# The Grey Labyrinth is a collection of puzzles, riddles, mind games, paradoxes and other intellectually challenging diversions. Related topics: puzzle games, logic puzzles, lateral thinking puzzles, philosophy, mind benders, brain teasers, word problems, conundrums, 3d puzzles, spatial reasoning, intelligence tests, mathematical diversions, paradoxes, physics problems, reasoning, math, science.

Message body

 Emoticons View more Emoticons
 [quote="ctrlaltdel"]with the upside-down flip... isnt that weird tho? why would we need that? to have a side of the picture which is DOWN? imagine the brain... errr sorry... the whatever that puts together an image for a spider. if he lives on ground, fine. but he can stay on a wall forever. even more, he could stay on the celing forever. so we have three spiders - ground, wall, ceiling. are all of these spiders' visions different, after having adjusted? or do they change their floor-wall-ceiling orientation so often that it doesnt change for them?[/quote]
Options
HTML is OFF
BBCode is ON
Smilies are ON
 Disable BBCode in this post Disable Smilies in this post

 All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum Puzzles and Games----------------Grey Labyrinth PuzzlesVisitor Submitted PuzzlesVisitor GamesMafia Games Miscellaneous----------------Off-TopicVisitor Submitted NewsScience, Art, and CulturePoll Tournaments Administration----------------Grey Labyrinth NewsFeature Requests / Site Problems
 Topic review
Author Message
ctrlaltdel
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2002 12:38 pm    Post subject: 1

with the upside-down flip... isnt that weird tho? why would we need that? to have a side of the picture which is DOWN? imagine the brain... errr sorry... the whatever that puts together an image for a spider. if he lives on ground, fine. but he can stay on a wall forever. even more, he could stay on the celing forever.
so we have three spiders - ground, wall, ceiling. are all of these spiders' visions different, after having adjusted? or do they change their floor-wall-ceiling orientation so often that it doesnt change for them?
Chuck
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2002 12:58 am    Post subject: 0

As an experiment, someone could wear glasses that do the image stretching. I believe that after a few days of wearing them constantly your brain would adapt and you'd see things normally again. I've read material about experiments with glasses that invert what you see. Things look upside down for awhile but you eventally adjust. Certainly someone who's had the images distorted from birth would see things normally. We aren't born with the ability to see. We have to learn to associate the sensations from our eyes with what's really out there.

Actually, the lenses in our eyes already invert what we see. The image on the retina is upside down. No wonder we're all confused.
roxie
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2002 12:55 am    Post subject: -1

Isn't what these natives have called 'astigmatism'? If someone has this problem and wears corrective glasses you can borrow the glasses and while holding them in front of you look at something through them and rotate them. As you do this the object will appear to elongate and contract with the rotation (assuming you have normal vision). I don't think the brain can compensate for this otherwise prescription glasses for this would be unnecessary. Given the above, I can't see how a person with this problem could fail to be aware of it.
dave10000
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2002 12:34 am    Post subject: -2

Sofis:

I think that to them it might. From birth, they know how a 12" ruler looks when looked at horizontally, and how it looks when looked at vertically. When they look at a circle, they'll think "Hmmmm . . . it's as wide as a horizontal ruler, and as tall as a vertical ruler -- thus, the width and height are the same."
Sofis
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2002 9:44 pm    Post subject: -3

dave10000:

That's true, I suppose. Still, that would be yet another way for them to figure out that something is wrong with their vision: they know that all points on the circle are equally far away from the midpoint (because they drew it with a compass) but it clearly doesn't look like all points on the circle are equally far away from the midpoint (or any point).

[This message has been edited by Sofis (edited 04-04-2002 04:44 PM).]
Sumudu2
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2002 9:42 pm    Post subject: -4

Mathgrant: Entei, of course

are you sure it's not correct? can you give me values for c and s as a counterexample?
dave10000
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2002 9:15 pm    Post subject: -5

Quote:
One does not need to show someone a circle to explain what it is; a closed curving, nonintersecting line (by 'closed' I mean that it has no endpoints because it connects with itself) where all parts of the line are equally far away from a certain point inside of this line. If they drew something like this, it would look like an oval to us.

