[WiZ] Demography Puzzle Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Lateral Puzzles » Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles » Solved Puzzles - October 2013 » [WiZ] Demography Puzzle « Previous Next »

Author Message
Wizardofnz (Wizardofnz)
New member
Username: Wizardofnz

Post Number: 498
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - 10:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I anticipate this being solved in the single-digits, but I love this one too much not to post it

To the shock of his contemporaries, a demographer announced that, in 1996, the Population of New Zealand was only 10! However, he was correct. How is this possible?
Doriana (Doriana)
New member
Username: Doriana

Post Number: 4064
Registered: 12-2010
Posted on Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - 11:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Population = number of people? or maybe animals?

New Zealand = the country? or a village named New Zealand?
Hamilton (Hamilton)
New member
Username: Hamilton

Post Number: 68
Registered: 8-2013
Posted on Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - 11:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

WAG: Was the population on New Zealand only 10 in 1996 BC?

Is there a reason Population is capitalized? Is there a publication or something entitled Population of New Zealand that was 10 years old in 1996?
Wizardofnz (Wizardofnz)
New member
Username: Wizardofnz

Post Number: 501
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - 11:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Doriana:

Population = number of people? yes or maybe animals? no

New Zealand = the country? yes or a village named New Zealand? no

Hamilton

WAG: Was the population on New Zealand only 10 in 1996 BC? no, we're talking about 1996 AD in this puzzle. AFAIK, it was even less than 10 in 1996 BC

Is there a reason Population is capitalized? no, that's my mistake Is there a publication or something entitled Population of New Zealand that was 10 years old in 1996? no
Hamilton (Hamilton)
New member
Username: Hamilton

Post Number: 70
Registered: 8-2013
Posted on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 1:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"In 1996": is that the year the demographer made his statement, the year there were 10 people, or both?

Is there a specific moment in 1996 where the population is 10? Or is it throughout the year?

Is there some sort of legal obscurity or technicality at play here?
Redwine (Redwine)
New member
Username: Redwine

Post Number: 2486
Registered: 1-2011
Posted on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 1:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did the demographer take only one particular group of people into account?
Did he use particular criteria to determine who is "the population of New Zealand" and who is not?
Could his method of counting be used to count the population of any other country?
Is it relevant what was the demographer's nationality? Are other facts about the demographer relevant?
Plebeian (Plebeian)
New member
Username: Plebeian

Post Number: 870
Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 3:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Does the demographer mean 10 people in the "normal" sense, e.g. if you counted 20 legs and believed everyone healthy, normal and uninjured you could assume 10 people?
Or 10 different "kinds" of people, e.g. old/young/male/female/etc.?
Peter365 (Peter365)
New member
Username: Peter365

Post Number: 4871
Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 3:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Anything to do with the oft quoted 'sheep to person' ratio?
Deholmes (Deholmes)
New member
Username: Deholmes

Post Number: 758
Registered: 11-2012
Posted on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 8:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

was he counting only whites? was he counting only social workers or tourists?
Wizardofnz (Wizardofnz)
New member
Username: Wizardofnz

Post Number: 511
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 9:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hamilton:

"In 1996": is that the year the demographer made his statement possible but irrelevant, the year there were 10 people this, or both? see above

Is there a specific moment in 1996 where the population is 10? Or is it throughout the year? it's based on an annual population estimate, rather than trying to pinpoint a specific period in the year

Is there some sort of legal obscurity no or technicality please rephrase at play here?

Redwine:

Did the demographer take only one particular group of people into account? no - no subpopulations are involved
Did he use particular criteria to determine who is "the population of New Zealand" and who is not? he used standard methodology
Could his method of counting be used to count the population of any other country? yes
Is it relevant what was the demographer's nationality? no Are other facts about the demographer relevant? no

Plebeian:

Does the demographer mean 10 people in the "normal" sense, e.g. if you counted 20 legs and believed everyone healthy, normal and uninjured you could assume 10 people? this, as opposed to...
Or 10 different "kinds" of people, e.g. old/young/male/female/etc.? ... this

Peter365:

Anything to do with the oft quoted 'sheep to person' ratio? no, but he wrote on this subject, too:

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/mythbusters/3million-people-60million-sheep.aspx

Deholmes:

was he counting only whites? no was he counting only social workers or tourists? no to both
Biograd (Biograd)
New member
Username: Biograd

Post Number: 2192
Registered: 6-2008
Posted on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 10:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was this figure of 10 precise? or was it just a "ballpark" estimate?

