Riddle for the day

Author
Discussion

Dan_1981

17,422 posts

200 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
john_p said:
Dan_1981 said:
It'll be 16.5"

Think about where page one and the last page is when you stand boks up on a book shelf.
Winner smile
Thankyouverymuch woohoo

Mr Will

13,719 posts

207 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
16.5 (If I've done my sums right)

ETA: Damn, too slow!

Edited by Mr Will on Monday 20th July 11:56

shirt

22,683 posts

202 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
john_p said:
Dan_1981 said:
It'll be 16.5"

Think about where page one and the last page is when you stand boks up on a book shelf.
Winner smile
i see what you've done, but there are really 2 answers so we're all correct. i for one arrange books right to left, same for albums etc. i am anal i agree.

M400 NBL

3,529 posts

213 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
I got 17.25"

Famous Graham

26,553 posts

226 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
M400 NBL said:
I got 17.25"
No need to brag

M400 NBL

3,529 posts

213 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
Famous Graham said:
M400 NBL said:
I got 17.25"
No need to brag
hehe

Worng and slow. That'll teach me for letting work get in the way of PH.

Strangely Brown

10,136 posts

232 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
In my defence, I had volume 1 on the right. smile

MaximumJed

745 posts

233 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
Why would you put the first book in a series on the right? My parents have an old encyclopedia and just the fact that each book states the first and last topics makes it naturally read left to right.

Strangely Brown

10,136 posts

232 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
MaximumJed said:
Why would you put the first book in a series on the right? My parents have an old encyclopedia and just the fact that each book states the first and last topics makes it naturally read left to right.
Because if I put the Volume 1 on the right it makes my answer of 19.5" correct. tongue out

MaximumJed

745 posts

233 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
Strangely Brown said:
MaximumJed said:
Why would you put the first book in a series on the right? My parents have an old encyclopedia and just the fact that each book states the first and last topics makes it naturally read left to right.
Because if I put the Volume 1 on the right it makes my answer of 19.5" correct. tongue out
Wasn't really directed at you, shirt said that was how he arranged his books. I am happy to admit that I got the answer wrong, but that just kind of baffles me!

WorAl

10,877 posts

189 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
explain? - i dont get it

jammy_basturd

29,778 posts

213 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
What if you pile them up horizontally because the books are too tall to be stacked upright? You'd then have book 1 at the top, book 10 at the bottom, and 19.5" would be correct.

shirt

22,683 posts

202 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
MaximumJed said:
Strangely Brown said:
MaximumJed said:
Why would you put the first book in a series on the right? My parents have an old encyclopedia and just the fact that each book states the first and last topics makes it naturally read left to right.
Because if I put the Volume 1 on the right it makes my answer of 19.5" correct. tongue out
Wasn't really directed at you, shirt said that was how he arranged his books. I am happy to admit that I got the answer wrong, but that just kind of baffles me!
the topics flow left to right, but the aplphabetical order in your parents volumes would not. this would irritate me.

say you have vols 1-10. normally you have 1 on the left through to 10 on the right. but the covers are on the right hand side, correct?

correct for normal people. being slightly ocd, i'd have the flow of the alphabet in one continuous sweep, neccessitating vol 1 being on the right.

normal:

'front ' - cba | fed | ihg - 'back'

me:

back - ihg | fed | cba - front


luckily i don't own an encyclopaedia. i do have to alphabetise my record collection in this manner though, otherwise the world will implode.

boxedin


and before you take the piss, i'm only the oddest person on PH todaysmile

Dan_1981

17,422 posts

200 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
Ah but the listings on ecyclopedias don't work like that do they? (i don't think)

Vol 1 would say on the spine "AAB - CAR"

VOL 2: "CAS - FIS"

Right through to vol 10 which would say "VEW - ZUR"

Or something similar - so by puttting them in the correct order - ie left to right, your OCD still would suffer.

Incidently I think OCD would be on the spine of probabaly volume 8.

ETA: - Like this



Edited by Dan_1981 on Monday 20th July 13:50

shirt

22,683 posts

202 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
no, i'm right. the titles read correctly in sequence, but the info. within is disjointed. in my example above i meant the content.

from your pic the content would be:

burmese < beeville | charm < burnap | decatur < colonna etc.

if it was arabic then there wouldn't be a problem.

think about it, then wonder what sort of person would think about it a little too much smile



Dan_1981

17,422 posts

200 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
Ah yes the content.

Blimey your OCD is on a whole different level isn't it?

shirt

22,683 posts

202 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
it is a bit odd yeah. fortunately thats the only things i am picky about - books and music. i once tried to subdivide by genre but had a word with myself.

mouseymousey

2,641 posts

238 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
Dan_1981 said:
Ah yes the content.

Blimey your OCD is on a whole different level isn't it?
That's not OCD, that's just plain old mental smile

Neil_H

15,323 posts

252 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
I did get the answer but I still think it's ambiguous not to give the order of the books.

Famous Graham

26,553 posts

226 months

Monday 20th July 2009
quotequote all
Maybe that's the point of specifying encyclopedias rather than just novels or something.