The most realistic puzzle (Hard mode)! (SOLVED)

[Doc]

This one is 7/10, with the other being 3/10. I've got a 10/10 one, but I won't post it just yet. By the way, my puzzles can be solved with just a few words, contrary to the other ones in this forum that require a chain of events to be solved.

Here goes:

A man looked at his cellphone and died.

Why?

[Celt]

This one is 7/10, with the other being 3/10. I've got a 10/10 one, but I won't post it just yet. By the way, my puzzles can be solved with just a few words, contrary to the other ones in this forum that require a chain of events to be solved.

Here goes:

A man looked at his mobile phone and died.

Why?


Are the two linked?

Did he look at a specific item like a text or a website, or just the phone?

Did the man commit suicide?

[Celt]

Also, I think I saw a puzzle like this before, so... Was the man considering suicide, and then saw a text of some sort, and decided to Jump?

[Doc]

This one is 7/10, with the other being 3/10. I've got a 10/10 one, but I won't post it just yet. By the way, my puzzles can be solved with just a few words, contrary to the other ones in this forum that require a chain of events to be solved.

Here goes:

A man looked at his mobile phone and died.

Why?


Are the two linked?

Did he look at a specific item like a text or a website, or just the phone?

Did the man commit suicide?


1. NO

2.IRRELEVANT

3.NO

[Doc]

Also, I think I saw a puzzle like this before, so... Was the man considering suicide, and then saw a text of some sort, and decided to Jump?


NO

[Celt]

So, Not linked... Did he cross a road looking at his phone, and get run over?
Was he killed maliciously?

[Doc]

So, Not linked... Did he cross a road looking at his phone, and get run over?
Was he killed maliciously?



1. NO TO THE ROAD, NO TO THE RUN OVER
2. NO

Hint: Who says that he was killed?

[Celt]

Was it a last will sort of thing, as he died in a hospital bed?

[Celt]

Was he going to phone an ambulance?

[Doc]

Was it a last will sort of thing, as he died in a hospital bed?


NO.

[Doc]

Was he going to phone an ambulance?


NO

[Celt]

Did he die peacefully?
In his sleep?

[Celt]

Did he set an alarm to wake up in the morning, go to sleep and then die in his sleep?

[Doc]

Did he die peacefully?
In his sleep?


YES
YES

[Doc]

Did he set an alarm to wake up in the morning, go to sleep and then die in his sleep?


NO, and I will come back tomorrow to answer further questions. A little hint:

I will be posting a logical analysis that I wrote for university about lateral thinking puzzles that will give you a huge hint for many of my riddles.

[Stacker1]

This one is 7/10, with the other being 3/10. I've got a 10/10 one, but I won't post it just yet. By the way, my puzzles can be solved with just a few words, contrary to the other ones in this forum that require a chain of events to be solved.

Here goes:

A man looked at his cellphone and died.

Why?


hi im stacker. please i dotmn get. :( its fun thouh

[jaczac]

did his phone run out of battery and Die COMrade?

[RandomNumbers0]

HE WASDRIVING AND HE LOOKED AND RAMMED INTO A CAR

[Pedobear]

He had a a heart attack.

[Zacharee]

he was texting while driving which caused him to have a horrible accident, which killed him.

[Doc]

No to all above me: He died peacefully after looking at his phone, in his sleep. And inb4 you say that my wording is stupid, EXAMINE EVERYTHING ABOUT THE SENTENCE.

[Ash]

I don't understand this, he died looking at his phone in his sleep?

1. Was he Sleep-texting?
2. Was he dreaming with his phone?
3. Was he sleeping or awake?
4. Did he die by a heart attack or anything similar?

[Doc]

I don't understand this, he died looking at his phone in his sleep?

1. Was he Sleep-texting?
2. Was he dreaming with his phone?
3. Was he sleeping or awake?
4. Did he die by a heart attack or anything similar?


1. No
2. No
3. I'll make an exception and answer "awake" on this one
4. If by similar you mean a frequent cause of death, then yes

This is not just any lateral thinking puzzle. You have to look at the sentence and try to break it down into two distinct moments. This is a most valuable hint towards the solution(s).