If the demographer had been told that a former legal resident of New Zealand had just moved permanently to Australia at the end of 1996, would he necessarily say that the population of New Zealand right at that point was 9? would it still definitely be 10? would the answer depend on exactly which resident of New Zealand it was who had moved?
Wizardofnz (Wizardofnz)
New member
Username: Wizardofnz

Post Number: 516
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 10:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was this figure of 10 precise? or was it just a "ballpark" estimate? population estimates are just that, estimates, but he had reasonable grounds to believe that his figure was precisely accurate at some point during the year, and near to it for the rest

If the demographer had been told that a former legal resident of New Zealand had just moved permanently to Australia at the end of 1996, would he necessarily say that the population of New Zealand right at that point was 9? no! would it still definitely be 10? it would be close to his initial figure would the answer depend on exactly which resident of New Zealand it was who had moved? no
Hamilton (Hamilton)
New member
Username: Hamilton

Post Number: 76
Registered: 8-2013
Posted on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 10:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

If the demographer had used his methodology with Australia or the UK, would he come up with another absurdly low number? Is there something unique about New Zealand that allows for the low number?

Leaving or entering the country relevant? Births and deaths?

1986 Constitution relevant? The royal family?
Wizardofnz (Wizardofnz)
New member
Username: Wizardofnz

Post Number: 519
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 10:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

If the demographer had used his methodology with Australia or the UK, would he come up with another absurdly low number? he couldn't have made a similar report with the populations of either the UK or Australia in 1996, or indeed now. Is there something unique about New Zealand that allows for the low number? no - there are other countries for which he could have made this claim

Leaving or entering the country relevant? no Births and deaths? no

1986 Constitution relevant? no The royal family? no
Hamilton (Hamilton)
New member
Username: Hamilton

Post Number: 82
Registered: 8-2013
Posted on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 11:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So is there something specific about New Zealand that makes his low figure possible? Something the UK and Australia lack, but other countries have?

If he repeated his analysis for 1997, would he also get a very small number? What about for 2012? Is there something specific about 1996 that allows for a low population estimate?

Population density relevant?
Wizardofnz (Wizardofnz)
New member
Username: Wizardofnz

Post Number: 528
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 11:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So is there something specific about New Zealand that makes his low figure possible? yes Something the UK and Australia lack, but other countries have? correct

If he repeated his analysis for 1997, would he also get a very small number? no What about for 2012? no Is there something specific about 1996 that allows for a low population estimate? yes

Population density relevant? no
Psymann (Psymann)
New member
Username: Psymann

Post Number: 72
Registered: 7-2007
Posted on Thursday, September 26, 2013 - 5:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is there any other year in history, other than 1996, where he would have got a similarly very small number for New Zealand?
Psymann (Psymann)
New member
Username: Psymann

Post Number: 73
Registered: 7-2007
Posted on Thursday, September 26, 2013 - 5:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was the population of New Zealand in 1995 a little less than 3.63 million, and the population of New Zealand in 1997 a little more than 3.63 million?
Wizardofnz (Wizardofnz)
New member
Username: Wizardofnz

Post Number: 540
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, September 26, 2013 - 9:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Psymann:

Is there any other year in history, other than 1996, where he would have got a similarly very small number for New Zealand? yes

Was the population of New Zealand in 1995 a little less than 3.63 million yes, and the population of New Zealand in 1997 a little more than 3.63 million? yes
Kinglouie (Kinglouie)
New member
Username: Kinglouie

Post Number: 1
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Friday, September 27, 2013 - 12:22 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

King Louie, formerly lzeiters, back for more. Glad to see this forum still alive and kicking...

Was the means of gathering population information relevant? i.e. internet polling, but only ten in the country had internet access?

Was only a small portion of the population assessed? If so, was a faulty extrapolation of that data then made?

Were there a number of computerized models being used to analyze the data, and one of the models returned a total population of ten?
Wizardofnz (Wizardofnz)
New member
Username: Wizardofnz

Post Number: 554
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, September 27, 2013 - 12:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

King Louie, formerly lzeiters, back for more. Glad to see this forum still alive and kicking... Welcome back. I recognise your former name. Did you receive a recent e-mail from Paul?

