Anyone like riddles? I heard this really good riddle recently

LDOPA wrote:

He is only guaranteed death if he lifts those boxes off the table, though. Just lifting them doesn't mean he reveal their contents, unless he lifts them off the table.

Yeah, except that's not what you wrote. You can't have it both ways. You didn't say "lifting the box off the table will guarantee death" you simply wrote:

"Lifting a box is the only way to determine what is under the box, and also guarantees the man will either die, receive the tool for escape, or find nothing in the event he lifts that one particular box."

So, simply lifting the box guaranteed that the man would die. The 6 death boxes were indeed lifted, so he died 6 times.

The bigger problem is that your riddle required an answer that had no sense - how would lifting all 10 boxes at once, without raising them off the table, disclose what was in all ten boxes.

Huge fail on your part. But good for everyone to know in the future - LDOPA is an idiot.

You are the exact type of sucker this riddle was designed to trap. You ended the bolded statement a clause too soon! Lifting a box (whether it be off the table or with the table and all other boxes) will result in one of three things.

1. The man dies

2. The man receives a tool for escape

3. The man finds nothing (if he lifts the one box containing nothing)

The empty box paradigm exists to allow for this tricky phrasing. The man lifts the table (and thus lifts the box containing nothing), and then situation 3 applies. He finds nothing, and does not die.

"How" makes no difference. All that matters is that lifting a box (with or without raising it) will allow the main to know what is underneath the box. The rules of the riddle directly state this. It is your own faulty assumption that lifting the box in a counter-intuitive way won't reveal its contents.

LDOPA wrote:

Lifting a box (whether it be off the table or with the table and all other boxes) will result in one of three things.

1. The man dies

2. The man receives a tool for escape

3. The man finds nothing (if he lifts the one box containing nothing)

The empty box paradigm exists to allow for this tricky phrasing. The man lifts the table (and thus lifts the box containing nothing), and then situation 3 applies. He finds nothing, and does not die.

BS. You're a liar. If he lifts the table you says he finds nothing. But then it's impossible for him to escape as he has to lift a box to get the tool:

LDOPA wrote: He lifts a box, takes the tool, and then uses said tool to escape the maze.

You're a bad joke.

LDOPA wrote:

1. The man dies

2. The man receives a tool for escape

3. The man finds nothing (if he lifts the one box containing nothing)

The empty box paradigm exists to allow for this tricky phrasing. The man lifts the table (and thus lifts the box containing nothing), and then situation 3 applies. He finds nothing, and does not die.

Nope, you are an idiot. Poorly worded sentences aren't a riddle, they are just further evidence of you being an idiot.

You are wrong in your attempt to make your riddle not stupid, but even following your "logic", which is wrong, but, if that "tricky phrasing" allowed the third situation, then by lifting the table he found nothing, then he also didn't find the tools. You are an idiot.

He didn't find the tools as an immediate result of lifting the table, no, but lifting the table lifted the boxes, which allowed him to know what was in each box. He didn't "find" anything, but he had access to new knowledge.

He THEN subsequently was able to safely lift the boxes off the table and that's when he found the tools. They are two separate events.

You guys need to stop pouting and realize you fell into the riddle's logical trap.

LDOPA wrote:

He didn't find the tools as an immediate result of lifting the table, no, but lifting the table lifted the boxes, which allowed him to know what was in each box. He didn't "find" anything, but he had access to new knowledge.

He THEN subsequently was able to safely lift the boxes off the table and that's when he found the tools. They are two separate events.

Oh, suddenly we have two separate events now? He finds nothing, but suddenly knows where everything is?

HAHAHAHA! You're not only a joke, you're dishonest. Modifying the answer to try to make it fit to your posts.

LDOPA wrote:

He didn't find the tools as an immediate result of lifting the table, no, but lifting the table lifted the boxes, which allowed him to know what was in each box. He didn't "find" anything, but he had access to new knowledge.

He THEN subsequently was able to safely lift the boxes off the table and that's when he found the tools. They are two separate events.

You guys need to stop pouting and realize you fell into the riddle's logical trap.

Wow. The more you try to save your idiotic "riddle" with stupid faulty logic after stupid faulty logic the more incredibly stupid you sound. You are an idiot and that can't be saved by throwing more of your stupidity into the mix. You need to just walk away or admit you are an idiot whose made up riddle made no sense.

LDOPA is a joke wrote:

Oh, suddenly we have two separate events now? He finds nothing, but suddenly knows where everything is?

Literally yes. This is exactly what the parameters of the riddle dictate and I have not once faltered from this telling of events.