It would? Wouldn't they use a compass to draw it, in which case it would look like a circle? And wouldn't they have learned, from childhood, that the thing you get when you use a compass (1) is a "circle" and (2) has a constant radius, so if you ask them to draw (1) a "circle" or (2) a shape with constant radius, they will draw what looks to us like a circle, regardless of what it looks like to them. (Of course, it will look like a "circle" to them, but their perception of a circle might differ from ours.)
Icarus
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2002 9:06 pm    Post subject: -6

Why not just hold up a ruler, or any other device with marks that are equally spaced apart. Ask each person if the marks appear to be equally spaced. If your vision is elongated, would you see an equal spacing of marks ?
Sofis
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2002 8:06 pm    Post subject: -7

Quote:
The problem with comparing circles is how to communicate what a circle is, in terms of visual sensation. If we show them a circle and say, "This is a circle," they will "see" an oval. (I put "see" in quotation marks because this is the sensation they receive; it is not the same as their perception.) If they then try to draw a circle, they will draw what they "see" as and oval, which we see as a circle.
One does not need to show someone a circle to explain what it is; a closed curving, nonintersecting line (by 'closed' I mean that it has no endpoints because it connects with itself) where all parts of the line are equally far away from a certain point inside of this line. If they drew something like this, it would look like an oval to us.
I'm not sure what distinction you are making between seeing and percieving. If you're saying that, while the input from their eyes differs from ours, but their brains processes the input in such a way that the end experience is the same, then they do not have a visual problem; they just have a slightly different setup that gives the same results. This idea is also not the same as the red/green thing; the idea behind the colours thing is that the end experience is different, but there is no way of communicating this.
If you mean something else, please clarify.
Quote:
They have seen things behaving this way all their lives; they will not realize on their own that anything is wrong with it.
This seems silly; why would you think they would not notice? It is fully possible for any human to note the ways in which what we see differs depending on various factors. Why would this be different?
Quote:
If we showed them two sticks of the same length with different orientations, they would say that the sticks were the same length. Everything in their experience tells them that the sensation of a stick seems to change length as the stick is rotated, and they automatically correct for it. Similarly, if we show them sticks of different lengths, oriented so that the tribe's sensation of the sticks seems the same length, they would still perceive the sticks as having different lengths.
Like I said above, if by automatically correcting you mean an unconscious act by the brain, then they do not actually have a visual distortion and this is a nonquestion, if you mean that it's a learned reflex or something, they are still conscious of it, and so they are perfectly aware that they are compensating.

[This message has been edited by Sofis (edited 04-04-2002 03:08 PM).]
Rollercoaster
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2002 7:09 pm    Post subject: -8

This definitely points out the difference between what your eyes see and how your brain percieves these images. If you had a funny eyeball that saw things elongated, there would be some very conflicting sensations if you HELD a circle and rotated it (along the lines of Chuck's argument). Over time, one of two things would happen - 1) you would have to live with this conflicting information (my earlier 'headache' comment) or 2) your brain would just "build" a different image of the circle to be consistent with your other senses. I suspect that all of us don't have perfect eyeballs that transmit perfect images to the brain, but we ALL see a geometrically defined circle as a circle. Over time, probably from the day we were born, our brain has been compensating for the imperfections.

