Talk:Zebra Puzzle

message: Wikipedia:Copyright problems
**Einstein's Puzzle
***Has now been rephrased.  May have been public domain, anyway. Kevin Saff 14:56, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problems

message: In the chapter "A different method of solving the puzzle" it is said, that Chesterfields are smoked in house two and because Chesterfields ars smoked next to the fox, the fox must be in house one. In my opinion you can't exclude house three for the fox at this situation; so the fox could also be in house three!?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.18.29.130 (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing step in "A different method of solving the puzzle" 

message: How about putting the solution on another page?  For example, Einstein's puzzle/Solution.  Jimp 27Nov05
The ((solution)) warning seems to be the preferred way to handle this.  See .  Canon 21:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Solution 

message: I have found this version of puzzle:
1. The British person lives in the red house
2. The Swede keeps dogs as pets
3. The Dane drinks tea
4. The green house is adjacent on the left of the white house
5. The green house owner drinks coffee
6. The person who smokes Pall Mall raises birds
7. The owner of the yellow house smokes Dunhill
8. The man living in the house right in the center drinks milk
9. The Norwegian lives in the first house
10. The man who smokes Blends lives next to the one who keeps cats
11. The man who keeps horses lives next to the one who smokes Dunhill
12. The owner who smokes Bluemaster drinks juice
13. The German smokes Prince
14. The Norwegian lives next to the blue house
15. The man who smokes Blend has a neighbor who drinks water
This version is solvable, but for version in article i am not sure.
In article version exist hint "There are five houses.". Maybe some hints is missed in article version.
Any suggestion ?
:Since the original publication, there have been many versions of this puzzle with various changes made, such as the types of pets, the nationalities, the brands of cigarettes or whether cigarettes are mentioned at all, and so on.  This is common in popular puzzles (see the Gry entry for an even more evolved puzzle).  However, the original version certainly was solvable, and was in fact solved within a month of the original publication in 1962 by several hundred people from around the world whose names were published in a follow-up article. Canon 12:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you somebody have solving process for article version ? Chupcko 16:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you send me your email address I will send you the shortest solution that was sent in to Life International in 1962. Canon 23:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have (tanks Canon) progress of solving "article puzzle" with two backtracking. Its good idea to added this progress in article ? Maybe in section "Solving method" ? Chupcko 00:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the short solution I sent Chupcko is too long to put in an article, it seems to me.  That is why the external links point to programs that can solve any version of the problem.  By examining the source code of these programs, you can see various approaches to solving this kind of problem. What this leaves out is anyone who cannot read source code, so perhaps a general explanation of how to solve them is needed. Canon 03:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puzzle Version ? 

message: The comment at the end of the original puzzle (ending with the statement about which direction "right" refers to) are part of the original puzzle, as can be seen here .  Since the article is claiming that it is presenting the original puzzle, we shouldn't alter this text.  The next section of the article contains commentary on the puzzle, and this is where people have been adding clarifying comments, criticisms, and so forth. Canon 12:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My error - I am the one who removed it. Is there some way we can mark it up to make it clear that this wording was part of the original puzzle? Particularly with the following paragraph, which is clearly not from the original puzzle, it reads as if it's an addition by a wiki editor (as I mistakenly thought it was). - DavidWBrooks 14:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I tried something - indenting the entire original puzzle and putting a solid line at the bottom. Not the handsomest, perhaps; better alternatives are welcome. - DavidWBrooks 14:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that a lot.  This inspired me to collect all the commentary in one place and add pointers to solution techniques. I also made the text of the original version section conform exactly to the original text except for the obsolete spelling of "cigaret".  Canon 23:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We have on the table a request for an explanation of how to solve the puzzle.  Plus we have people who have objected to giving the solution in the article.  So perhaps everyone would be a bit happier if we inserted a section between the original puzzle and the solution (putting a bit of distance between them) that contained commentary on the puzzle and a short discussion of how to solve this kind of puzzle. Canon 12:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments at end of original puzzle 

