Another Logic Question

[MissCroft]

This one is probably going to be very easy for some of you but here goes....


A young enterprising stockbroker interviewed three candidates for position of clerk. Since all three were equally suitable he decided to give them a test of logic. All three were scrupulously honest, so when they were asked to close their eyes while he put a hat on each of their heads, they did not cheat in order to see the hat they were wearing.

Ordering them to open their eyes he explained that he may have put on top hats or bowlers, but whoever saw a bowler hat was to raise a hand. All three put up a hand. The winning candidate, the stockbroker explained, would be the first to infer correctly whether he was wearing a bowler or top hat, providing he was able to prove it.

 

[shack]

Whoever saw two bowlers, was wearing a top. (Assuming all three weren't wearing bowlers.)

 

[Titalian]

This one is probably going to be very easy for some of you but here goes....


A young enterprising stockbroker interviewed three candidates for position of clerk. Since all three were equally suitable he decided to give them a test of logic. All three were scrupulously honest, so when they were asked to close their eyes while he put a hat on each of their heads, they did not cheat in order to see the hat they were wearing.

Ordering them to open their eyes he explained that he may have put on top hats or bowlers, but whoever saw a bowler hat was to raise a hand. All three put up a hand. The winning candidate, the stockbroker explained, would be the first to infer correctly whether he was wearing a bowler or top hat, providing he was able to prove it.

This to me again. is just anotherr form of control. Jmt

 

[Yoga Face]

Whoever saw two bowlers, was wearing a top. (Assuming all three weren't wearing bowlers.)

that is step one

if someone saw a top hat and a bowler he would know he was wearing a bowler.

step two is if I DO NOT USE THIS LOGIC TO DEDUCE I AM WEARING A BOWLER AND IF NO ONE ELSE DOES EITHER and I SEE TWO bowler hats then I know I am wearing a bowler hat so I raise my hand and explain my logic to MissCroft and because I was the first one to figure this out she says fuck you deserve more than a clerk job and gives me a great big .... job (fill in the blanks)

 

[basketcase]

... then this means ...

Higher the one with the nicest tits!!!

Oh wait, it's not the 60's any more.

 

[LeeHelm]

The question says "all three raised their hands" . Meaning all three had to be wearing bowlers. So therefore the first person to speak up would be the winner.

 

[Yoga Face]

The question says "all three raised their hands" . Meaning all three had to be wearing bowlers. So therefore the first person to speak up would be the winner.

no

if only person had a top hat all three would still raise their hand

It only means at least 2 had a bowler not all three although all 3 could have a bowler

 

[1HandInMyPocket]

This one is probably going to be very easy for some of you but here goes....


A young enterprising stockbroker interviewed three candidates for position of clerk. Since all three were equally suitable he decided to give them a test of logic. All three were scrupulously honest, so when they were asked to close their eyes while he put a hat on each of their heads, they did not cheat in order to see the hat they were wearing.

Ordering them to open their eyes he explained that he may have put on top hats or bowlers, but whoever saw a bowler hat was to raise a hand. All three put up a hand. The winning candidate, the stockbroker explained, would be the first to infer correctly whether he was wearing a bowler or top hat, providing he was able to prove it.

Each person knows that they can not all be wearing top hats otherwise none of them would raise their hand.
If I saw one person with a bowler hat then I know I must also be wearing a bowler hat, because the person wearing the other bowler hat is raising his hand because of me and not the third person wearing the top hat.
Now if I saw the other two people both with bowler hats is where it gets confusing
So if I was wearing a top hat then one of the persons knows that they are wearing a bowler hat (because of the above) and would have answered already, and since they did not I know that I must be wearing a bowler hat as well.

Do I get a cookie?

 

[interactive]

This one is probably going to be very easy for some of you but here goes....


A young enterprising stockbroker interviewed three candidates for position of clerk. Since all three were equally suitable he decided to give them a test of logic. All three were scrupulously honest, so when they were asked to close their eyes while he put a hat on each of their heads, they did not cheat in order to see the hat they were wearing.

Ordering them to open their eyes he explained that he may have put on top hats or bowlers, but whoever saw a bowler hat was to raise a hand. All three put up a hand. The winning candidate, the stockbroker explained, would be the first to infer correctly whether he was wearing a bowler or top hat, providing he was able to prove it.

I took it to mean he put on one type of hat or the other on all 3. So as soon as one saw a bowler it would mean he put on 'bowlers' instead of top hats. 3 top hats used OR 3 bowlers used.

 

[LeeHelm]

no

if only person had a top hat all three would still raise their hand

It only means at least 2 had a bowler not all three although all 3 could have a bowler

OK got it now. They raise their hand if they saw at least one bowler.

 

[LeeHelm]

Each person knows that they can not all be wearing top hats otherwise none of them would raise their hand.
If I saw one person with a bowler hat then I know I must also be wearing a bowler hat, because the person wearing the other bowler hat is raising his hand because of me and not the third person wearing the top hat.
Now if I saw the other two people both with bowler hats is where it gets confusing
So if I was wearing a top hat then one of the persons knows that they are wearing a bowler hat (because of the above) and would have answered already, and since they did not I know that I must be wearing a bowler hat as well.

Do I get a cookie?

The problem is all three of you can be wearing a bowler. Problem does not mention one has to be wearing a top hat.

 

[buttercup]

The three candidates AA, BB, CC all raise their hands, so each one has seen at least one bowler.