I think something along the lines of dave10000's red/green argument is a little different, mainly because there isn't another sense, other than sight, that would provide conflicting information. Perhaps in that case, we really DO see colors differently because this never causes conflicting information.
Chuck
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2002 1:56 pm    Post subject: -9

What if one of them had a horrible, disfiguring accident which left one eye turned 90°? If that happened to me and I was looking at a circle I'd expect to still see a circle since a 90° rotation leaves it unchanged. What would it look like to one of them?
oxford student
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2002 1:23 pm    Post subject: -10

In answer to the DEEPER QUESTION

Wouldnt you discover their affliction by asking them to describe what happens when they look at a circle ( what we call a circle) and tilt their head onto one side?

eruonna
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2002 12:24 pm    Post subject: -11

In response to Sofis's response to the DEEPER QUESTION:

The problem with comparing circles is how to communicate what a circle is, in terms of visual sensation. If we show them a circle and say, "This is a circle," they will "see" an oval. (I put "see" in quotation marks because this is the sensation they receive; it is not the same as their perception.) If they then try to draw a circle, they will draw what they "see" as and oval, which we see as a circle. We cannot tell them how we see a circle. It is still the red/green thing.
Even the changes in perception caused by changes in orientation would not give any information. They have seen things behaving this way all their lives; they will not realize on their own that anything is wrong with it. They would most likely not perceive the changes. If we showed them two sticks of the same length with different orientations, they would say that the sticks were the same length. Everything in their experience tells them that the sensation of a stick seems to change length as the stick is rotated, and they automatically correct for it. Similarly, if we show them sticks of different lengths, oriented so that the tribe's sensation of the sticks seems the same length, they would still perceive the sticks as having different lengths.
The only difference we might actually find is that their field of vision is squashed along the direction of the stretching. This might not even apply, depending on how exactly the stretching takes place.
mathgrant
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:06 am    Post subject: -12

Not 4235r1ly correct. . .

The numbers 12345 in the sentence above spell a Pokemon in that order. Which one?

------------------
Sometimes life gives you a deck without any aces. Deal with it.
Sumudu2
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2002 5:29 am    Post subject: -13

just to explain the cigarette problem:
A cigarette consists of 's' stubs, and smoking a cigarette leaves a stub. Therefore, we can view the problem as having a pool of stubs and removing (s-1) at a time. The initial number of stubs is (c*s), therefore you can smoke (cs/(s-1)) cigarettes before having less than 's' stubs left. Since this is not always an integer (only if c is a multiple of (s-1)), we must use the "Floor" function, denoted here by [x], which returns the greatest integer less than or equal to x. therefore the answer is [cs/(s-1)] as CrystyB said.
CrystyB
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2002 12:34 am    Post subject: -14

[cs/(s-1)]?
Sofis
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2002 12:16 am    Post subject: -15

Quote:
DEEPER QUESTION -- if everyone in the tribe really did see things elongated, is there any way that anyone would ever know this? Isn't it like the paradigm of the guy whose perceptions of red and green were exactly reversed from normal? How would he ever know -- or communicate -- that there was a difference? Is there a test that could be done that could distinguish a "normal-seer" from an "elongated-seer"? If so, what test would that be?
It's pretty simple, actually, because the elongation causes a breach of symmetry. Circles, for instance. What looks like a circle to us would look like an oval to them, and likewise, if they drew a circle, it'd look like an oval to us (only squashed the other way).
Edit: And the same for squares/rectangles, of course. And an equilateral triangle would not look like an equilateral triangle, and so on.
Actually, this would provide a way for them to figure out that they have a visual problem, since the way something looks like would change depending on the way it was oriented in front of them. Assuming the defect elongates objects vertically: Say they've got an isosceles triangle drawn on a piece of paper in front of them, with the nonequal side facing down. It looks like an isosceles triangle. Now they rotate it in such a way that one of the equal sides is oriented down. This side is now not elongated, whereas the other equal side is. So the triangle no longer looks like an isosceles triangle.

Or, leaving the realm of geometry, if they hold a stick vertically in front of them, and turn it ninety degrees, it suddenly gets thicker and shorter. You'd have to figure out something was wrong with that...

