the death, you know, or I'll fight your favorite brother or something to the death, you know? No, that's not it.

I'll fight your favorite brother or something to the death, you know? No, that's not it. Okay, so he's not going to be taking somebody with him. Would he be doing some other activity that the king wouldn't want to be done? I'll say no to that. Okay. I don't know. He could say, I want to drink myself to death with all your favorite wine,

and then the king would lose all his wine or something. Yeah, I understand. No, it's not like that. Okay. All right. So am I on the right track that he picks something clever that the king doesn't want to actually agree to? Yes, he said carefully. Sort of.

Yes, broadly, yeah. Okay. So the manner of his death that he chooses, would it involve another person or other people? No. Would it involve animals? No. Would it involve important possessions?

No. He says, I want to die by old age. Yes. Is that it? He said, good sire, for St. Natusha's and St. Pansard's sake, patrons of insanity, I choose to die from old age. The king spared him but banished him from the realm. This puzzle comes from Peter Quinn. I was walking with my wife and pushing our daughter in a stroller i saw a sign that said tropicana a few feet further on i saw a sign that said chrysler imperial beyond that a sign that said ingrid bergman and around the bend there was one that said mr lincoln What did I smell?

I knew you were going to like this puzzle. Okay. All right. Okay. I'll ask obvious questions to simplify this. He's walking with his wife. Yes. And pushing his daughter in a stroller.

Yes. Would he have seen these same signs if he were alone? Yes. Okay. So basically he sees four signs. Yes. Is he walking on a alone? Yes. Okay, so basically he sees four signs. Yes. Is he walking on a street? No.

No. Tropicana. Tropicana, Chrysler Imperial, Ingrid Bergman, Mr. Lincoln. Are these titles? No. They sound like movie titles or something. No. That's not it? That's not it.

Okay, when he says a sign... Uh-huh. Are these signs identifying places of business? No. Are they identifying locations? No. Are they advertisements? No. Are they identifying locations? No. Are they advertisements? No.

Ingrid Bergman is the one that's really got me hung up. Oh, are they graves? That can't be right. No, that's not correct. Are they captions or labels of some kind? Not sure what you mean. Well, like if you had a photo of Mr. Lincoln, it might say under it, Mr. Lincoln. Like if he's in a museum or a gallery or something.

Yeah, that's not quite right. Do they correspond to, I guess that's what I just asked, images or something? Like is each affixed to something labeling? I guess I just asked. Images or something. Like, is each affixed to something labeling? I guess I just asked you that. Not exactly, I think, if I understand your question correctly. All right, let's stick with Ingrid Bergman because that one fascinates me. Okay. Is that a reference to the actress Ingrid Bergman?

In this context, no. Is Mr. Lincoln a reference to Abraham Lincoln? In this context, no. Are they racehorses? No. Okay, I'm sorry, I'm stumbling around here. Does each of these signs correspond to an object? What word should I use?

Let's say yes. Okay. Remember, the question is, what word should I use? Let's say yes. Okay. Remember, the question is, what did I smell? Yeah, but how are you going to answer that? It smells like Ingrid Bergman. Okay, are they living things, whatever these are? Yes. Each of the four?

Yes. Because one of them had two. What was the second one? Chrysler Imperial. That refers to one living creature? To simplify it, let's say yes. Chrysler imperial that refers to one living creature let's let's to simplify it let's say yes chrysler imperial yes okay so he's in it you know that question like what did i smell sounds like a major clue in itself yes is he at a zoo no a pet No. Does this have anything to do with sports or wagering competition?

No. Are the four creatures all of the same species? Like they're all, I don't know, dogs or something. Your question is making an assumption that I'm having trouble answering. Well, wait, I thought I established that. So there are four signs. Yes. Each sign corresponds to a living creature, right?

Living thing, I agreed to. Oh, a living thing. Oh. Are they plants? Yes. All four of them are plants. Yes. Christ or imperial refers to a plant.

What did I smell? Are they roses? They are roses. Oh, my gosh. They are the names of roses. So they were walking in a rose garden and reading the plaques, identifying the different kinds of roses. So Ingrid Bergman is a variety of roses. Yes, it is.

Wow. I actually looked all four of them up because I'd never heard of them either, and they are all four roses. That's a good name for a rose. and they are all for roses. That's a good name for a rose. In 2004, New York art dealer Elie Sakai offered a genuine Gauguin painting for sale and was arrested for forgery. Why?

It was a genuine Gauguin painting. Did he claim it was done by somebody other than Gauguin? No. Okay. That would be really interesting. Okay, he was representing it as a Gauguin painting. Yes. Was he arrested erroneously for forgery?