message: Now that someone has brought up the Lewis Carroll misattribution, should we add the Lewis Carrol category or delete the Albert Einstein category?  I've checked with several Lewis Carroll experts, and none of them think this is the type of puzzle that Lewis Carroll would have invented (nearly all of his puzzles involved logic with quantifiers - logic with "for all" and "there exists").  None of them can find this puzzle or anything like it in his work.
Speaking of misattribution, I just deleted a link to a Web site that repeats nearly every wrong thing ever said about this puzzle.  Does anyone think I should have left it there?  Canon 21:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You done good. - DavidWBrooks 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Do you think we should delete the Einstein category?  For some reason I find it mildly insulting. Canon 23:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think categories are kind of stupid; I don't think people really use them - they just suck away editing energy, IMHO. So delete it, if you wish. - DavidWBrooks 00:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, how about this then: We create a new article "Zebra Puzzle", copy the contents of this article to it, and have this article redirect to it? Is that going too far? Canon 00:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have sent the creators of the "Einstein's Riddle" page er.myhomy.com an email complimenting them on their site but asking them to remove the misattribution to Einstein that is at the top of the page.  So far there has not been a response.  I will try again.  In the meantime, it seems to me that it might be advisable to move the content of this page (as I mention above) to some less confusing place, e.g., "Zebra Puzzle."  This page would be changed to a redirect.  Any objections? Canon 14:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, Zebra Puzzle is a better name.  Those who know it as Einstein's puzzle/riddle will still find it.  As for categories, though, I find them useful.  I have used them in the past.  They are good when you're taking a category wide approach to editing, for example, gathering up a whole bunch of related stubs which on their own have no potential for growth but together would make a decent article. Jimp 01:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misattributions 

message: I did the 'fish' one in about an hour, but this one has me stuck at proving the red house is in the middle and who the occupant of the blue house is.  Was going to try some of the source code to see if it is solvable, but the C# link no longer works, and the other one is in LISP which is just downright unreadable.  The english PDF that's up there doesn't seem to have a solution, just a worksheet for solving the problem, and even if it did it's the fish puzzle and not the zebra one.  Can someone post an English solution, step-by-step, that doesn't make any leaps in logic?  Can someone else fix the links, and find ones applicable to the Zebra puzzle and not the fish puzzle?  It's safe to say they're 2 different puzzles, since the number of clues differs (not counting 'there are five houses' as a clue, that should be a given, the extra clue increasing the easiness factor by 16%).
:If you send me your email address I will send you the shortest solution that was sent in to Life International in 1962. Canon 04:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solutions 

message: I noticed that the talk page for Zebra Puzzle wasn't moved from this location (talk:Einstein's Puzzle) when the article was moved/renamed on March 25. There isn't a redirect either, though that may be an option. Is there a reason for this, or should the talk page be moved as well? -- Jared 16:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move/Redirect 

message: Why is it redundant to note that there are versions of the puzzle that ask "Who owns the fish?" instead of "Who owns the zebra?" Canon 04:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Redundant" was the wrong word - "unnecessary" is better, since there's no fish mentioned anywhere else. There's probably a version somewhere that asks about an armadillo instead of a zebra, but mentioning that wouldn't be terribly helpful either. - DavidWBrooks 10:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good logical point, but if you google "who owns the fish" you'll find many times more hits than for "who owns the zebra" so since we're doing an encyclopedia article we need to document that fact. Canon 15:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to explain that in the article, not just drop in a sentence that left me scratching my head and saying "fish - huh?" - DavidWBrooks 18:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be great.  Do you want me to take a crack at it? Canon 19:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, because I've never seen a fish. I mean, I've seen a fish but ... well, anyway, you get my drift. - DavidWBrooks 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fish versus Zebra 

message: I previously removed a link to this page because it contains many incorrect statements about this puzzle, and in the interests of clearing up the misconceptions about this puzzle I will continue to do so until the misstatements on the page are corrected. Canon 23:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  er.myhomy.com 

message: What's Life International magazine - is it just Life (magazine)'s international edition, or something different? - DavidWBrooks 23:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the magazine: "LIFE International is published by Time-Life International (Nederland) nv, at 590 Keizersgracht, Amsterdam-C., Netherlands." There was an editorial and advertising staff separate from the US staff. Canon 01:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a copy in front of you? Does the masthead say "Life International", or just "Life", with "international edition" or something down below - like this photo []. If that's what we're dealing with here, I think we could link to Life (magazine), which was the point of my long-winded query. - DavidWBrooks 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have a copy.  The masthead says "Life International", actually, "LIFE International". Canon 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the red link stays! -DavidWBrooks 15:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, someone who knows something about magazines, who, say, is in the publishing business, maybe a reporter or some such, might create an article.  Know anyone like that? ;^) Canon 18:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life International? 