[This message has been edited by Sofis (edited 04-03-2002 07:36 PM).]
mathgrant
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 9:15 pm    Post subject: -16

I happen to know the general answer to "If a man buys c cigarettes every month and he can make s stubs into another cigarette, how many cigarettes does he smoke in one month?" Does anyone here know it? You might have fun finding it.
Mark
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 8:45 pm    Post subject: -17

I agree that it is unlikely that we would ever find out if they did have such a defect, but if we didn't know then thet would know no different and not paint a painting showing their defect.
Rollercoaster
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 8:30 pm    Post subject: -18

dave10000 - that's a good point (the DEEPER QUESTION). I think it would be difficult to devise such a test, and I doubt the members of the tribe would ever know. That's why, if somehow you KNEW they saw elongated, you would also know the paintings were fake.

Now, how would you know they saw that way? Aside from being an evil chief who forces his tribe to wear funny glasses ALL of the time, that would be difficult too. Even in that instance, I'm sure the brain would quickly compensate to eliminate some of the nasty headaches that are sure to arise from spinning objects.

[This message has been edited by Rollercoaster (edited 04-03-2002 03:33 PM).]
cubestudent
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 8:14 pm    Post subject: -19

to cadmium and other unbelievers :
code:

8 * 20 = 160 160
160 / 4 = 40 40
40 / 4 = 10 10
10 / 4 = 2 (and 2 butts) 2
2 / 4 = 0 (and 2 butts) 0
+ 1 (from the four 'leftover' butts)
------
213

i suppose i should delete it. . . naahh.[/edit]

[This message has been edited by cubestudent (edited 04-03-2002 03:20 PM).]
Icarus
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 8:09 pm    Post subject: -20

Better yet - what if the paintings were real. The scientists theory was wrong...
dave10000
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 7:48 pm    Post subject: -21

I disagree with the intended solution to #1, about the elongated trees. Perhaps the natives KNEW they saw things differently, and tried to paint things so that others would see them as the natives saw them. Thus, perhaps they intentionally overcompensated.

Surely at some point the natives had to communicate their "condition" to others, or else how would anyone even suspect they had this condition? Drawing trees and animals that looked elongated to "normal-sighted" folks would be a good way to do this.

The point is, if the scientists saw elongated drawings, they could not "instantly" know they were fake, as opposed to being an attempt by the tribe to represent to others they way that they really saw the world. Could they?

DEEPER QUESTION -- if everyone in the tribe really did see things elongated, is there any way that anyone would ever know this? Isn't it like the paradigm of the guy whose perceptions of red and green were exactly reversed from normal? How would he ever know -- or communicate -- that there was a difference? Is there a test that could be done that could distinguish a "normal-seer" from an "elongated-seer"? If so, what test would that be?
Quailman
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 6:54 pm    Post subject: -22

They're all appropos anagrams. I'm guessing the answer involves the letters an the back of cards LSECSSCR
ralphmerridew
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 6:52 pm    Post subject: -23

Well, at least two of the phrases (TENDER NAME and LOVE TO RUIN) are rather appropriate anagrams. (I'm leaving off what they anagram to because I had seen those outside this group.)
One Skunk Todd
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 6:45 pm    Post subject: -24

No, that doesn't work, does it?
One Skunk Todd
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 6:41 pm    Post subject: -25

Is it: it eggs us on?
Mark
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 6:37 pm    Post subject: -26

After solving all of the problems the scientists discover that the entrance to the cave has been blocked off. They search around and eventually find a door with a combination lock. Now realising that they were lured there to be captured they notice 26 cards hanging on the wall each marked with a letter of the alphabet. On the reverse of each card is a number.