[Celt]

Well, He died in his sleep, They aren't connected, So as he was awake during looking at his phone, It's not related at all..

[Zacharee]

i think most lateral thinking puzzles are just assholes trying to be clever. i think this is one of those.

[Doc]

Well, He died in his sleep, They aren't connected, So as he was awake during looking at his phone, It's not related at all..


Excerpts from my thesis:

"This type of sentences that need to be preceded by a logical chain of events or a single event I will call dependant or D-Sentences for short."

"Now let's take this one step further: A riddle that has a NOT-D-sentence (ND for short) cannot be solved, as an infinite chain of events can happen before the next sentence. This is taking our analysis to the extreme, since no usual riddles take these D-sentences into account and, usually at least, the answer can be found with the help of the elements of the text. "

This is not your typical riddle, as I have stated.

[Celt]

Is the way He died relevant to the riddle's answer?

[Zacharee]

So is the riddle a D-sentence?

[Doc]

Is the way He died relevant to the riddle's answer?


The riddle is "How did he die?"

[Doc]

So is the riddle a D-sentence?


No, it is divided into two sub-sentences, the latter of which is not a D-sentence. This means that...

[Celt]

So we have to find out the cause of death... Do we just rando-fucking-guess?

Cancer
Suffocation
TB
Rabies
Diabetes

[philie]

did he die immediately after looking at the cellphone?

[Celt]

did he die immediately after looking at the cellphone?


I'll answer this: NOPE.

[Doc]

So we have to find out the cause of death... Do we just rando-fucking-guess?

Cancer
Suffocation
TB
Rabies
Diabetes


Since you're not used to these types of riddles, I'll give you the CORRECT! exclamation.

You came very close to the solution. The solution is that, given the facts, there is no real solution. At least it would be impossible to get there by analyzing the riddle.
This just supports my thesis that most people skip over these curiosities of language :P. I'm including this one in my paper if you don't mind? Thanks!

[Celt]

So we have to find out the cause of death... Do we just rando-fucking-guess?

Cancer
Suffocation
TB
Rabies
Diabetes


Since you're not used to these types of riddles, I'll give you the CORRECT! exclamation.

You came very close to the solution. The solution is that, given the facts, there is no real solution. At least it would be impossible to get there by analyzing the riddle.
This just supports my thesis that most people skip over these curiosities of language :P. I'm including this one in my paper if you don't mind? Thanks!


Woo.. Yeah, I don't mind if you put this one in your thesis.

I'm up for the Superhard one, now :D?

[TheAccusedOne]

So we have to find out the cause of death... Do we just rando-fucking-guess?

Cancer
Suffocation
TB
Rabies
Diabetes


Since you're not used to these types of riddles, I'll give you the CORRECT! exclamation.

You came very close to the solution. The solution is that, given the facts, there is no real solution. At least it would be impossible to get there by analyzing the riddle.
This just supports my thesis that most people skip over these curiosities of language :P. I'm including this one in my paper if you don't mind? Thanks!


I really hope you're not planning on putting this in some sort of paper.

[Doc]

So we have to find out the cause of death... Do we just rando-fucking-guess?

Cancer
Suffocation
TB
Rabies
Diabetes


Since you're not used to these types of riddles, I'll give you the CORRECT! exclamation.

You came very close to the solution. The solution is that, given the facts, there is no real solution. At least it would be impossible to get there by analyzing the riddle.
This just supports my thesis that most people skip over these curiosities of language :P. I'm including this one in my paper if you don't mind? Thanks!


Woo.. Yeah, I don't mind if you put this one in your thesis.

I'm up for the Superhard one, now :D?


I decided that the superhard one is not appropriate for this forum since most of you probably didn't like this one and I don't want to annoy you guys

[Zacharee]

So we have to find out the cause of death... Do we just rando-fucking-guess?

Cancer
Suffocation
TB
Rabies
Diabetes


Since you're not used to these types of riddles, I'll give you the CORRECT! exclamation.