No. So he was, okay. Was he arrested for selling something else with the painting? I'm not sure what you mean. He was selling, you were saying he was selling a Gauguin painting, right? But did he sell it with something else? Like a frame or a second painting or a piece of pottery or? No.

No. So we can assume that like this painting was the only thing he sold. Yes. And then he was arrested for forgery. Yes. Based on this transaction. Right. This was the only thing he sold in this transaction, and it was a genuine painting, and yet he was arrested for forgery.

Did he forge money? Oh, man. What good guesses. No, no. No, I'd love to say yes to that. That's like a whole puzzle in itself. Forging money. Oh, shoot. And he worked it into the say yes to that. That's like a whole puzzle in itself. Forging money. Oh, shoot. And he worked it into the transaction somehow. So that's a really good puzzle.

No, that's not it. It was counterfeit money. Yeah. Okay. Shoot. Okay. All right. Sorry. I got distracted by the money thing. I was so sure like that must be it. Okay. So you're saying he did, he had this one transaction. Yes. He sold a painting. Mm-hmm. Does it matter who he sold it to? No. It was a Gauguin painting. Yes. He represented it as a Gauguin painting. That's right.

And he was still arrested correctly for forgery. Right. Forgery to do with a painting? Yes. Did he get arrested? Did he want to be arrested for forgery? No. Presumably.

I guess I don't know, but no. Some complicated reason that he wanted people to think it was a fake. So was the painting a forgery? No. No, it was the real thing. But he was arrested for forgery. Was he trying to disguise it as a different painting? It was a painting by Gauguin, but he was representing it as a different painting.

No. By a different Gauguin. No. All good guesses. Gauguin's twin brother kind of thing. And he wasn't representing it as a different painting than what it actually was. That's correct. Had Gauguin done knockoffs of his own paintings? No. Or copies of his own paintings that were worth less because they were, I don't know, sketches or rougher or something. No.

Does it matter that it was in 2004? No. Does it matter where this took place? No. Does it matter that it was a Gauguin painting as opposed to a different kind of painting or a different person's painting? Well, I'm going to say yes to that in the sense that...

painting well i'm going to say yes to that in the sense that what can i say that's not going to give this away okay it matters that it was this specific artist's painting yes like it couldn't have been any other artist right right if he had sold a different painting. A Picasso. A genuine painting. Yes. He would not have been arrested for forgery. Okay. It doesn't look like it. I don't know anything at all about Gauguin.

Do I need to? No, you don't. He was a real person. Yes. Who really painted. Yeah. Okay. Does this have anything to do with different paintings on top of each other?

No. Okay. You know, sometimes a canvas is repainted. Mm-hmm. Did he put Gauguin's signature on it and it hadn't been signed? No. I'm trying to think. Did he alter the painting in any way?

No, he did not. Okay. He has a Gauguin painting. Yes. Does it matter where he got it from or who he got it from or in what circumstances he received it? No. No. There is more to the story that you need to...

So he has a Gauguin painting. Yes. And it's a particular painting. Yes. And he sells it to someone, and it doesn't matter matter who representing it to be this particular painting yes by this particular artist but it's still somehow a forgery no it is not a forgery he was arrested for forgery you said correctly arrested for forgery that's right but did he forge anything anything at all yes the bill of sale no a bill of sale showing that he

owned it like the whatever you call it the title to the painting or whatever to show that he'd actually owned it because he didn't he's stolen it that wouldn't make sense because then he'd be arrested for theft you're you're on the right track the person who bought this would have been happy with it even after the forgery came to light okay he was arrested for forging something yes was he arrested for forging a painting yes a different painting you're closer than you think tell me what you mean by a different painting you mean i don't know like not like like Yeah, like he was arrested for forgery for a painting he sold a year ago that has nothing to do with this transaction. I think I've asked something about that already. He was arrested for forging this work.

He was, but in not connection to this transaction? That's right. So he got a Gauguin. Mm-hmm. And then he copied it himself. Right. Yes. And then sold the original.

No. No, but you're close. He got... Oh, oh, oh. He showed the original to the buyer? No. Oh. You're right.

You're on the right track. He got the original and made a copy of it. That's the forgery. But then... And then I'm trying to decide, what did he sell to the buyer? He sold something to a buyer. He sold the... Or attempted to sell something to a buyer.

He sold the original, the genuine painting... The original painting... To this buyer in this transaction. To this buyer, but he was still arrested for forgery. Right. But... Because he had made... Because he had made a copy.