The only clue to which cards contain the combination could be the phrases on the opposite wall:

6th's-
ACT: RUB IN OIL
ONE IS APART
TENDER NAME
CARE IS NOTED
IT EGGS US ON
THE CLASSROOM
VOICES RANT ON
LOVE TO RUIN

Which cards contain the combination?
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 12:20 pm    Post subject: -27

I don't know for sure how many he smokes, but it's not 213.
code:

8 * 20 = 160 cigarettes
160 / 4 = 40 cigarettes extra
40 / 4 = 10 cigarettes extra
10 / 4 = 2 cigarettes extra + 2 stubbs left
---+
212

So, it's either 212 cigarettes or 212 and a half cigerettes if he can make a half one with the two stubbs left.

cubestudent, you're right !! The last two extra cigarettes become stubbs as well and therefor you can make the last 213th cigarette.
[/edit]

[This message has been edited by Cadmium (edited 04-03-2002 07:37 AM).]
ctrlaltdel
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 11:34 am    Post subject: -28

hmmm, doesnt he smoke 212.5 cigarettes?
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 11:03 am    Post subject: -29

Here goes...
A and B are:

2/3 B = 4/5 A -> 20/30 B = 24/30 A
30/30 B = 36/30 A -> B = 6/5 A
B + A = 99 -> 11/5 A = 99 -> A = 45
B = 99 - 45 -> B = 54

I switched A & B, and I was too late [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Cadmium (edited 04-03-2002 06:07 AM).]
cubestudent
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 10:55 am    Post subject: -30

Leader A ruled for 45 years.

the Scientist smokes 213 cigarettes a week.

[edited for typo-fix]

[This message has been edited by cubestudent (edited 04-03-2002 05:57 AM).]
Mark
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 10:31 am    Post subject: -31

OK everything has been pretty well covered, Bicho's first two posts were correct, so I have others.

Leader A and his son, leader B led the tribe for a total of 99 years. 4/5's of leader A's reign was equal to 2/3's of leader B's reign. How long did leader A lead the tribe.

One of the scientists is a heavy smoker, he buys eight packets of twenty cigarettes per week. He found that to save money he could produce one new cigarette from the tobacco in four of his used stubbs. So including these how many does he actually smoke per week?
Coyote
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 3:04 am    Post subject: -32

Okay, I'd say the 'Class #2' answers have been pretty well covered. As for Question #1:

1a: The paintings were done with acrylic paints, clearly not possible till sometime last century.

1b: There was a written message at the bottom of the paintings saying 'These are fake!'

1c: There was another written message at the bottom of the paintings saying 'No, really! They're FAKE!! Stop wasting time on all the stupid archeological stuff!! Fake, I tell you, FAKE!!'

1d: The paintings turn out to be stylized representations of various Pokemon.
test78
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2002 9:05 pm    Post subject: -33

these really are miracles of nature
Bicho the Inhaler
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2002 9:03 pm    Post subject: -34

test, that man not only lives to see 793, but fathers a child when he is almost 400 years old

edit: grammar

[This message has been edited by Bicho the Inhaler (edited 04-02-2002 04:04 PM).]
test78
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2002 8:47 pm    Post subject: -35

I am sure Bicho is right for #2 but what about

(396, 792) or (3996, 7992) or (39996, 79992) etc

Actually I am only posting this because i was too slow to give the right answer first

[This message has been edited by test78 (edited 04-02-2002 04:04 PM).]
mikegoo
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2002 8:14 pm    Post subject: -36

1 (Hopefully I am explaining this correctly: The paintings of someone with that vision problem should look normal. Let's say instead that the tribe sees things upside down: if they see an M then it looks like a W to them, now when they paint that W it will look like an M to us. Seeing something as elongated and then rendering it so it looks correct to them cancels each other out. Does this make sense?

EDIT: I'm slow too.

[This message has been edited by mikegoo (edited 04-02-2002 03:15 PM).]
Bicho the Inhaler
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2002 8:12 pm    Post subject: -37

#2: (36, 72)
Rollercoaster
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2002 8:11 pm    Post subject: -38

1. Since they would see their own paintings elongated (in the same manner as the objects they were depicting), the drawings should look perfectly normal to those of us with "normal" vision.

EDIT: Oops, you beat me to it, Bicho

[This message has been edited by Rollercoaster (edited 04-02-2002 03:12 PM).]