You came very close to the solution. The solution is that, given the facts, there is no real solution. At least it would be impossible to get there by analyzing the riddle.
This just supports my thesis that most people skip over these curiosities of language :P. I'm including this one in my paper if you don't mind? Thanks!



i think most lateral thinking puzzles are just assholes trying to be clever. i think this is one of those.


i told you he was just an asshole trying to be clever.

[Doc]

You're right, in these days having a brain is a sign of disrespect

[Zacharee]

it doesn't take a brain to make a riddle with no solution.

[Doc]

it doesn't take a brain to make a riddle with no solution.


That may be true, but it does take a brain to notice that any riddle that is not made out of D-sentences can unarguably have infinite solutions.

[Zacharee]

it doesn't take a brain to make a riddle with no solution.


That may be true, but it does take a brain to notice that any riddle that is not made out of D-sentences can unarguably have infinite solutions.


you sir, fail. a RIDDLE has a SOLUTION. otherwise it is not a RIDDLE. faggot.

[TheWaaagh]

it doesn't take a brain to make a riddle with no solution.


That may be true, but it does take a brain to notice that any riddle that is not made out of D-sentences can unarguably have infinite solutions.


I think you missed the point of lateral thinking puzzles. The goal isn't to come up with any solution, it's to come up with the solution the person posing the puzzle had in mind (hence the yes/no questions).

I realize this is from wikipedia on the subject of situation puzzles, but it sums up the nature of these puzzles perfectly and bears repeating:

"The puzzle is solved when one of the players is able to recite the narrative the host had in mind, in particular explaining whatever aspect of the initial scenario was puzzling.

These puzzles are inexact and many puzzle statements have more than one possible fitting answer. The goal however is to find out the story as the host has it in mind"

Now, you claimed earlier that riddles without d-sentences are unsolvable because you're supposed to derive the answer from within the text but that's not true. You're supposed to ask questions to gather as much evidence as you can in order to make the connections that the riddler wants you to make.

Your puzzle in particular is unsolvable only because of your own contradictory answers to questions. You said earlier that the person was asleep when he answered his phone which is nonsensical, and then later another person asked and you said he was awake. Your own contradictions made the scenario unsolvable, not the riddle itself.

I seriously hope you don't consider including this in any type of university paper as I fail to see what kind of argument you're trying to make. You said that the puzzle supports your theory that people skip over the curiosities of language? That's actually the exact opposite conclusion I'd come to after submitting this puzzle to people.

As you can see through the thread people were analyzing the text or "language" of your puzzle to come to a conclusion, and even noticed when you contradicted yourself. So at best your argument is that "people cannot solve a riddle when I do not allow them to." Which is.... not really an effective argument for a paper?

[Doc]

You failed to see the point. Let us please not turn this into a flame war, so I'll explain my reasoning one last time:
My point is you cannot solve a riddle just by analyzing it. I despise anything that has so many solutions but there is only "one correct solution" (as defined by the host), because, for me, my solutions are as possible as theirs. We can argue about this, of course, but that's just my opinion.

By the way, I don't know how your marks in university are, but I got roughly 93% on the paper, which might just have saved my grade. I cannot express myself in english as good as I can in portuguese, therefore you may have understood me wrongly. I apologize if this is the case. Let's just close this thread. I'm not even considering translating the whole thing and posting it here just to make an argument against random people on the internet.

[TheWaaagh]

I had no intention of starting a flame war, I just fail to see how you can make a well crafted paper without a well crafted argument. And while your argument is still non-existent (see my previous post) I have no interest in rehashing it.

With that said, let me just say congrats on getting a good grade on your paper :).

[mrzwach]

The problem is you guys don't like to think laterally when you are solving a lateral thinking puzzle.


The answers to the questions were only contradictory because you made an assumption that the two events (him dying and him looking at his cell phone) occur simultaneously, when they are completely unrelated. I would argue that it does in fact show that people skip over the 'curiosities of language', most notably through the fact that someone pointed out that the two events were unconnected, upon which he responded by posting a thesis stating that that would make the puzzle unsolvable, upon which people continued to work towards solving the riddle.


I found the puzzle interesting, at the least.