Was the means of gathering population information relevant? i.e. internet polling, but only ten in the country had internet access? no

Was only a small portion of the population assessed? no If so, was a faulty extrapolation of that data then made? no

Were there a number of computerized models being used to analyze the data, and one of the models returned a total population of ten? no
Kinglouie (Kinglouie)
New member
Username: Kinglouie

Post Number: 4
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Friday, September 27, 2013 - 2:53 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yes, I did get an email from Paul.
Is the fact that "New Zealand" has ten letters relevant?
Wizardofnz (Wizardofnz)
New member
Username: Wizardofnz

Post Number: 556
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, September 27, 2013 - 2:55 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is the fact that "New Zealand" has ten letters relevant? no
Kinglouie (Kinglouie)
New member
Username: Kinglouie

Post Number: 5
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Friday, September 27, 2013 - 2:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yes, I did get an email from Paul.
Is the fact that "New Zealand" has ten letters relevant?
Plebeian (Plebeian)
New member
Username: Plebeian

Post Number: 874
Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Friday, September 27, 2013 - 11:54 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is the estimate connected to the geographical properties of New Zealand (I'm thinking maybe in some unusual way, the land area of New Zealand is much less than would normally be thought)?
Or some estimate of people per sq.M?
Psydkik (Psydkik)
New member
Username: Psydkik

Post Number: 10
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Saturday, September 28, 2013 - 7:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

In other news...

"To the continuing shock of forum users, but lesser shock of his contemporaries, the very same demographer announced that, in 2009, the Population of Argentina was only 11! However, he was correct."

Am I right?
If so, I'll put on my smug face and bow out ;-)
And if not, I'll put on my disappointed face and think harder!
Lynne (Lynne)
New member
Username: Lynne

Post Number: 5522
Registered: 12-2000
Posted on Saturday, September 28, 2013 - 9:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

To the continuing shock of forum users, the population of the Lateral Thinking Puzzles Forum is today only 10.
Wizardofnz (Wizardofnz)
New member
Username: Wizardofnz

Post Number: 559
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 8:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Plebeian:

Is the estimate connected to the geographical properties of New Zealand (I'm thinking maybe in some unusual way, the land area of New Zealand is much less than would normally be thought)? no
Or some estimate of people per sq.M? no

Psydklk:

In other news...

"To the continuing shock of forum users, but lesser shock of his contemporaries, the very same demographer announced that, in 2009, the Population of Argentina was only 11! However, he was correct."

Am I right? You are! And with an admirable degree of subtlety, might I add?!

I think you've earned the right to put on your smug face.

Lynne:

To the continuing shock of forum users, the population of the Lateral Thinking Puzzles Forum is today only 10. I hope I can count myself among them. Oh, look, there I am.
Kalira (Kalira)
New member
Username: Kalira

Post Number: 2
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 1:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Then, can I garner from Psydkik's post that this is a word puzzle rather than a situation puzzle?

If it is a word puzzle, is the only information we really need:
2006, New Zealand = 10
2009, Argentina = 11

Is it relevant that Population is capitalized?
Alexanderhamilton (Alexanderhamilton)
New member
Username: Alexanderhamilton

Post Number: 8
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 3:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Something tells me if I pursue the Argentina hint, I'll only confused myself further...

Is there a relevant event that occurred in 1996 in New Zealand? Election relevant? Internet relevant? Natural disasters? Sports?

If New Zealand's actual population in 1996 was doubled, would he say its population was 20? Would he say it was lower than that? Higher? Would he say 10?

If I were to throw out a country and a recent year, could you tell me what their population was under his method with ease? Or would there be some Googling involved?
Kalira (Kalira)
New member
Username: Kalira

Post Number: 3
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 3:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Derpy kal meant 1996, not 2006, in her post. That is all.
Wizardofnz (Wizardofnz)
New member
Username: Wizardofnz

Post Number: 573
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 8:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Kalira:

Then, can I garner from Psydkik's post that this is a word puzzle rather than a situation puzzle? No - this is no mere word puzzle. There are no tricks with the definition of words or what they represent. The demographer's statement is absolutely true at face value, but how can this be so?

Is it relevant that Population is capitalized? still no :P

Hamilton:

Is there a relevant event that occurred in 1996 in New Zealand? no Election relevant? Internet relevant? Natural disasters? Sports? n/a to all

If New Zealand's actual population in 1996 was doubled, would he say its population was 20? no! Would he say it was lower than that? no Higher? considerably Would he say 10? no

If I were to throw out a country and a recent year, could you tell me what their population was under his method with ease? no! Or would there be some Googling involved? there would be - but this isn't where the bulk of the problem lies
Balin (Balin)
New member
Username: Balin

Post Number: 4
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 9:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is the ACTUAL population of human persons in New Zealand in 1996 relevant?
Wizardofnz (Wizardofnz)
New member
Username: Wizardofnz

Post Number: 577
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 9:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is the ACTUAL population of human persons in New Zealand in 1996 relevant? The demographer was talking about the actual population :P But I get what you're asking. If you were to google New Zealand's population in 1996, you would most likely encounter a figure around 3.6 million. That should help.
Alexanderhamilton (Alexanderhamilton)
New member
Username: Alexanderhamilton

Post Number: 13
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 9:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So if New Zealandís population was double in 1996 (letís say 7 million), would his method say the population was in the thousands at least? Millions? Would it be close to 7 million? But this method gets 10 when there were 3.6 million?

