Archive through January 19, 2006 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Lateral Puzzles » Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles » Solved Puzzles - March 2006 » [woubit] One never knows, do one? » Archive through January 19, 2006 « Previous Next »

Author Message
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 8:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Practically impossible. But useful.

Warning: this is a very silly puzzle indeed.
Haenlomal (Haenlomal)
Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 9:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dancing? Counting on London Transport to get you anywhere on time?
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 9:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Haenlomal (Haenlomal) on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 09:26 pm:

Dancing? No - this is possible, but useless. Counting on London Transport to get you anywhere on time? This is both impossible and useless.
John Morahan (Wunderland)
Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 9:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Winning a lottery? anything to do with a game of chance?
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 10:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By John Morahan (Wunderland) on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 09:59 pm:

Winning a lottery? anything to do with a game of chance? no, but good literal - if not lateral - thinking :)
Lynne (Lynne)
Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 10:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Do you mean it would be useful if it wasn't impossible to achieve whatever it is?
John Morahan (Wunderland)
Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 10:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Douglas Adams relevant?
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 10:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Lynne (Lynne) on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 10:13 pm:

Do you mean it would be useful if it wasn't impossible to achieve whatever it is? no - if it were possible to achieve whatever it is, I could see a use for so doing. But the use for so doing has nothing to do with why this practically impossible thing is actually useful. If you see what I mean.

By John Morahan (Wunderland) on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 10:13 pm:

Douglas Adams relevant? To almost everything, except this puzzle.
John Morahan (Wunderland)
Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 10:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is it useful because it's practically impossible? like a lock that's practically impossible to pick?
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 10:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By John Morahan (Wunderland) on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 10:35 pm:

Is it useful because it's practically impossible? like a lock that's practically impossible to pick? not this kind of thing. Some "thing" is practically impossible in one sense, yet useful in another sense - for very vague values of "thing" indeed.
Mezzoforte (Mezzoforte)
Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 2:16 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Could it be done in the future? in Star Trek?
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 8:29 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Mezzoforte (Mezzoforte) on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 02:16 am:

Could it be done in the future? it could be done in the present, with immense difficulty in Star Trek? I imagine that the crew of the Enterprise might find it a little easier to do than we would, but I can't imagine that they would have any more reason actually to do it than we would.
Katy (Katy)
Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 8:34 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Does it involve objects? People?
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 8:50 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Katy (Katy) on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 08:34 am:

Does it involve objects? People? It involves people, non-human animals, and at least one inanimate object.
Katy (Katy)
Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 8:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

In your answer to Lynne at 10:17 you say

if it were possible to achieve whatever it is, I could see a use for so doing. But the use for so doing has nothing to do with why this practically impossible thing is actually useful. If you see what I mean.

do you mean that setting in place whatever it would take to make it possible would be worthwhile in its own right? Then the result would also be useful?
Anything to do with talking to animals?
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 9:00 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Katy (Katy) on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 08:56 am:

In your answer to Lynne at 10:17 you say

if it were possible to achieve whatever it is, I could see a use for so doing. But the use for so doing has nothing to do with why this practically impossible thing is actually useful. If you see what I mean.

do you mean that setting in place whatever it would take to make it possible would be worthwhile in its own right? Setting in place whatever it would take to make it possible would be a complete and utter waste of time. Then the result would also be useful? The result would be of extremely limited use, in a bizarre set of circumstances. However, in those circumstances, it would not be entirely useless.
Anything to do with talking to animals? no, but good thinking :)
Katy (Katy)
Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 9:05 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Thanks for clearing that up!

Are the animals specific animal(s)?
So:
Protozoa
(phyla: protozoa)
Fish
(group: Pisces)

Echinoderms
such as starfish
(phyla: Echinodermata)
Amphibians
such as frogs
(class: Amphibia)

Annelids
such as earthworms
(phyla: Annelida)
Reptiles
such as crocodiles
(class: Reptilia)

Mollusks
such as octopus
(phyla: Mollusca)
Birds
(class: Aves)

Arthropods
such as crabs, spiders and insects
(phyla: Arthropoda)
Mammals
(class: Mammalia)

Crustaceans
such as crabs
(subphyla: Crustacea)
Marsupials
such as kangaroos
(order: Marsupialia)

Arachnids
such as spiders
(subphyla: Chelicerata
class: Arachnida)

Primates
such as gorillas and chimpanzees
(order: Primates)

Insects
(subphyla: Uniramia
class: Insecta)
Rodents
such as mice
(order: Rodentia)

Cetaceans
such as whales and dolphins
( order: Cetacea)

Animals such as seals
(order: Carnivora
family: Phocidae)

(with grateful thanks to http://www.kidport.com)

Could the people be anyone? Or a specific race? group?
Does everything happen on earth?
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 9:17 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Katy (Katy) on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 09:05 am:

Thanks for clearing that up! glad to be of service :)

Are the animals specific animal(s)? yes
So:
Protozoa
(phyla: protozoa)
Fish
(group: Pisces)

Echinoderms
such as starfish
(phyla: Echinodermata)
Amphibians
such as frogs
(class: Amphibia)

Annelids
such as earthworms
(phyla: Annelida)
Reptiles
such as crocodiles
(class: Reptilia)

Mollusks
such as octopus crumbs - if I were giving examples of taxonomy, I would not cite the octopus as representative of the molluscs. But what do I know?
(phyla: Mollusca)
Birds
(class: Aves) this one

Arthropods
such as crabs, spiders and insects
(phyla: Arthropoda)
Mammals
(class: Mammalia)

Crustaceans
such as crabs
(subphyla: Crustacea)
Marsupials
such as kangaroos
(order: Marsupialia)

Arachnids
such as spiders
(subphyla: Chelicerata
class: Arachnida)

Primates
such as gorillas and chimpanzees
(order: Primates)

Insects
(subphyla: Uniramia
class: Insecta)
Rodents
such as mice
(order: Rodentia)

Cetaceans
such as whales and dolphins
( order: Cetacea)

Animals such as seals
(order: Carnivora
family: Phocidae)

(with grateful thanks to http://www.kidport.com)

Could the people be anyone? yes, in theory, though... Or a specific race? ...some races are rather more likely to find this thing useful than others group?
Does everything happen on earth? yes
Katy (Katy)
Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 9:32 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So it involves some people and some birds and objects.
Anything to do with people being able to fly independently of machines/ gliders?
Katy (Katy)
Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 9:35 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is the title relevant? "Do one" isn't correct in that sentence, is that relevant?
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 9:48 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Katy (Katy) on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 09:32 am:

So it involves some people and some birds and objects. It involves an unspecified but strictly positive number of people, an unspecified number of birds greater than one, and at least one inanimate object.
Anything to do with people being able to fly independently of machines/ gliders? no

By Katy (Katy) on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 09:35 am:

Is the title relevant? "Do one" isn't correct in that sentence, is that relevant? The title is no more than a catchphrase of the great Thomas "Fats" Waller. It is not relevant in the least.
Katy (Katy)
Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 10:24 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

are the birds all the same type? smaller than a sparrow? Roughly the same? Smaller than a thrush? Roughly the same? Smaller than a chicken? Roughly the same? Larger than a chicken?