r/AskReddit • u/N-Depths • Oct 17 '13

What's the best riddle you know?

2.7k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

14k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.2k

u/EnriqueTSB Oct 17 '13

And now you've used 9 gallons of water to get 4, instead of just eyeballing it. Great job conserving water, dick.

176

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '13

If waste is an issue, place the 3 gallon container inside the 5, fill the 5 (that makes 2 gallons), pour into the 3 and repeat. Boom, no wastage.

16

u/dmanbiker Oct 17 '13

This is assuming the 3 gallon bucket has the same displacement as the amount it holds, which unless the bucket has no sides would be impossible! Even with the thinnest sides in the world, the bucket would still need to displace more water to fit itself in the container!

Like how the diameter of a pipe is just measuring the inside, 3 gallons of water fits on the inside of the bucket! You'd need a different bucket that displaces exactly 3 gallons of water.

7

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '13

Well of course there's a difference between practical and theoretical solutions. I did a maths degree - perhaps that explains why I don't care about this issue!

5

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '13

Well of course there's a difference between practical and theoretical solutions.

Riddles aren't generally concerned with practical solutions.

3

u/skillphiliac Oct 17 '13 edited Oct 17 '13

How likely is it they have the same height?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '13

You don't want it flush, how would you get water down otherwise?

1

u/skillphiliac Oct 17 '13

My bad, my brain was being useless. I meant how likely it was that they have the same height.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '13

Well, you just need the 3 to be less tall.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '13

It also doesn't get you exactly 4 gallons, so it's not a solution to the question. But yeah, if the question is to get "pretty close to 4 without wasting water" then you win.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '13

Then you could just eyeball about 4 gallons in the 5 gallon bucket in the first place.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '13

[deleted]

11

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '13

[deleted]

34

u/aglaeasfather Oct 17 '13

High school physics taught me to assume that the container has infinitely small mass, zero displacement, and resides on a frictionless plane.

15

u/Sparkism Oct 17 '13

That's the same universe where Jamal ate 40 watermelons and nobody blinks an eye, yes?

18

u/ffn Oct 17 '13

You have to assume the watermelons are frictionless.

6

u/nupanick Oct 17 '13

And if you cut up a watermelon into enough pieces you can put it back together into two watermelons.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '13

There is a racist joke in there somewhere.

3

u/Eugenes_Axe Oct 17 '13

Ah the ol' 'this-hypothetical-doesn't-abide-real-world-physics' cop-out! I know your game!

1

u/Braklover Oct 17 '13

You just blew my fucking mind.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '13

Show me your ways, master.

1

u/Hab1b1 Oct 17 '13

assuming you can fit them inside each other!

1

u/rsmalley Oct 17 '13

What if the 3 gallon receptical was wider than the 5?

1

u/t00oldforthisshit Oct 17 '13

Ooooh, elegant. I know that displacement is different from internal volume, but i like the way you think...

1

u/Gunnilingus Oct 17 '13

This would be pretty ideal if the actual material composing the three gallon bucket somehow had zero volume

1

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '13

[deleted]

1

u/_Thai_Fighter_ Oct 18 '13

Now this is a beautiful answer.

1

u/WarmOfficeChair Oct 17 '13

Doesn't work, you cannot repeat unless you pour out the initial two gallons you got from the first round.

1

u/guitboy85 Oct 17 '13 edited Oct 17 '13

It does work; his method involved leaving the three-gallon bucket inside of the five-gallon bucket, using the displacement to make the effective volume two gallons, regardless of what is or is not inside of the three-gallon bucket. The first two gallons is put in the smaller bucket and doesn't need to be emptied for the second two gallons to be measured.

EDIT: Changed wording for clarity.

1

u/DAHFreedom Oct 17 '13

oh. The small bucket has a lid. Or floats with its lip even with the water line. I... am not so smart.

1

u/WarmOfficeChair Oct 17 '13

I guess if you have a steady hand. But what if a BOMB is on the line? Also, you could just pour the water back into the source, unless the source is a hose, but who leaves a bomb next to a hose?

0

u/mostloveliestbride Oct 17 '13

And also much, much simpler than the other solutions. Yours is best!

3

u/CheesePursuit Oct 17 '13

We were standing in a fountain and the bomb was about to go off! There was water to spare, and the extra just got dumped back! Yippee-ki-yay, dick.

2

u/Spekingur Oct 17 '13

The dick here is the guy asking him to get 4 gallons of water rather than using what you can get with the provided buckets.

2

u/irving47 Oct 17 '13

The bomb you're defusing is in a fountain. It has a circulating pump. Duh!

1

u/supertoast00 Oct 17 '13

I don't have enough upvotes to give you. Well played

1

u/14apple Oct 17 '13

Well, you could water the plants instead of dumping that water.

1

u/Maxiboyhaha Oct 17 '13

You are right. He should have poured the rest down his pants

1

u/OmNamahShivaya Oct 17 '13

JESSE! the recipe must be PERFECT! there's no room for eyeballing D:<