Right. And how would that come how would that come to light how would that show that he was guilty of forgery i don't know what happened to the copy he made a copy and then i don't know gave it to a museum uh tried to sell it also kept it for himself no he tried to sell it also so he he sold two copies of the same painting yeah an original and a fake which means that one of them must have been... Oh, that one of them had to have been... It's actually, the story is a little better than that.

Sakai had acquired the painting, had a copy made, and then sold the copy using the certification papers from the original painting. Later, he took the original to Sotheby's and asked them to auction it. So that bit of it is fine. He auctioned the genuine painting to a real buyer. Right. By chance, the fake had passed through several hands and was offered simultaneously for auction at Christie's,

the rival auction house. Oh, no. Unknown to him. So two versions of the same painting were being offered at the same time, one real and one fake. Oh. So one of them had to be a forgery. Oh, wow.

There were two copies of the same painting. Yeah. Sakai was alleged to have done essentially the same thing with paintings by Paul Klee and Marc Chagall. He was charged with eight counts of fraud and in 2005 was sentenced to 41 months in prison. Hmm. A British man found a lost wallet, but there wasn't enough specific information in the wallet for him to track down the owner. However, in the end, he was able to reunite the wallet with the owner by using the owner's

bank card. How? The bank card was in the wallet? Yes. Is the fact that he's British important, particularly? Not particularly. I mean, there might be some countries in which this particular answer wouldn't be able to apply, but...

Well, the bank card would have his, at least his account number or something on it. Couldn't he just go to the bank and say, I found this bank card? Apparently not. Okay. That's not really lateral. Does he communicate with the bank in any way? Does he rely on, I don't know, do they get involved? Are they the ones who identify the man in some way?

No. You're saying that very carefully. I'm trying to answer the very specific question you asked at the end there. All right, but the bank is involved then? The bank is involved.

Does he contact the bank? That's a yes or no question. I'm not sure. Can you define your terms, please? All right. Does he, let's say, call the bank or visit the bank? I guess I just asked that. Yeah, I'm not sure. Okay. All right. Does he, let's say, call the bank or visit the bank? I guess I just asked that.

Yeah, I'm not sure. Okay. All right. So he has a bank card. Yes. And the bank card obviously doesn't have the man's name on it. He did actually have the man's name, but that's all he had. And it was just too common of a name for him to track the person down based on just his name. Did he invoke some transaction through the bank yes did he send i don't know withdraw money or no send money yes i don't can you do that to the owner of the card right from the back like so this guy has an account at the bank i'm guessing yes and so he asked the bank to send money not exactly send money but take to to withdraw money from the man's account no no to pay a uh you, like he's paying for a fee or a service or something?

No. Just invoking some payment to someone and winding up. He just arranges to send money from the bank to the man. Let's leave it at that. Not exactly. No. No. If I understand you correctly.

But he starts, he invokes some transaction. Yes. For through this bank. Yes. Oh, and that leads the man who is missing his wallet to understand that someone has it. Yes. Because he sees that this transaction took place without his own knowledge. But that still doesn't explain how he would know where to go for the wallet.

Right. Was there a message somehow conveyed in this transaction, whatever it was? Yes. All right. So then the question is, what transaction can you ask a bank to do that involves sending a message in language? Yes. Was it a message like, I have your wallet and here's how to reach me? Yes, it was.

In English or whatever this guy's language was? Yes, yes. So it wasn't a code or something? Correct. Was it like in the memo field of a check or something? Yes, yes, it's exactly right. He made deposits of a penny each and added a message to each deposit within the constraint of the bank's 18-character limit, right?

So in put together, the messages read, hi, I found your wallet in the road, his phone number, text or call. And when the missing wallet owner, whose name was Tim Cameron, checked his account to make sure that no one was misusing his missing bank card, he read these messages, contacted the Good Samaritan, Simon Byford, and got his wallet back. And then he also bought Byford a nice bottle of wine for his trouble. That's really clever. Isn't that a clever way to get the wallet back?

Futility Closet is supported entirely by our incredible listeners. If you'd like to contribute to our celebration of the quirky and the curious, please check out our Patreon page at patreon.com slash futilitycloset or see the support a section of the website at futilitycloset.com. While you're at the site, you can also graze through Greg's collection of over 11,000 bite-sized amusements. Browse the Futility Closet store, learn about the Futility Closet books, and see the show notes for the podcast with links and references for today's puzzles. If you have any questions or comments for us or a puzzle to send,

please email us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. Our music was written and performed by Greg's phenomenal brother, Doug Ross. Thanks for listening, and we'll talk to you next week