That means there are only two possibilities as to hat distribution. Either there are two bowlers and one topper, or there are three bowlers.

(If it was one bowler + two toppers, or three toppers, we would not see all three hands raised.)

Now, if it's one topper and two bowlers, AA and BB see one topper and one bowler, and CC sees two bowlers.
So now, AA and BB, knowing that three hands = at least two bowlers, each can confidently deduce that they have a bowler, and they would be right.

But poor CC has no way he can tell whether he has a topper or a bowler.

That is an unfair contest, showing favouritism on the part of the stockbroker. If there is one topper, the broker must have chosen which of AA, BB, or CC, he was going to give the topper to. He deliberately gave CC the topper, and it can only be becasue he wanted to eliminate CC from the contest, knowing that poor CC couldn't possibly deduce what his hat was.

But it is not possible, within the terms of the question, that the contest was not equally fair to all three candidates.

So any one of the candidates can deduce that the stockbroker must have set the contest to be fair to all three candidates. Now, the only way the contest can be fair to all three candidates, is for each one to have a bowler.

So each one of the three sees two bowlers, so on the face of it, none of the three can deduce what his hat is. But it is open to all three equally to deduce that the contest must be fair to all three, so now he can make the deduction -- that everyone has a bowler.

 

[scdave2003]

The one with the biggest cock (I think that's the answer MissCroft would take)

 

[MissCroft]

The one with the biggest cock (I think that's the answer MissCroft would take)

Hehehe

 

[DanJ]

The three candidates AA, BB, CC all raise their hands, so each one has seen at least one bowler.

That means there are only two possibilities as to hat distribution. Either there are two bowlers and one topper, or there are three bowlers.

(If it was one bowler + two toppers, or three toppers, we would not see all three hands raised.)

Now, if it's one topper and two bowlers, AA and BB see one topper and one bowler, and CC sees two bowlers.
So now, AA and BB, knowing that three hands = at least two bowlers, each can confidently deduce that they have a bowler, and they would be right.

But poor CC has no way he can tell whether he has a topper or a bowler.

That is an unfair contest, showing favouritism on the part of the stockbroker. If there is one topper, the broker must have chosen which of AA, BB, or CC, he was going to give the topper to. He deliberately gave CC the topper, and it can only be becasue he wanted to eliminate CC from the contest, knowing that poor CC couldn't possibly deduce what his hat was.

But it is not possible, within the terms of the question, that the contest was not equally fair to all three candidates.

So any one of the candidates can deduce that the stockbroker must have set the contest to be fair to all three candidates. Now, the only way the contest can be fair to all three candidates, is for each one to have a bowler.

So each one of the three sees two bowlers, so on the face of it, none of the three can deduce what his hat is. But it is open to all three equally to deduce that the contest must be fair to all three, so now he can make the deduction -- that everyone has a bowler.

This makes the most sense, but we still don't know who gets the gig. Does the stockbroker asks his preferred candidate first and hopes he gives this explanation?

 

[MissCroft]

The answer in the back of the book is:

"All three know there are either two or three bowlers (if there was only one, only two hands would have gone up). Therefore there is either one top hat or none. If any one could see a top hat he would know he was wearing a bowler. Since no one has said anything they must all be wearing bowlers."



I think bowlers should come back into style.

 

[1HandInMyPocket]

The problem is all three of you can be wearing a bowler. Problem does not mention one has to be wearing a top hat.

The answer in the back of the book is:

"All three know there are either two or three bowlers (if there was only one, only two hands would have gone up). Therefore there is either one top hat or none. If any one could see a top hat he would know he was wearing a bowler. Since no one has said anything they must all be wearing bowlers."

I guess the way I worded my original post could be confusing so:

The problem with seeing 2 bowler hats.
If I am person A and see persons B and C with bowler hats, then person B sees person C with a bowler hat and vice versa.
Now if I am wearing a top hat, lets say person B sees me (person A) with a top hat and person C with a bowler hat. Person B could deduce he (or she) is wearing a bowler hat, because he (person B) knows that if he were wearing a top hat then person C could not have put up his hand and say he saw at least one bowler hat. So he (person B) could easily answer he has a bowler hat.
Since Person B was not able to answer what hat he is wearing because he is not seeing 1 bowler hat and 1 top hat, then I must be wearing a bowler hat.

So I thought I answered correctly. If I am the candidate based on what I saw, either 1 of each or 2 bowler hats then I would be able to answer, albeit 2 hours later. It might be the way the final question was worded. It never said that all 3 candidates looked puzzled, only that the interviewer asked the final question and the story ends, leaving us to take on the perspective of one of the candidates.

 

[Tau]

Miss Croft: Are you posing all these questions to gauge the average IQ of the Terbite population? Which is a questionable motivation in and of itself.

Or are you just killing time?

 

[The Hof]

For MissCroft

For the rest of you TERB's

http://www.birthdayinabox.com/s7/large/EM9934

(OK, so it's more of a derby than a bowler, but the first one to admit he was looking at the hat.... :crazy: not sure why this is a link instead of an image... ? )

 

[oldjones]

So I raise my hand because I see at least one bowler, and I see that everyone else does too. If I was wearing a topper, the other guys would both still put up their hands, because they'd see each other's bowlers. They'd see my hand up, and know one of them has a bowler. Since they both put up their hands, they each saw a bowler on the other guys head, but not on mine, and so each one of them would have immediately shouted: "I gotta bowler!!"

But they didn't. So I can't have a top hat.

"I gotta bowler!!"