I Just Don't Believe It!

[Alf Witt]

There were two ducks in front of a duck, two ducks behind a duck and a duck in the middle. How many ducks were there?

A Duck can only mean one thing, 1 Duck, IMHO he's right, and therefore so was I

Of course, "a duck" can only mean I duck but that applies if you say it only once. if you say "a duck" and again say "a duck" in the same sentence without qualification it does not follow that you are talking about the same duck. If I say I have a pen in my left hand and a pen in my right hand would you think I was referring to the same pen? You can have an infinite number of ducks as long as its an odd number of 3 or more.

Will someone please tell me why I am bothering about this?

[Alf Witt]

Just have to add this:

If you have one large father duck on the right, and one large mother duck on the left, and three baby ducks lined up between the mother and father duck, as per the following configuration:

M Baby 1 D

o Baby 2 a

m Baby 3 d

Is there not two ducks in front of baby 3? Are there not two ducks behind baby 1? Is not Baby 2 in the middle? Are there not five ducks total? Why is this not a solution to your puzzle?

Edit to add, someone will say that Baby 1 and Baby 3 are also in the middle, so that makes three ducks, not one duck in the middle. In this case, consider that they are flying in this formation but that Mom, Dad, and Baby 2 are all level with each other, while Baby 1 and Baby 3 are flying above and below the plane of the others, thus they are no longer technically in the middle, but Baby 2 would still be in the middle.

No, actually only the middle of the middle duck is in the middle.

[bino]

No, actually only the middle of the middle duck is in the middle.

Don't you have to have all your ducks in a row?

[Alf Witt]

A Duck can only mean one thing

Yup.

If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it must be a duck!

Except in this case it's a turkey.

[Alf Witt]

No, actually only the middle of the middle duck is in the middle.

Don't you have to have all your ducks in a row?

OK, lets settle this with something even Mr. Hippo should be able to understand. Replace the letter "D" with the letter "F". If you say I had a @uck last night and a @uck tonight is the same @uck?

[bino]

OK, lets settle this with something even Mr. Hippo should be able to understand. Replace the letter "D" with the letter "F". If you say I had a @uck last night and a @uck tonight is the same @uck?

I just can't help myself- gotta keep cracking wise with duck jokes. You reminded me of one....

A young man from a poor rural family is celebrating his 18th birthday. The father acknowledges that he is becoming a man, but unfortunately the family is so poor that they don't have much to give him. The father wants to give him something, so he gives him a duck.

The father tells the son that he can do whatever he likes with the duck... keep it as a pet, sell it, eat it, or any other thing he wishes.

The son takes his duck to the city, where he finds a prostitute who is willing to exchange her services for the duck.

After it is over, the prostitute says that the young man is really good, and wants to do it again. She offers to give the duck back to him if they can do it again. He agrees.

As the young man is walking home, an 18 wheeler drives by him, and the duck goes flying out of his arms and under the trailer wheels. The driver stops, tells the youg man how sorry he is to have killed the duck, and gives him $50.

When he arrives home and the father asks what happened, the son replies:

"I got a @uck for a duck, a duck for a @uck, and fifty bucks for a @ucked up duck."

To answer your question.... no they are not the same @uck, but they are two separate single actions, hence the singular form of "a" is correct.

[bino]

If you say I had a @uck last night and a @uck tonight is the same @uck?

I'd say you had a pretty good weekend!

[thatguy]

There were two ducks in front of a duck, two ducks behind a duck and a duck in the middle. How many ducks were there?

As soju and alf (between them) have pointed out, any positive odd integer greater than one will satisfy the original question as stated. (if "a duck" means any duck) the least number being 3.

(judging by hippos solution, the OP has used "a duck" to describe 3 different ducks)

If "a duck" is one particular duck, and we get into the "two and two only" thing, then we have a minimum of 5.

If we take 2 to mean two or more, ba da da da da.

the joy of riddles is the twist, the unexpected, or ambiguous use of the language. This ain't logic 101.