Is there regularity to what years New Zealand's population would come in as very low using the demographer's method (every X years, etc.)? Has it ever happened since 1996? Since 2000?

You mentioned there was "something" New Zealand had in 1996, but not the UK or Australia. If I named a country, would you know if it had this "something" off the top of your head? Or again, is it more obscure and requires some research?
Wizardofnz (Wizardofnz)
New member
Username: Wizardofnz

Post Number: 580
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 11:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So if New Zealandís population was double in 1996 (letís say 7 million), would his method say the population was in the thousands at least? Millions? he would give the population in millions Would it be close to 7 million? yes But this method gets 10 when there were 3.6 million? FA!

Is there regularity to what years New Zealand's population would come in as very low using the demographer's method (every X years, etc.)? no Has it ever happened since 1996? Since 2000? no to both

You mentioned there was "something" New Zealand had in 1996, but not the UK or Australia. If I named a country, would you know if it had this "something" off the top of your head? Or again, is it more obscure and requires some research? It would require more research
Amol (Amol)
New member
Username: Amol

Post Number: 76
Registered: 7-2001
Posted on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - 2:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Were the others shocked because they were not aware of some mathematical Facts ? :-)
Plebeian (Plebeian)
New member
Username: Plebeian

Post Number: 881
Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - 2:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So, going over previous posts, the demographer could say, "In 1995 the population of New Zealand was approx. 3.63 million"? And follow that with "..and in 1996 it was 10"?
Alexanderhamilton (Alexanderhamilton)
New member
Username: Alexanderhamilton

Post Number: 17
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - 3:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

If another demographer said to the first one that he thought the population of New Zealand was 3.6 million in 1996, would he disagree? Did the demographer actually believe that there were 10 people living in New Zealand in 1996? Is this even what the demographer is trying to convey in his original statement?
Wizardofnz (Wizardofnz)
New member
Username: Wizardofnz

Post Number: 584
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - 8:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Amol:

Were the others shocked because they were not aware of some mathematical Facts ? :-) More that they didn't think of them immediately, although it appears that you did. Well done.

Plebeian:

So, going over previous posts, the demographer could say, "In 1995 the population of New Zealand was approx. 3.63 million"? yes And follow that with "..and in 1996 it was 10"? no - not exactly as you have written it

Hamilton:

If another demographer said to the first one that he thought the population of New Zealand was 3.6 million in 1996, would he disagree? no Did the demographer actually believe that there were 10 people living in New Zealand in 1996? no Is this even what the demographer is trying to convey in his original statement? That there are only 10 people living in New Zealand in 1996? No!
Alexanderhamilton (Alexanderhamilton)
New member
Username: Alexanderhamilton

Post Number: 21
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Wednesday, October 02, 2013 - 2:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So is the figure "10" in the demographer's statement supposed to refer to something other than the number of people in NZ? Does it refer to another fact about the population of NZ in 1996? Their age? Their rank in something?
Wizardofnz (Wizardofnz)
New member
Username: Wizardofnz

Post Number: 589
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 02, 2013 - 8:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So is the figure "10" in the demographer's statement supposed to refer to something other than the number of people in NZ? no Does it refer to another fact about the population of NZ in 1996? no Their age? no Their rank in something? no
Docd (Docd)
New member
Username: Docd

Post Number: 195
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Thursday, October 03, 2013 - 11:45 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Wiz, would your demographer be astonished if I told him the distance between the Australian cities of Brisbane and Sydney (in kilometres) is approximately.......3!!
Alexanderhamilton (Alexanderhamilton)
New member
Username: Alexanderhamilton

Post Number: 27
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Thursday, October 03, 2013 - 1:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Or for the love of... Is the demographer even using base 10?
Wizardofnz (Wizardofnz)
New member
Username: Wizardofnz

Post Number: 602
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, October 03, 2013 - 8:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Docd:

Wiz, would your demographer be astonished if I told him the distance between the Australian cities of Brisbane and Sydney (in kilometres) is approximately.......3!! He had to look it up to confirm, but you're dead right. Also pretty much the same distance from Sydney to Brisbane, which I found quite interesting. And fractionally less than the distance between Auckland and Christchurch.

