Hexus IQ - A Problem Almost Everyone Gets Wrong (and an extra one for Maths guys)

[Saracen]

The results show it's not!

Jack is looking at Anne, but Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, but George is not. Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?

So let's try and make this clearer:

Jack who is married is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George who is unmarried. Is there a married person looking at an unmarried person?

We could probably reword it and make it even more clear.

In the following scenario, is there a married person looking at someone who is unmarried?

Jack who is married is looking at Anne, Anne is either married or unmarried, Anne is looking at George who is unmarried.

Now we've enumerated the possible values, by putting our predicate against each entity.

But then I come from a background of computer science where we try and explain things are clearly, and unambiguously as possible. Obviously the real answer is that Anne is in a civil partnership. Now a civil partnership is often fungible with a marriage in many circumstances, but often not, so we can break the whole thing with just a little bit of real world creativity. Much like storing gender in a boolean.

In line with not discussing it in the thread while the poll is open, YGPM.

As for whether Anne is in a civil partnership or not, it doesn't matter.

[DanceswithUnix]

Should you answer a question like this over breakfast before your first coffee so that later you can realise you got the wrong answer:

B) No

So apologies for letting the side down but we are still managing better than 80% wrong so well done a lot of you

[Biscuit]

I read the answer and it was a real...



moment.

I totally got it wrong

[Disturbedguy]

Got to admit, I took a bit of a guess at this last night.

Re-read the question again today and I'm fairly certain I've got it correct

[Spreadie]

The results show it's not!

Jack is looking at Anne, but Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, but George is not. Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?

So let's try and make this clearer:

Jack who is married is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George who is unmarried. Is there a married person looking at an unmarried person?

We could probably reword it and make it even more clear.

In the following scenario, is there a married person looking at someone who is unmarried?

Jack who is married is looking at Anne, Anne is either married or unmarried, Anne is looking at George who is unmarried.

Now we've enumerated the possible values, by putting our predicate against each entity.

But then I come from a background of computer science where we try and explain things are clearly, and unambiguously as possible. Obviously the real answer is that Anne is in a civil partnership. Now a civil partnership is often fungible with a marriage in many circumstances, but often not, so we can break the whole thing with just a little bit of real world creativity. Much like storing gender in a boolean.

I think the point was most people get it wrong (if the question isn't re-worded to spoon-feed them the answer).

The chap in the youtube video is right though - a lot of people who are not used to this type of puzzle could easily miss the obvious answer. It's a bit like doing The Times crossword, the more often you do it, the easier it becomes in general; because you get a feel for the thought process behind the clues.

If you're not used to logic puzzles it's easy to get it wrong.

Spoiler below
I showed this to a colleague who immediately went for cannot be determined and was bristling in readiness to defend his answer, until I explained that Anne can only be in one of two states. His jaw almost hit the floor and he couldn't believe he'd overlooked what suddenly seemed like the blatantly obvious answer.

[Galant]

Please can you edit this? - Spoilers.

[TheAnimus]

In line with not discussing it in the thread while the poll is open, YGPM.

As for whether Anne is in a civil partnership or not, it doesn't matter.

Crap, I thought the poll was closed. In fact it was because I'd voted yesterday.....

Yeah I need to learn computer better.

[cptwhite_uk]

For the record I choose the wrong answer, but only realised after considering the question for 5 seconds, then realising I'd answered it wrong after 6 seconds

[Spreadie]

Please can you edit this? - Spoilers.

I don't know how to do spoiler tags but, given TheAnimus has already let the cat out of the bag, I assumed it was no longer necessary.

[Galant]

He sort of half let it out but I'd didn't want to be on here policing the thread, so to speak. But the detail in yours was more complete so I jumped in.

[EndlessWaves]

until I explained that Anne can only be in one of two states.

Says who?

There was nothing in the question equating unmarried with not being married, and judging from the results that's simply not how most people understand the term.

Such a context sensitive data analysis is a bit beyond me, but at a guess I would say people take 'unmarried' to imply additional factors such as being eligible to be married.

For example, what if Anne is a child? Would you ever describe someone as an unmarried child?

As to the maths problem. Doesn't e^(pi * i) = -1 qualify for that? I don't know that pi * i is irrational, but it certainly seems likely as they're both irrational individually.

[Galant]

So the poll expired a while ago.

The answer, for those who haven't found it already, is Yes. An married person is definitely looking at an unmarried person. This is because there are two possible scenarios for Anne, married or unmarried. No matter which one she is though, the situation will always end up with a married person looking at an unmarried person.

The original article states that 80% of people get it wrong, and explanations ordered suggest that people can tend to be a bit lazy mentally when option C is offered. It's suggested that if the solutions offered were only A & B, Yes & No, more people would be successful since they'd think it through more carefully.

This Hexus poll yielded far better results than the 80% failure rate, as, I think most would expect.

So, any further thoughts?

[Saracen]

Says who?

There was nothing in the question equating unmarried with not being married, and judging from the results that's simply not how most people understand the term.

Such a context sensitive data analysis is a bit beyond me, but at a guess I would say people take 'unmarried' to imply additional factors such as being eligible to be married.

For example, what if Anne is a child? Would you ever describe someone as an unmarried child?

.....

The question doesn't involve whether Anne is eligible to be married, just whether she is or not. However you define marriage, people are unmarried until they are married, and remain so until (and unless) they become unmarried. This applies whether the definition is determined by a religious ceremony or a legal event. In the UK, it's a legal event and if I rememger correctly, the precise ooint is the completion of the civil requirements, usually by signing a registry. And it lasts until a court decree says it's ended.

But the point is that because marriage is a binary condition, and you either are or aren't, it doesn't matter whether Anne is married or not, because either way, an married person is looking at an unmarried one.

However .... it seems to me that there is a dubious assumption implied by the wording of the question, which is whether a married person is looking at an unmarried person.

So, define "person".

Suppose Anne is the family goat. Or Budgie. Whatever. But not human.

The question says Jack is married and therefore a person, since marriage is a human legal state. And similarly Anne is looking at George, and as George is married, George is human.

So, if we assume Anne is human, then the answer is yes. But we can assume that?

And if we can't assume it, then Anne could be non-human, in which case marriage is not applicable, so it comes down to whether not being married because of not geing human amounts to "unmarried".

In that case, "undetermined" becomes the answer IF a non human is categorised as unmarried, or neither. Which, I guess, may well be a matter of obscure legality.

But if Anne is human, then her marital state doesn't affect the answer because a person, by definition, is either married, or not, regardless of why they aren't. That's why civil partnerships are irrelvant. Regardless of whether civil partnerships = marriage, or not, the answer is unchanged.

[Saracen]

...

For example, what if Anne is a child? Would you ever describe someone as an unmarried child?

....

Would I? Not in the context of today's society, in the UK, but it is not unknown in some cultures, nor in the UK's history.

[Zak33]

so.... whats the answer then?

Annes actually married to jack, who's actually a married rhinoceros with a fetish for Anne who's a 4 year old chamois goat? And George is a vacuum cleaner in my garage?

Shall I help my uncle Jack, or his horse
or

Shall I help my uncle jack off his horse?

whats the answer pls?

[Bagnaj97]

so.... whats the answer then?

whats the answer pls?

Yes.

Jack is looking at Anne, but Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, but George is not. Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?

Forget the names - it boils down to:
Married -> (married or unmarried) -> unmarried

The centre person is either unmarried or married. Either way there's a married person looking at an unmarried person.


I got it wrong on the poll, I assumed it was impossible to determine because the status of the middle person is unknown - once it was pointed out that there are actually only 2 possibilities it made sense.