LDOPA wrote:

LDOPA is a joke wrote:

Oh, suddenly we have two separate events now? He finds nothing, but suddenly knows where everything is?

Literally yes. This is exactly what the parameters of the riddle dictate and I have not once faltered from this telling of events.

No, you are an idiot. It's not even two separate events. Your idiotic premise is that "finding nothing" means that he still acquires all knowledge. How is discovering what is under every single box "finding nothing"? That's just stupid - knowledge of what was under the boxes would be the only THING anybody would be looking for.

Since you also don't know what a metaphor is, the definition of "nothing" is: someone or something that has no interest, value, or importance

In this case - the knowledge was clearly not nothing, instead it was everything.

Seriously - the more you try to save this stupidity, the deeper the hole you dig yourself. You started off really stupid and have now entered the realm of worlds biggest idiot. Just quit now.

You guys are just wrong. I agree with LDOPA. The wording is stupid, the riddle is ridiculously stupid. But his 'paradigm' (haha) is correct. If the one box is lifted, nothing happens.

In other words, as long as you also lift that one particular box, you may also lift any others.

None of which changes the fact that this riddle is stupid, not intellectual, and all of you who spent time on it are morons.

LDOPA wrote:

According to the rules of the riddle, the only way to determine what is under a box is to lift the box. HOWEVER, it does not say that he has to lift the box off the table. The man lifts the whole table, lifting each box, and consequently determines what is under each box (because that is a rule directly written into the premise of the riddle).

And here I was thinking it was something to do with Schrödinger's cat in the box thought experiment...

Unfortunately for you, lifting (transitive verb) the table (direct object), is not equivalent to lifting the boxes. You may have indirectly elevated the boxes but they have by no means been acted upon directly as the riddle demands. Based on the language used, unless it's a glass table you learn nothing from lifting the table.

Now I suspect what has happened is that you have tried to remember a clever riddle off the top of your head but have gotten the details and language wrong. Or you're a troll...

Ah! Thank you for posting.

I finished work and rushed to read the solution. I like it! Bummed I didn't think about it. Cheers.

The letter why wrote:

You guys are just wrong. I agree with LDOPA. The wording is stupid, the riddle is ridiculously stupid. But his 'paradigm' (haha) is correct. If the one box is lifted, nothing happens.

In other words, as long as you also lift that one particular box, you may also lift any others.

None of which changes the fact that this riddle is stupid, not intellectual, and all of you who spent time on it are morons.

If "nothing happens", then nothing happens. Learning what is under every box is not nothing. The "riddle" was faulty, not just in its wording but in it's very premise, as I pointed out correctly early on.

However, "the real solution" called it first and everyone should have listened. LDOPA is a tool and nobody should waste time on his riddles. Although, I wouldn't call LDOPA's original post, whatever mess of the English language it was, a riddle.

Yikes! You're having a meltdown!

LDOPA, what you've just posted here today are some of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent responses were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this thread is now dumber for having read them. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I have a 3-year-old nephew. His "jokes" follow the format: "what do you call an X with a Y?... A Z!" where X, Y, and Z are all just whatever random object/word happened to pop into his mind ("what do you call a frog with a pencil? A crayon!"). I was reminded of this while reading the thread.

That's didn't sound like a breakdown to me. Sounded like he just kept telling you how big of an idiot you sound.

Have to admit - your riddle was not a riddle at all. It was instead just a very poorly worded question with no possible correct answer. Your explanations were also nonsensical, but I thought no different than your original post. Don't worry yourself though, not everyone can be bright, there are plenty of people like you in the world. Language just isn't your strong suit.

LDOPA wrote:

This means that there is no "peaking" or any other weird loopholes.

Any attempts at cheating will result in a minotaur barging into the room and killing the man, so don't try to be "cute" and cheat.

You go out of your way to say loopholes are not allowed and punishable with death by minotaur, then your answer is using a loophole. I bet you have a lot of friends, (that actually like you).

Aahaha, I love all of your comments. Those are some really cool insults.

I can't stop laughing.

"May God have mercy on your soul"

"At no point in your rambling, incoherent responses were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought"

"I have a 3-year-old nephew. His "jokes" follow the format: "what do you call an X with a Y?... A Z!" where X, Y, and Z are all just whatever random object/word happened to pop into his mind ("what do you call a frog with a pencil? A crayon!"). I was reminded of this while reading the thread."

"what you've just posted here today are some of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard"

"Language just isn't your strong suit"

Bwaaaaaa