[TheWaaagh]

The problem is you guys don't like to think laterally when you are solving a lateral thinking puzzle.


The answers to the questions were only contradictory because you made an assumption that the two events (him dying and him looking at his cell phone) occur simultaneously, when they are completely unrelated. I would argue that it does in fact show that people skip over the 'curiosities of language'


Perhaps you need to reread the original riddle: a man looked at his cellphone and died. That means that they were simultaneous. If the puzzle had been "a man looked at his cellphone and then died" that would mean two different time periods.

Since the two were simultaneous given the "language" of the puzzle there does exist a contradiction between the man's state when he looks at the cellphone (awake) and when he dies (asleep). Since both states cannot exist at the same time the sentence is either "a [sleeping] man looked at his cellphone and died" or "[an awake] man looked at his cellphone and died." Saying that "[an awake sleeping] man looked at his cellphone and died" is still nonsensical.

Given that the goal of a lateral thinking puzzle is to ask questions to derive the scenario (or solution) that a host wants, his thesis concerning this puzzle, and lateral thinking puzzles in general, was wrong. So if anyone skipped over the curiosities of language it would be the host himself, and you as well.

[mrzwach]

Perhaps you need to reread the original riddle: a man looked at his cellphone and died. That means that they were simultaneous. If the puzzle had been "a man looked at his cellphone and then died" that would mean two different time periods.

Since the two were simultaneous given the "language" of the puzzle there does exist a contradiction between the man's state when he looks at the cellphone (awake) and when he dies (asleep). Since both states cannot exist at the same time the sentence is either "a [sleeping] man looked at his cellphone and died" or "[an awake] man looked at his cellphone and died." Saying that "[an awake sleeping] man looked at his cellphone and died" is still nonsensical.

Given that the goal of a lateral thinking puzzle is to ask questions to derive the scenario (or solution) that a host wants, his thesis concerning this puzzle, and lateral thinking puzzles in general, was wrong. So if anyone skipped over the curiosities of language it would be the host himself, and you as well.

Actually, connecting two events with 'and' does not imply that the events occured simultaneously.

I could say that I went to dinner and a movie. That does not mean that I went to dinner while I was watching a movie, nor does it even imply that I did them consecutively and that nothing happened in between. It doesn't even necessitate that I went to dinner before the movie, merely that both events happened.

In general usage, more often than not two phrases like that are simultaneous, but they can be distinct and unrelated. However, in the context of the solution that the host wanted, they were unrelated, which was clearly indicated by him stating that the man was awake while looking at his cell phone yet asleep while he died.

Theoretically, the puzzle could be solved with enough questions, but then it fails to be a lateral thinking puzzle (because there are millions of very plausible and possible explanations that must be first eliminated) and becomes more of asking scores of questions.

alternatively you could say that the man was in a superposition of sleeping and not sleeping.

[TheWaaagh]

Theoretically, the puzzle could be solved with enough questions, but then it fails to be a lateral thinking puzzle (because there are millions of very plausible and possible explanations that must be first eliminated) and becomes more of asking scores of questions.

alternatively you could say that the man was in a superposition of sleeping and not sleeping.


Perhaps you need to reread the definition of a lateral thinking puzzle that I previously posted:

"Situation puzzles are usually played in a group, with one person hosting the puzzle and the others asking questions which can only be answered with a "yes" or "no" answer. Depending upon the settings and level of difficulty, other answers, hints or simple explanations of why the answer is yes or no, may be considered acceptable. The puzzle is solved when one of the players is able to recite the narrative the host had in mind, in particular explaining whatever aspect of the initial scenario was puzzling.

These puzzles are inexact and many puzzle statements have more than one possible fitting answer. The goal however is to find out the story as the host has it in mind."

You see, lateral thinking puzzles are supposed to be solved by asking enough questions to come to the solution that the host had in mind.

Now, you might say that the answer the host had in mind, indeed it is what he said at least, was that the puzzle was unsolvable because it had an infinite number of solutions. Okay, let's just accept that for what it is.