Alexanderhamilton:

Or for the love of... Is the demographer even using base 10? yes

OK, so this has been solved three times and the one remaining guesser appears increasingly tortured... perhaps I should give a hint. I'd certainly not enjoy this puzzle being dragged on as long as post number 5!
Wizardofnz (Wizardofnz)
New member
Username: Wizardofnz

Post Number: 603
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, October 03, 2013 - 8:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sydney to Melbourne, rather. I misread your initial post and looked up the distance between Australia's 2 largest cities. Believe it or not, It was still 3!!
Amol (Amol)
New member
Username: Amol

Post Number: 85
Registered: 7-2001
Posted on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 5:27 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Wiz, if you check your double facts (rather, double-check your facts) about the cities above, the distances do not measure up.... :-)
King_louie2 (King_louie2)
New member
Username: King_louie2

Post Number: 21
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 11:26 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Facts! Facts! Facts! Facts are not always good unless they're the correct facts!
Amol (Amol)
New member
Username: Amol

Post Number: 88
Registered: 7-2001
Posted on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 11:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

And not too many facts!! They cause problems.
King_louie2 (King_louie2)
New member
Username: King_louie2

Post Number: 22
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 1:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Punctuation is key in making sure a fact's! content is valid, and that they are interpreted correctly. "Let's eat, Grandma", vs. "Let's eat Grandma", for instance...
Alexanderhamilton (Alexanderhamilton)
New member
Username: Alexanderhamilton

Post Number: 32
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 10:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well, one hundred and twenty hints later, I limp across the finish line. Or should I say 5! hints?
Doriana (Doriana)
New member
Username: Doriana

Post Number: 28
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 10:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Oh! Now I get it! Clever!
Lynne (Lynne)
New member
Username: Lynne

Post Number: 5547
Registered: 12-2000
Posted on Sunday, October 06, 2013 - 9:02 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'll be the first to admit that I haven't a clue. Was the demographer only 10 years old? If it's been solved will be get a $poiler?
Balin (Balin)
New member
Username: Balin

Post Number: 31
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Sunday, October 06, 2013 - 7:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Oh, THAT'S how it works! Very well done!
Lynne (Lynne)
New member
Username: Lynne

Post Number: 5548
Registered: 12-2000
Posted on Sunday, October 06, 2013 - 8:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

In the words of a certain lateral puzzler (moi): harumph.
Wizardofnz (Wizardofnz)
New member
Username: Wizardofnz

Post Number: 614
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 06, 2013 - 10:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

***** SPOILER *****

The Demographer was absolutely correct; the population of New Zealand in 1996 was 10!, or 10 factorial, i.e. 10 x 9 x 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 3,628,800.


Well done to all of you. I think this puzzle now holds the record for the one solved the greatest number of times before the spoiler was posted.

Regarding distances, and I admit I had no time for a method of checking more sophisticated than Yahoo! answers, I get:

Sydney to Melbourne: 730 km
Sydney to Brisbane: 715 km
Auckland to Christchurch: 764 km
3!!km: 720 km

I think that falls under the umbrella of 'approximately'.

Congratulations to Psydkik, Amol, King Louie II, Doriana, Balin, and Lynne (I think); However, the 'player of the day' award goes to Alexander Hamilton, for great tenacity and perseverance!!!
Psydkik (Psydkik)
New member
Username: Psydkik

Post Number: 143
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Monday, October 07, 2013 - 8:49 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

That was nicely cryptic and it probably helped that I was once a maths teacher... even then I only got it as an afterthought just after I'd posted a completely different question :-)
Amol (Amol)
New member
Username: Amol

Post Number: 96
Registered: 7-2001
Posted on Monday, October 07, 2013 - 1:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Wiz,

"Double factorial" has a different meaning in Mathematics. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_factorial

So 3!! = 3*1 = 3

What DocD wanted to say was
(3!)! = 6! = 720.

That's why I said too many facts can be confusing!
Wizardofnz (Wizardofnz)
New member
Username: Wizardofnz

Post Number: 622
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, October 07, 2013 - 8:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Curious. Well, I learned something today. And I'm happier to be wrong in the field of Enumerative combinatorics than geography :P

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: