It’s the Friday Puzzle!

45

cover

First, this week I started a new channel containing life changing ideas in less than a minute.  It is called In59seconds, and I hope that you will come over and take a look.

Second, here is the puzzle.  Please do NOT post your answer, but do say if you think you have solved the puzzle and how long it took. Solution on Monday.

There was a family reunion involving the following people: one grandfather, one grandmother, two fathers, two mothers, four children, three grandchildren, one brother, two sisters, two sons, two daughters, one father-in-law, one mother-in-law, and one daughter-in-law. But only seven people attended. Who were they (e.g., a boy, his mother, etc)?

I have produced an ebook containing 101 of the previous Friday Puzzles! It is called PUZZLED and is available for the Kindle (UK here and USA here) and on the iBookstore (UK here in the USA here). You can try 101 of the puzzles for free here.

45 comments on “It’s the Friday Puzzle!

  1. Anonymous says:

    easy…took no time…actually had heard such question so it became simpler

  2. Anonymous says:

    1 min

  3. Cinderella says:

    My family exactly!

  4. Anne Elk says:

    Got it after a couple of minutes. Made me think.

  5. It took one read through, less than 30 seconds.

  6. Stevie says:

    Easy to navigate through the family to work out who was who so took about a minute. Fun though!

  7. Kathy from Adelaide says:

    Father/Mother
    !
    Son/Wife
    !
    ————–
    ! ! !
    Boy Girl Girl

  8. Kathy from Adelaide says:

    Oops bugger. Sorry. Please delete my post ASAP!!!

    Too eager!!

    • The Pick Man says:

      Not only too eager but, “Please do NOT post your answer, but do say if you think you have solved the puzzle and how long it took.”. Difficulty reading?

  9. Eddie says:

    Got it first attempt… all right, third…

  10. andypiehead says:

    Solved it in a minute and then discovered that, if you change only the “daughters” from 2 to 3 and keep all the others as above, there is an alternative family tree.
    Maybe I’ve got too much time on my hands…

    • smylers says:

      I came up with the ‘7 people featuring 3 daughters rather than 2’ family tree first. It also features a son-in-law not present in the ‘2 daughers’ solution.

  11. Lazy T says:

    pencil + back of envelope = 1.5 min
    but we should remember that even grandparents are somebody’s children too..

  12. Anon says:

    2 mins with pen and paper

  13. Navneeth says:

    There are some errors in the question as stated. But without even thinking about the various possibilities I can say with certainity that there were 7 grand-children attending the re-union.

    • Anonymous says:

      Explain. I do not get your reasoning

    • Everyone has grandparents, and therefore everyone is a grandchild.

    • Anne Elk says:

      Carl, it’s not true to say that everyone has grandparents. I don’t, for example. So am I still a grandchild if I don’t have grandparents?

    • Navneeth says:

      The question neither says that the eldest members of the gathering have lost their grand-parents. Also, you may still be referred to as the grand-child of the late so-and-so.

    • Anne Elk says:

      I take your point, Navneeth, and I suspect this might be a cultural thing. I can only speak for myself, I suppose, but I would never think of myself as a grandchild without the context of a grandparent. The one needs the other to make the relationship… Unless (as you say) you’re the grandchild of someone famous, perhaps.

  14. ctj says:

    i counted only four people present, but i suppose i could make it work with seven.

    • Anonymous says:

      Agreed, sort of, ctj.
      There are at least two males and two females present (ignoring subsequent sex-changes!)
      Everyone is a child and everyone is a grandchild, now we are so long away from Adam & Eve (albeit this is not specified in the question!).
      Every grandmother is a mother, every father and brother is a son etc.
      The question, does, however, say there were seven people there. On that basis I think that there are far too many answers to this question for me to tabulate them all.

    • Anonymous says:

      On reflection, ctj, you are right.
      If there are two sons and two daughters there, there are only four people present.

    • Joe Peshy says:

      But the four people wouldn’t address the positions of father, mother, father-in-law, mother-in-law. I mean, they *might* be fathers, mothers etc, but not necessarily… Or am I being a nosepicker?

    • Anonymous says:

      Joe,
      Two questions:-
      1. If there are seven people there and two are sons and two are daughters what are the other three?
      2. Why do you say that four people “wouldn’t address the positions of father, mother, father-in-law, mother-in-law.”? Can you elaborate or demonstrate that this would be impossible for four people?
      Anon
      PS Your personal life is none of my concern, but I will admit to nose-picking myself, but not in public.

    • Joe Peshy says:

      I completely follow the seven people solution that some twat revealed up above; I got the same answer myself. With the seven people you have person A who is person B’s father (for example). With four people – two brothers and two sisters – you don’t have anyone who is someone’s mother-in-law (for example). Or not *necessarily* someone’s mother-in-law. That’s all I was getting at; I don’t think it answers the question fully. But I’m happy to be proved wrong. I probably didn’t word it very well. I’m getting fluey and it’s time to go home.🙂

    • ctj says:

      Joe Peshy:
      you’re right in that the 4-person solution doesn’t address the various positions listed in the puzzle, but that assumes that all of the relevant relations are still living and present at the reunion.

      for that, richard needed to specify that each grandfather, grandmother, etc. bore that relation to someone else present.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yawn

  15. mittfh says:

    It took me a couple of minutes, but after listing all the relationships in the question, I quickly worked out one possible solution which also tallied with all the remaining relationships.

  16. Spock says:

    I over prepared for this one by creating a tally graph, and used a lot of arrows. 2 minutes🙂

  17. It might have been better to put the various siblings and in-laws first, so you don’t immediately get the whole picture of the family as you’re reading it. As it was, solved it before getting to the end.

  18. Laith says:

    yeah, really easy. about 1.5 min counting paper verification

  19. mgm75 says:

    Because some people don’t understand “don’t post your answer” I try to figure it out before reading the comments. Got it in just a couple of minutes this time

  20. Brilliant. Great brain training material. Love your you tube tricks too. Took about a minute to work back from 7 people (first assumption; it is possible. First question; who fits into more than one category). Thank you

  21. dayuntoday says:

    A minute or so. Then I second guessed myself and to draw a diagram to be sure.

  22. Anonymous says:

    How are there not 7 children here? In what way isn’t every single person a child of someone else (given that we haven’t yet figured out how to raise babies in the laboratory)?

    I know, same as the “everyone is a grandchild” mini-argument above.

  23. Barry Goddard says:

    There need only be TWO people, a man and a woman, for them to be all the relations in themselves. The other five are superfluid.

  24. Anonymous says:

    I think all stated relationships are with those who are actually at the reunion, not just living, otherwise any one individual could have many relationship descriptions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s