All Puzzles

One theft happens in a village and police inspector asked one constable to reach the spot and take the FIR.
Due to night and too far from the station, constables didn’t go there and made a fake FIR. After reading the report the inspector suspended the constable for making a fake report with out reaching the spot.How the inspector find that it is fake and they didn’t reach the spot ?
View SolutionSubmit Solution 436 views
 1 answers
 0 votes

This is a popular probability puzzle in which you have to select the correct answer at random from the four options below.
Can you tell, whats the probability of choosing correct answer in this random manner.
1) 1/4
2) 1/2
3) 1
4) 1/4View SolutionSubmit Solution 15730 views
 2 answers
 1 votes

Mr Albert go to his office by metro.
However nearby metro station is quite far from his place and he used to drive his bike to metro station daily with an average speed of 60km/hr. One day at halfway point he relized that due to heavy traffic he got late having average speed of just 30km/hr.How fast he must drive for the rest of the way to catch the metro train ?
View SolutionSubmit Solution 1720 views
 2 answers
 1 votes

Also known as Hempel’s Paradox, for the German logician who proposed it in the mid1940s, the Raven Paradox begins with the apparently straightforward and entirely true statement that “all ravens are black.”
The paradox here is that Hempel has apparently proved that seeing an apple provides us with evidence, no matter how unrelated it may seem, that ravens are black. It’s the equivalent of saying that you live in New York is evidence that you don’t live in L.A., or that saying you are 30 years old is evidence that you are not 29. Just how much information can one statement actually imply anyway?
View SolutionSubmit Solution 4403 views
 1 answers
 0 votes

Imagine that a farmer has a sack containing 100 lbs of potatoes. The potatoes, he discovers, are comprised of 99% water and 1% solids, so he leaves them in the heat of the sun for a day to let the amount of water in them reduce to 98%. But when he returns to them the day after, he finds his 100 lb sack now weighs just 50 lbs. How can this be true? Well, if 99% of 100 lbs of potatoes is water then the water must weigh 99 lbs. The 1% of solids must ultimately weigh just 1 lb, giving a ratio of solids to liquids of 1:99. But if the potatoes are allowed to dehydrate to 98% water, the solids must now account for 2% of the weight—a ratio of 2:98, or 1:49—even though the solids must still only weigh 1lb. The water, ultimately, must now weigh 49lb, giving a total weight of 50lbs despite just a 1% reduction in water content. Or must it?
Although not a true paradox in the strictest sense, the counterintuitive Potato Paradox is a famous example of what is known as a veridical paradox, in which a basic theory is taken to a logical but apparently absurd conclusion.
View SolutionSubmit Solution 5041 views
 1 answers
 0 votes

In his final written work, Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences (1638), the legendary Italian polymath Galileo Galilei proposed a mathematical paradox based on the relationships between different sets of numbers. On the one hand, he proposed, there are square numbers—like 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, and so on. On the other, there are those numbers that are not squares—like 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and so on. Put these two groups together, and surely there have to be more numbers in general than there are justsquare numbers—or, to put it another way, the total number of square numbers must be less than the total number of square and nonsquare numbers together. However, because every positive number has to have a corresponding square and every square number has to have a positive number as its square root, there cannot possibly be more of one than the other.
Confused? You’re not the only one. In his discussion of his paradox, Galileo was left with no alternative than to conclude that numerical concepts like more, less, or fewer can only be applied to finite sets of numbers, and as there are an infinite number of square and nonsquare numbers, these concepts simply cannot be used in this context.
Submit Solution 4117 views
 0 answers
 0 votes

Imagine a fletcher (i.e. an arrowmaker) has fired one of his arrows into the air. For the arrow to be considered to be moving, it has to be continually repositioning itself from the place where it is now to any place where it currently isn’t. The Fletcher’s Paradox, however, states that throughout its trajectory the arrow is actually not moving at all. At any given instant of no real duration (in other words, a snapshot in time) during its flight, the arrow cannot move to somewhere it isn’t because there isn’t time for it to do so. And it can’t move to where it is now, because it’s already there. So, for that instant in time, the arrow must be stationary. But because all time is comprised entirely of instants—in every one of which the arrow must also be stationary—then the arrow must in fact be stationary the entire time. Except, of course, it isn’t.
Submit Solution 4556 views
 0 answers
 0 votes

John Farmer woke up one morning to pandemonium in his barnyard. The gate had been left open and the animals had wandered out during the night. When he looked out the window, he could see the chickens and the sheep. By the time he got downstairs he could see the goats, too. But he had to hunt for the cows and the horses. After an hour of running around, Jake finally got all his animals back in their pens. Using the clues below, determine how many of each animal the farmer had to find, what kind of mischief each type of animal got into, and how long it took the farmer to return each group of animals to their pens.
 The animals running loose on the neighbor’s lawn were not the goats.
 The twelve chickens, who were not eating Jake’s vegetable garden, took the most time to return to their pen.
 Jake had five of one type of animal; he had an even number of all the other animals.
 The animals he had the least number of were the ones found in the grain room. The animals he had the most of took him twenty minutes to catch.
 The animals Jake had only two of took five minutes to catch while the animals he had six of took twice as long to catch.
 Jake had six more chickens than goats but two more goats than sheep.
 It took five minutes more to catch the horses than it took to catch the animals in the hay field but getting the horses took five minutes less than collecting the animals scattered around the barnyard.
 It took Jake the same amount of time to collect the four animals in the hay field as it did to collect the goats.
ANIMAL Number of animals Animals’ location time CHICKENS COWS GOATS x HORSES SHEEP x View SolutionSubmit Solution 3447 views
 1 answers
 0 votes

Imagine that you’re about to set off walking down a street. To reach the other end, you’d first have to walk half way there. And to walk half way there, you’d first have to walk a quarter of the way there. And to walk a quarter of the way there, you’d first have to walk an eighth of the way there. And before that a sixteenth of the way there, and then a thirtysecond of the way there, a sixtyfourth of the way there, and so on.
Ultimately, in order to perform even the simplest of tasks like walking down a street, you’d have to perform an infinite number of smaller tasks—something that, by definition, is utterly impossible. Not only that, but no matter how small the first part of the journey is said to be, it can always be halved to create another task; the only way in which it cannot be halved would be to consider the first part of the journey to be of absolutely no distance whatsoever, and in order to complete the task of moving no distance whatsoever, you can’t even start your journey in the first place.
View SolutionSubmit Solution 3138 views
 1 answers
 0 votes

A crocodile snatches a young boy from a riverbank. His mother pleads with the crocodile to return him, to which the crocodile replies that he will only return the boy safely if the mother can guess correctly whether or not he will indeed return the boy. There is no problem if the mother guesses that the crocodile will return him—if she is right, he is returned; if she is wrong, the crocodile keeps him. If she answers that the crocodile will not return him, however, we end up with a paradox: if she is right and the crocodile never intended to return her child, then the crocodile has to return him, but in doing so breaks his word and contradicts the mother’s answer. On the other hand, if she is wrong and the crocodile actually did intend to return the boy, the crocodile must then keep him even though he intended not to, thereby also breaking his word.
The Crocodile Paradox is such an ancient and enduring logic problem that in the Middle Ages the word “crocodilite” came to be used to refer to any similarly braintwisting dilemma where you admit something that is later used against you, while “crocodility” is an equally ancient word for captious or fallacious reasoning
Submit Solution 3791 views
 0 answers
 0 votes