message: Two of the rules (11 and 12) used to read "X is in the house next to the house where Y." We have corrected these to read more like "X is in one of the houses next to the house where Y." The former wording led to a contradiction. The new wording allows for a solution.
--Two random passers by.
And the "corrections" have been reverted, and I (one of the two aforementioned random passersby) approve, as I have just realized the article is supposed to be giving the original form of the puzzle. My apologies.
I think the concern I've expressed here could be included in a comment in the article, though. But I guess that's "original research?" I dunno.
:There is not enough information to determine which house "the house" is, and as it is only talking about one house, regardless of whether there are multiple options, the original grammar is correct.  Furthermore, there is no mention that all of the houses are next to eachother.  Two houses could simply be next to eachother whilst the others locations are unknown; the puzzle does not specify.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.4.17 (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrected poor wording

message: What in this article needs a citation? Canon (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this: "The March 25, 1963, issue contained the solution given below and the names of several hundred solvers from around the world." I'd love to see a cite for that. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mean you want to see a scan of the article?  I ran into copyright trouble when I did that for the original puzzle, and only passed muster because the article itself states that Life did not originate the puzzle.  That argument won't hold for the solutions.  If you like I can send you a scan via email. Canon (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  *I* don't need to see it - readers of the article should be able to see it or, more likely, be given a link to a reputable source which backs up the existence and date of its appearance in the magazine. The point is to show that we haven't just made this darn thing up! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, readers can do what I did, locate a copy of the magazine and check for themselves.  After all, we went to considerable trouble to include an (abridged) scan of the original puzzle.  Isn't that sufficient? Canon (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I'm being dense, but where's the abridged scan? Is it linked in the article? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is linked to the text "first known publication" -- which sounds like it might be too clever by half. Canon (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I was the one who placed the tag, and this is my reasoning: This article has one reference. One reference is simply not enough for an entire article. This article needs to have inline citations so that the reader may know where the information was sourced from. Even if these citations are from a magazine, it needs to be included. Not all references need to be online, they just need to be mentioned after the line where the citation is referencing to. There are few articles that would be handy for future reference to help you with citation: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Inline Citations. This page talks about why we need citation and why it is critical we do so: Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. One very handy tool that I personally use for references, and maybe it can help you, is called Wikicite. This small program is a sort of "fill in the blanks" type of program. Once you add the information, one then clicks on "create reference" and it pastes it to your clipboard so you may simply paste it where it needs to go. Very handy, and it also ensures you get the proper format for the citation. Hope this helps.  Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me) 15:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph contains an inline citation that verifies the Einstein information.  I'll track down a citation for the Carroll information and add it.  It seems redundant to add footnotes to the second paragraph.  Next is the puzzle, copied from the first citation, and a discussion of the puzzle, which doesn't need a citation since it is discussing the text itself.  Then there is the solution, which is again self-evident and not stating any facts that need citations.  Finally, there are alternate versions, which have been added by people who did not provide citations, but all of these versions and many more are readily available on the Web.  Some of the Web locations are given in the external links section. Canon (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The article still requires inline citation. Those first inline citations are a great start; however, the rest of the article lacks them. How am I to know, as a reader, that it is the true solution to the article? If you say, oh well thats what I came up with, thats original research. How am I to know those are other versions? Its not hard to reference where you got your information. Use Wikicite, it makes it very quick and painless. We are all just trying to improve the article, not personally attack you...  Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me) 16:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel like I am being attacked, so no worries there.  We are all working for the best article we can write (for example, see the concern expressed above about the confusion caused by the "[sic]" annotation).  The way we know that the solution is correct is either by (1) following it, which requires only the ability to think logically, which is required of the reader, or (2) relying on the Life International editors, from which the solution is copied, as stated in the second paragraph of the article.  The fact that there are alternative versions is demonstrated by the External Links sections, which lists several.  Does one need to find a printed source in which it states that there are alternative versions?  Is a citation needed for something that can be directly demonstrated?  For example, if one states that the letters in the word "aegilops" are in alphabetical order, does that require a citation?  On a separate note, there are wikilinks currently for "logic puzzle," "Albert Einstein," and "Lewis Carroll."  What additional links are required?  Finally, does a well-written article always have a density of citations and wikilinks within a certain range?  Canon (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Most importantly, how does a reader know that this solution is the solution given in Life magazine at that time? Is it possible to reference that fact specifically? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The most direct way to "prove" that Life printed this solution in 1962 would be to include a link to it, but copyright prohibits this.  Another way would be to include a reference to a book that says so, but that just pushes the trust issue back one level.  How do we know the book really says that?  Isn't this true of citation in Wikipedia in general?  Nothing prevents an editor from making up a fact and then providing a spurious citation for it.  I'll bet that happens all the time.  An editor wishing to dispute the fact has to go to the effort of following the citation to its source, and then get an administrator involved to remove the bogus information.  There really is no other way to proceed.  This extends beyond Wikipedia to all forms of information media. Canon (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  I have made several edits to the article to address the issues raised in this discussion.  If there are no others I will remove the citation and wikilinks tags. Canon (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been two weeks now, having made some improvements and hearing no further objections, I propose to remove the citations and wikilinks tags. Canon (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasoning for citation and wikilinks tags 

message: The IP 87.254.92.202 today changed quite a few things in the article, giving as reason WP:MOS.  It seems a bit odd that a person claiming to be an expert in the Manual of Style would use an anonymous account, but be that as it may, the one specific problem is that the edit undid a recent change intended to make the article less confusing, namely, replacing the linked text "first known publication" with the text "(click here to view copy)".  What is the reason for this? Canon (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline Click here specifically says not to link text such as "(click here to view copy)".  The original and current link to "first known publication" is the canonical (no pun intended) practice, and if this confuses some people, then those people are going to be confused frequently within WP.  Canon (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive "Manual of Style" edit by anonymous user 

message: Near the end of the article it says "When given to children, the cigarette brands are often replaced by snacks eaten in each house."
After this it is followed by an example of a version WITH cigarette brands, which is followed by a version with cars instead of cigarettes. Wouldn't it be better to find a snack version and put it after that statement, or possibly rephrase it to "When given to children, the cigarette brands are often replaced by car driven in each house."
DarkLightA (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd part in the article? 

message: This is weasel-wording. I know there are two references to support this statement. If we trust those references, we should simply say "only 2% of the population can solve it". If we don't trust those references, we shouldn't include the sentence. If we want to include a doubtful statement about those references, like "some claim that", we should use another reference that does that meta-analysis. Sancho 21:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Some claim that only 2% of the population can solve it" 

message: In the current version of the article, the Life international version is mentioned several times and also, that it contains cigarette types which didn't exsist at Einsteins or Carrolls times. The relevance of this information has become unclear as Trystan did remove the information that the Life international version is the first known version with revision from Dec 17, 2015. So either the Life international version is not the first known version or it should be made clear again that the Life version is the first one known.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.120.84.9 (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would be good to establish that the Life version is the original, but we would need a source saying so. The way the article is written, the Life version is both the first presented and the earliest described. The implication is that it is the earliest version that we, the editors of the article, are aware of, without making the strong claim that it is the original. The relevance of the reference to the cigarettes seems clear to me, given that implication.--Trystan (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: First Version

message: There's a website that I'll link below that allows the user to generate their own puzzle. I think it should be included, but I'll leave it to people who know what they're doing. It allows both online solving and shows printable versions. I am not in any way affiliated with anyone involved, but I did use this quite a bit ~10 years ago when I was in high school.
http://new.mensus.net/brain/logic.shtml
31.209.203.227 (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional "see also" link

message: Other versions of the puzzle have various differences from the Life International puzzle, in which various colors, nationalities, cigarette brands, drinks, and pets are substituted[6][7], or the clues are given in a different order. These do not change the logic of the puzzle.
I'm just gonna' go head and remove the reference.  (This is the second edit I have ever made, and my first that messes with references ... wish me luck.)  Done!  (I think.) Ki4ggx (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other versions