BTW I saw 3

[mr_hippo]

As poster thatguy points out that "a duck" can mean any duck but, more importantly, to any one duck because 'duck' is singular. Now what do we know about any of these 'a'duck's? Do we know anything about any of them? Yes, we do! Can we rewrite 'two ducks in front of a duck' in a different way without altering the meaning? It is now not just any one duck but he is 'a duck that is behind two ducks'; the same thing happens to 'two ducks behind a duck' who is now 'a duck in front of two ducks' and we know where the third one goes - in the middle. Look at the sentence again. What does the comma between a duck and two ducks mean? It is used here as a substitute for 'and'; as in 'I bought an apple and an orange and a melon. We can substitute the 'and' after apple for a comma without changing the meaning - 'I bought an apple, an orange and a melon'. Three ducks have been described and we know what position that they are in.

Edited June 18, 2007 by mr_hippo

[Alf Witt]

Three ducks have been described and we know what position that they are in.

If three ducks have been described and we know what position they are in where is the riddle? It becomes a meaningless statement. The riddle lies in the fact that, if you don't think logically about it, but just respond with your first impression you fall into the trap of thinking that there can only be three ducks in total.

Most people, when their error in thinking is pointed out, realise their mistake and that's where the "fun" (for want of a better word) lies.

However, the fun here is that you still don't get it, Mr. Hippo. (Or, I hope, you are still pretending not to get it).

What is it in the wording of your OP that makes you think that only 3 ducks have necessarily been described?

There are 2 ducks in front of a duck (OK, so far that is three ducks, I agree)

There are 2 ducks behind a duck (NB. you don't say "that duck") so that could now be a total of 3 ducks, 4 ducks, 5 ducks or 6 ducks because you don't specify that the duck in the second statement is the same duck as the one in your first statement. In fact it could be an infinite number of ducks becuse you do not specify how many ducks are in front of the second described duck. There is nothing in either English language or mathematics that necessarily requires the second duck you describe to be the same duck as the one described in your first sentence or phrase.

There can be a duck in the middle with any amount of ducks as long as the total is an odd number.

Just think of men running in a race. The man in third place is going to be thinking "Hey, there are two runners in front of me". The man who is third from last in the race is likely to be thinking, "Hey, there are still two runners behind me". So we have a situation where there are two runners in front of a man and two runners behind a man. Both individuals can be described as "a man", because that's what each individual is. But they are not the same man. If there are an odd number of runners in the race someone is in the middle. He is also a man because the race is only for men.

If you don't get it now, I give up.

[Alf Witt]

Just another point. Even if your assertion that the use of "a duck" in your statement can only refer to a specific duck the answer would be 5, not 3.

There are 2 ducks in front of "a duck" (so its position in line is now fixed at position 3 from the front). There are 2 ducks behind "a duck". If, as you insist that is the same duck being described, then we have 5 ducks and the "a duck" must be the duck in the middle.

Your argument is defeated even by your own "logic".

[Soju]

One duck out of many is still ONE duck. I made a statement describing three ducks, no more, no less. Your 'solution' of the mum, dad and three babies - words fail me! Did I make any mention of baby ducks? Did I mention the size? Why? It is not relevant to the puzzle, is it?

I have made a statement

You words "There were two ducks in front of one duck out of possibly many", now how many ducks are you talking about? You mention two duck and one duck which is three ducks. In case you did not understand the first time - One duck out of many is still ONE duck.

You are thirsty and you go into your local Mini-Mart and and ask for 'A can of Pepsi' There are many cans of Pepsi in the Mini-Mart, how many will you be given? ONE!

Ok, the following is a step-by-step proof of another solution, which proves that your solution of 3 ducks is not the only solution. If you think there is an error in my proof, please inform me of which step(s) and why.

Assume that there is a group of ducks, labeled D1, D2, D3, D4, and D5. All are in a row, with duck D1 in the front, and all are facing towards the front, as per the following configuration:

<-D1 <-D2 <-D3 <-D4 <-D5

1. "A duck" can mean one single duck out of many.

2. Duck D1 is a duck. Thus, "duck D1" = "a duck".

3. Duck D2 is a duck. Thus, "duck D2" = "a duck".

4. Duck D3 is a duck. Thus, "duck D3" = "a duck".

5. Duck D4 is a duck. Thus, "duck D4" = "a duck".

6. Duck D5 is a duck. Thus, "duck D5" = "a duck".

7. Ducks D1 and D2 are two ducks. Thus, "ducks D1 and D2" = "two ducks".

8. Ducks D4 and D5 are two ducks. Thus, "ducks D4 and D5" = "two ducks".

9. Ducks D1 and D2 are in front of duck D3, as per my given configuration.

10. By reason of simple substitution, using steps 4 and 7, step 9 can be rewritten as:

Two ducks (ducks D1 and D2) are in front of a duck (duck D3).

11. Ducks D4 and D5 are behind duck D3, as per my given configuration.

12. By reason of simple substitution, using steps 4 and 8, step 11 can be rewritten as:

Two ducks (ducks D4 and D5) are behind a duck (duck D3).

13. Duck D3 is in the middle, as per my given configuration.

14. By reason of simple substitution, using step 4, step 13 can be rewritten as:

A duck (duck D3) is in the middle.

15. By combining steps 10, 12, and 14, the following statement is formed:

Two ducks are in front of a duck, and two ducks are behind a duck, and a duck is in the middle.

16. There are a total of five ducks, as per my given configuration.

17. Step 15 is equal to the original statement / puzzle, and step 16 is a valid / true answer to the question, "How many ducks are there?".

18. The statement "There is only one solution and the correct solution is 'three'.", is incorrect being that steps 1-17 prove there is another solution.

Now in looking up the word "puzzle" at dictionary.com, yields the following definition:

A toy, problem, or other contrivance designed to amuse by presenting difficulties to be solved by ingenuity or patient effort.

If one fully understands your interpretation of the words, "a duck", then what you presented couldn't even be classified as a puzzle. The reason being, that even given your first statement, that there are two ducks in front of a duck, the first and immediate thing that comes to most people's minds is three ducks all lined up in a row. The second statement holds true for this case, as does the third. So the solution to your puzzle is completely trivial being that it is the very first case that most people would think of. Anyone with any sort of intelligence can solve it immediately. It requires no patient effort or ingenuity whatsoever. There is no challenge to it, thus it is not even a puzzle. Being it is not a riddle either, why did you post it in the "Jokes, puzzles, and riddles" forum? I guess the reason was that it wasn't actually a puzzle but rather a joke, with a certain person's stupidity in not being able to understand what the English language means to the majority of people being the brunt of the joke with everyone laughing at his stupidity.

Now my Mom/Dad/Babies solution would likely be classified as one requiring "patient effort or ingenuity" to solve. So if you had worded it more precisely, specifying your intended meaning of the words, "a duck", and if you had added that the solution should contain more than three ducks, then it could be properly called a "puzzle". So you didn't even present a proper puzzle, yet you come back criticizing my solution saying that size is not relevant to the puzzle. Excuse me, but you obviously don't know the meaning of the word "relevant", because size is entirely relevant to this puzzle being I provided a solution to your puzzle of more than three ducks where size was the determining factor in allowing such a solution. Your original problem should have stated that all the ducks were exactly the same size if you didn't want a solution such as mine to be valid.

If you ask for "a can of Pepsi", it can be assumed by the context that you mean a single (one) Pepsi. But if I ask "is there a Pepsi in the refrigerator", it would be assumed by most that in this case it doesn't mean "a single Pepsi", but rather "one or possibly more Pepsi's". Perhaps English is a bit difficult for you, but there is such a thing as a single word having multiple meanings. Take for example the word "cool". If you are bringing me a Pepsi and I ask you, "Is it cool?", the word "cool" obviously refers to the temperature of the Pepsi. If we are examining the designs on the cans of various beverages and I point to the same can of Pepsi and ask you, "Is it cool?", then based on the context you can assume the word "cool" means "great", "clever", etc. Wow, isn't that amazing that the very exact same sentence can have different meanings, based on the context? Bet you never knew that before. In the case of "a duck" the two different possible meanings for it from your original puzzle are much more similar than my example of the word "cool", but nevertheless are two distinct meanings. They are:

A. one and possibly more ducks

B. one single duck, one and only one duck

Without knowing the context, it is impossible to determine which meaning was intended. You have explained after the fact that you intended definition B, but if that was your intention, you should have specified so in your original puzzle, or better yet changed the wording to something less ambiguous. Not stating your exact definition and then deriding others who interpreted it using an alternate meaning seems to me to be very immature.

Now, let's reword your "puzzle" to make it into a real puzzle, and to specify more precisely the intention and remove some ambiguity:

There is a group of ducks, all of which are exactly the same size. Within this group there is one and only one duck for which there are two ducks in front of it. Within this group there is one and only one duck for which there are two ducks behind it. Within this group there is one and only one duck which is in the middle. How many ducks are in the group?

Our first attempt is what your intention for the "puzzle" was, but which still isn't a puzzle being there is one solution which is absolutely obvious and trivial. So to transform it into a real puzzle, replace the question with:

There are five ducks in the group. Show their configuration.

Now, Mr. Hippo, can you solve this puzzle? Obviously not, because you've already stated your solution and that the answer is three, and that your solution is the only solution. But being that there really is a solution which involves five ducks, why not give it some thought, and give some thought to what it takes to make something a real puzzle. After you've given up, scroll down to see the solution.

Solution to the duck puzzle:

To solve the puzzle, you must first realize a few things. "In front of" and "behind" obviously refer to position with respect to direction. Thus if one is facing one direction, with their eyes looking out in that same direction, something "in front" of them will be something entirely visible to their eyes from their 180 degree forward perspective. Something "behind" them would be something entirely visible to their eyes if they were to turn around 180 degrees. "In the middle" is not a totally precise term, but in general it means something positioned with objects on either side (left/right, front/back, top/bottom, etc.), or something in the center. "In the middle" however has nothing to do with direction as do the words "front", "behind", "left", "right", "top", and "bottom".

In taking into account what was just said, let's name our ducks D1, D2, D3, D4, and D5. Draw a perfect square and place four of the ducks (D1, D2, D3, and D4) at the four corners of a perfect square. D1 is in the upper left corner, D2 is in the upper right corner, D3 is in the lower right corner and D4 is in the lower left corner. The fifth duck (D5) is placed in the very center of the square. So the configuration of the ducks looks like the dots on a die (one of a pair of dice) with the "five" face showing.

Duck D1 is facing down, duck D2 is facing up, duck D3 is facing down, duck D4 is facing up, and duck D5 is facing towards the center point of the line that connects ducks D1 and D4. Thus ducks D1, D2, D3, and D4 are neither in front of nor behind each other. They are all to the left/right/top/bottom of each other. No ducks are in front of or behind these ducks. So the only duck we need to consider with respect to ducks being in front of or behind it is duck D5. Precisely two ducks, D1 and D4 are in front of duck D5. Precisely two ducks, D2 and D3 are behind duck D5. Thus, this configuration provides a solution being that:

Duck D5 is the one and only duck for which there are two ducks in front of it. Duck D5 is the one and only duck for which there are two ducks behind it. Duck D5 is the one and only duck in the middle.

BTW, ducks D1, D2, D3, D4 could all be facing up, all be facing down, or any combination. Duck D5 could be facing towards any center point of the four lines that make up the square.

Edited June 18, 2007 by Soju

[Paulbangkok]

There are 2 ducks in front of a duck (OK, so far that is three ducks, I agree)

There are 2 ducks behind a duck (NB. you don't say "that duck") so that could now be a total of 3 ducks, 4 ducks, 5 ducks or 6 ducks because you don't specify that the duck in the second statement is the same duck as the one in your first statement. In fact it could be an infinite number of ducks becuse you do not specify how many ducks are in front of the second described duck. There is nothing in either English language or mathematics that necessarily requires the second duck you describe to be the same duck as the one described in your first sentence or phrase.

There can be a duck in the middle with any amount of ducks as long as the total is an odd number.

Enough said.

Hippo he's right and the non use of the word THAT in the reference to the 2 Duck's behind a (that) Duck open's the possibility that there could be more than 3 duck's. 5,7,9,11,13 and so on......

I was wrong, no big deal, i'm moving on! First stop counselling, from there who know's!!!!!!

[mr_hippo]

Just another point. Even if your assertion that the use of "a duck" in your statement can only refer to a specific duck the answer would be 5, not 3.

There are 2 ducks in front of "a duck" (so its position in line is now fixed at position 3 from the front). There are 2 ducks behind "a duck". If, as you insist that is the same duck being described, then we have 5 ducks and the "a duck" must be the duck in the middle.

Your argument is defeated even by your own "logic".

Now, where have I said that it is a riddle? A duck can refer to any one duck but 'a duck in front of two ducks' refers to a specific duck. Have any of my posts said that 'a duck' can only refer to one specific duck?

There are 2 ducks in front of a duck (OK, so far that is three ducks, I agree)

There are 2 ducks behind a duck (NB. you don't say "that duck") so that could now be a total of 3 ducks, 4 ducks, 5 ducks or 6 ducks because you don't specify that the duck in the second statement is the same duck as the one in your first statement.

Can you point out where I said 'There are 2 ducks behind a duck'? I think you will find that I said 'There are 2 ducks in front of a duck, 2 ducks behind a duck...'. Please do not add extra words. Did I say, imply or infer that it was 'the same duck'? No. Have I said that there are extra ducks behind 'a duck behind two ducks'? No! Why do you assume that there are? You have agreed that it is 3 ducks. If you were to say to me 'Hippo, I have bought 3 Pepsis.', do you then have to qualify 'three Pepsis' further by adding 'and onle three Pepsis'?

[Paulbangkok]

give up, it's over, the word's "there are" adds or detracts nothing from the fact that you didn't use the word "that" for the second pair of duck's.

the game's up Hipoo!

[mr_hippo]

give up, it's over, the word's "there are" adds or detracts nothing from the fact that you didn't use the word "that" for the second pair of duck's.

the game's up Hipoo!

OK, please add 'that' and see what you get! 'There are 2 ducks in front of a duck, 2 ducks behind that duck' So far we have 5, now add 'a duck in the middle'. I say 'add' because in this context 'add' means plus as in 2 and 2 are four and now we have two ducks in the middle!

The answer is three. There is nothing to suggest that it could be more. Try to prove more will only drive you quackers but I'm ducking out!

[Soju]

The answer is three. There is nothing to suggest that it could be more. Try to prove more will only drive you quackers but I'm ducking out!

I'm quite disappointed in you Mr. Hippo. I spent the time to show you a proof of five ducks being a solution to your puzzle, plus show you totally different solution that qualifies on all grounds of what you've been proclaiming your puzzle to be and now you duck out without a response? I guess that means that we all win and you lose. No chance now of getting your thread up to 30 pages here on this forum. Oh well, better luck next time.

[mr_hippo]

One last time. I have described three ducks, they are Duck1 (a duck behind two ducks), Duck2 (a duck in front of two ducks and Duck3 being a duck in the middle. Have I mentioned any more ducks? No

So 231 - Duck1 is behind Duck2 and Duck3. Duck2 is in front of Duck3 and Duck1 and Duck3 is in the middle. There are no more ducks.

[Alf Witt]

OK, Mr. Hippo, I get the joke now. Your post is entitled "I just don't believe it", so, no matter what evidence is presented to you to prove you wrong you are not going to believe it.

So, to that extent the joke is on all of us (if that lets you save face).

Otherwise you remind me of the guy who admitted that he was wrong only once. That was the time when he though he had made a mistake but, in fact, he hadn't.

If you keep it going we've just got to assume that you are quackers.

[mr_hippo]

Alf, I am writing this again slowly as you cannot read very fast. The answer is three. There is nothing to suggest that it could be more. Try to prove there are more will only drive you quackers but I'm ducking out!

[Soju]

OK, Mr. Hippo, I get the joke now. Your post is entitled "I just don't believe it", so, no matter what evidence is presented to you to prove you wrong you are not going to believe it.

So, to that extent the joke is on all of us (if that lets you save face).

Otherwise you remind me of the guy who admitted that he was wrong only once. That was the time when he though he had made a mistake but, in fact, he hadn't.

If you keep it going we've just got to assume that you are quackers.

I think you're right. I think this was just Hippo's way of having a little fun and trying to see how many responses he could get. His title says it all. He doesn't believe it himself what he's posting.

[svenivan]

I cannot belive you are posting 4 pages about these @ucking boring ducks!!!!

Can you not use something else like:

There were two nud_e girls in front of a nud_e girl, two nud_e girls behind a nud_e girl and a nud_e girl in the middle. How many nud_e girls were there?

Makes everything so much more interesting!

[Paulbangkok]

I cannot belive you are posting 4 pages about these @ucking boring ducks!!!!

Can you not use something else like:

There were two nud_e girls in front of a nud_e girl, two nud_e girls behind a nud_e girl and a nud_e girl in the middle. How many nud_e girls were there?

Makes everything so much more interesting!

There were two hundred nud_e girls in front of a nud_e girl, two hundred nud_e girls behind a nud_e girl and a I was in the middle. How much fun was had by me???????

Even better i'd say!!!!