3 ms·
Respectfully (and we've communicated - so you know I mean that literally and am not being sarcastic) we'll have to disagree. I think it's reasonable that the s
by RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
Respectfully (and we've communicated - so you know I mean that literally and am not being sarcastic) we'll have to disagree. I think it's reasonable that the servants don't make off with things genuinely of no value, so locked padlocks without keys, and locked safes, are "safe" and not stolen. I think it's reasonable that they make off with anything remotely of value, such as a padlock and key, or (of course) the amulet, but not the amulet when it's locked in the safe.
I agree that the farmer puzzle is nice for kids, but it yields to "try it, oh, that works, ok, I'm done." There's no real insight from it.
- ars 17y agoI figured out the answer, but only by assuming things (that they won't take a locked safe). But if I can assume that, can't I also assume they won't take a key by itself, since it has no value? Would they take an empty safe? What about a locked padlocked, without a key, not locked onto anything? I think it's better to make these things explicit in the puzzle.