We come upon a problem though, because if he was looking for the conclusion that there are an infinite number of solutions, meaning that anything is possible, then at no point could he use the word "no". Answering any question with the word no means that that is not an acceptable solution, and can therefore not be a part of the desired scenario. That directly contradicts that any solution could be possible.

For example, one of the first questions he answered "no" to was whether the two were linked. Therefore, we can rule out any possible scenario where the two were linked. Suddenly, an infinite number of solutions to the puzzle becomes infinity - 1 (at the very least). I don't want to take up a patronizing tone, but I guess I need to clarify that infinity - 1 is not the same as infinity. If he truly intended to prove with this "experiment" that any puzzle can have an infinite number of solutions, then the answer to every question asked would have had to have been either "yes" or "irrelevant". Saying "no" at any time removes a number of plausible scenarios and steadily narrows it down from infinity.

Now, how's that for looking into the "curiosities of language"?

[mrzwach]

I don't mean to be patronizing myself but infinity - 1 has precisely the same value as infinity. In fact, you can perform any operation on an infinite set with a finite number and it will remain infinite, because there will still exist a bijective function that connects it to its original set, thus it has the same cardinality. Infinite sets (and thus, an infinite number) are nonintuitive in that way. Also, infinite does not mean all encompassing; a subset of an infinite set can still have an infinite number of elements. Oh, the curiosities of mathematics.

Anyways, there wouldn't be an infinite amount of solutions, but there would be an inordinate amount, and there would be no clear logical path that one could take to narrow it down beyond complete shots in the dark. Comparatively, this type of puzzle is supposed to have some chain of logic which can lead one person from the statement to the answer. That's what makes it a lateral thinking puzzle - the fact that there IS a way to deduce the answer through careful questioning and not merely guessing.

[TheWaaagh]

I don't mean to be patronizing myself but infinity - 1 has precisely the same value as infinity. In fact, you can perform any operation on an infinite set with a finite number and it will remain infinite, because there will still exist a bijective function that connects it to its original set, thus it has the same cardinality. Infinite sets (and thus, an infinite number) are nonintuitive in that way. Also, infinite does not mean all encompassing; a subset of an infinite set can still have an infinite number of elements. Oh, the curiosities of mathematics.

Anyways, there wouldn't be an infinite amount of solutions, but there would be an inordinate amount, and there would be no clear logical path that one could take to narrow it down beyond complete shots in the dark. Comparatively, this type of puzzle is supposed to have some chain of logic which can lead one person from the statement to the answer. That's what makes it a lateral thinking puzzle - the fact that there IS a way to deduce the answer through careful questioning and not merely guessing.


Well I have to thank you, I haven't taken a math class in quite some time so reading up on what exactly a cardinality was was interesting at least. I'll admit I still don't fully understand that so point goes to you, but I still can't get around how one goes about proving the hypothesis that "a puzzle can have any solution" by answering "no" to any question. That was, after all, his entire goal. If he had answered "yes" or "irrelevant" to every question, then the people attempting to solve this puzzle would have been able to more proactively guess that there was no correct answer. Instead, he baited people in the beginning by answering no to some questions and yes to others, which as it turns out in the end was completely random on his part. This led people to believe that there was a specifically correct answer that he had in his mind.

Also, you said yourself that this puzzle is supposed to have some chain of logic which can lead one person from the statement to the answer. And this one didn't. So I guess we're arguing the same thing, now?

[Doc]

OK I've read your mathematical debate and am happy that I at least grabbed the attention of some people. I never contradicted myself and the "A man looked at his cellphone"/ and the "(a man) died" could have happened years apart, since the act of dying is just ONE quality that was attributed to the man, as well as the action of looking at his cellphone. I probably expressed myself wrongly just now. Thanks for the congrats. By the way, the reason I didn't get full points for my paper was because I failed to see that, if a puzzle can have any solution it isn't unsolvable but rather easily solvable (in a way) since there are many correct answers. But I'm still happy! Cheers!

[Doc]

And by the way- you have convinced me to post the super hard riddle. But I'm going to the netherlands this weekened, I'll be posting it on tuesday or so. I'm going to have to write another thesis for it, but this time a way smaller one (like 1 page)...