Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's ass
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: Brain teasers, logic problems, etc.
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Brain teasers, logic problems, etc."
Collapse
-
+1 WSSOriginally posted by mudskipper View PostY = married, n = not married. ( -> = looking at)
Y -> ? -> N
Assuming married is a binary state, it's either
Y -> Y -> N
or
Y -> N -> N
either of the above makes the statement true.
Although not sure that married people should be looking at unmarried people quite so blatantly. Though shalt not covet thy neighbour's ass.
Leave a comment:
-
Y = married, n = not married. ( -> = looking at)
Y -> ? -> N
Assuming married is a binary state, it's either
Y -> Y -> N
or
Y -> N -> N
either of the above makes the statement true.
Although not sure that married people should be looking at unmarried people quite so blatantly. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's ass.
Leave a comment:
-
Brain teasers, logic problems, etc.
Which one is wearing a dog collar?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by LondonManc View PostOne that I came across the other day:
Albert is looking at Brian. Brian is looking at Charlie. Albert is married. Charlie is not.
"A married person is looking directly at an unmarried person."
Is the above statement is true?
A) Yes
B) No
C) Not enough information to be certain
Just post your answer initially, reasons can follow later.
Yes.
Leave a comment:
-
Brain teasers, logic problems, etc.
One that I came across the other day:
Albert is looking at Brian. Brian is looking at Charlie. Albert is married. Charlie is not.
"A married person is looking directly at an unmarried person."
Is the above statement is true?
A) Yes
B) No
C) Not enough information to be certain
Just post your answer initially, reasons can follow later.Tags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- How a buyer’s market in UK property for 2026 is contractors’ double-edge sword Feb 11 07:12
- Why PAYE overcharging by HMRC is every contractor’s problem Today 06:26
- Government unveils ‘Umbrella Company Regulations consultation’ Yesterday 05:55
- JSL rules ‘are HMRC’s way to make contractor umbrella company clients give a sh*t where their money goes’ Feb 8 07:42
- Contractors warned over HMRC charging £3.5 billion too much Feb 6 03:18
- Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) for umbrella company contractors: an April 2026 explainer Feb 5 07:19
- IR35: IT contractors ‘most concerned about off-payroll working rules’ Feb 4 07:11
- Labour’s near-silence on its employment status shakeup is telling, and disappointing Feb 3 07:47
- Business expenses: What IT contractors can and cannot claim from HMRC Jan 30 08:44
- April’s umbrella PAYE risk: how contractors’ end-clients are prepping Jan 29 05:45


Leave a comment: