Box in a house.

[md65536]

Well, since you're still stuck in the box, and you actually wish to interact with the house rather than just defiling the floor of whatever room you're in, you'd have to assume someone moved you into the house's bathroom, close enough to the toilet for this to be effective. Or perhaps right on top of the toilet, depending on where you're cutting the hole, what gender you are and how thorough a job of bathroom-going you plan on accomplishing. And even if we assume you're just a guy cutting a hole big enough to pee through, we further have to assume you have the... reach to be able to make this practical.

 

That's really too many assumptions for a riddle, don't you think? I mean, I'd be a bit angry if the answer was that convoluted.

I have a feeling that it's not. That must be the trick to this puzzle! I even suspect that it has nothing to do with refrigerators or bathrooms at all, let alone the precision with which they are used.

 

Technically, you wouldn't just be "in" a box, you'd be more like "standing in" a box. And again, technically, if the box is open, you've just changed the definition of "box" to include "open box". Is it just the vertical sides that define a box? How many more iterations will it take before you have me standing on a flat piece of cardboard that you're still calling a box?

Well, we'll leave the boxes closed then, so there's no confusion about whether it's still a box.

 

I'd consider it a spectacular waste of time if the answer was the simple one, that you are in both a house and a box.

 

Yes, I think the phrase "spectacular waste of time" is accurate. However, I don't think that a simple puzzle with a potentially simple answer is "not great" just because there is the possibility of getting lost in a convoluted discussion about it. I would say "The puzzle is fine; not all answers are great."

 

I love that joke, though I'm not at all surprised you never understood it before now.

You'd be surprised by the number of things I simply cannot understand.

 

 

 

So which of my statements regarding the original puzzle are incorrect?

Not being able to interact with the refrigerator or the toilet implies one is not in the house.

Therefore while you are in bed, you are not in the house.

Further, if you are sleeping anywhere within the house, you are not in the house, unless you are sleepwalking. Or perhaps if you fell asleep on the toilet, with a cold snack in your hand.

A dead person cannot be in a house.

 

Calling an open box a box changes the definition of box.

A house with windows would also change the definition of house.

 

 

Am I on the right track? I have a feeling we'll have this simple puzzle cracked in no time, with a little team effort!

Edited November 4, 2011 by md65536

[Phi for All]

I have a feeling that it's not. That must be the trick to this puzzle! I even suspect that it has nothing to do with refrigerators or bathrooms at all, let alone the precision with which they are used.

I suspect you're right.

 

Yes, I think the phrase "spectacular waste of time" is accurate. However, I don't think that a simple puzzle with a potentially simple answer is "not great" just because there is the possibility of getting lost in a convoluted discussion about it. I would say "The puzzle is fine; not all answers are great."

Good point. Great answer.

 

So which of my statements regarding the original puzzle are incorrect?

Not being able to interact with the refrigerator or the toilet implies one is not in the house.

Therefore while you are in bed, you are not in the house.

Further, if you are sleeping anywhere within the house, you are not in the house, unless you are sleepwalking. Or perhaps if you fell asleep on the toilet, with a cold snack in your hand.

A dead person cannot be in a house.

None of those examples precludes you from interaction with the house the way being in a box would. Being in bed is at least one normal interaction with the house.

 

If you're in the box, you can't interact normally with the house until you get out of the box.

 

The OP said nothing about being dead, although that's the type of twist one usually looks for in a riddle.

 

Perhaps that's the answer. You're in a coffin in a mausoleum, which looks like a house:

 

 

So what would a great answer be? You're interred?

 

Calling an open box a box changes the definition of box.

A house with windows would also change the definition of house.

Not significantly. A house normally has windows.

 

And your earlier example removed the top of the box. Is a house still a house if it has no roof? If you won a contest that had strict rules that said the grand prize is a house, and they tried to give you one without a roof, wouldn't you argue that a house needs a roof or it's not technically a house?

 

Am I on the right track? I have a feeling we'll have this simple puzzle cracked in no time, with a little team effort!

I definitely detect a more team-spirited approach this time.

 

I wish small bang would answer the direct question I asked in post #22.

[Appolinaria]

 

Problem solved.

[md65536]

None of those examples precludes you from interaction with the house the way being in a box would. Being in bed is at least one normal interaction with the house.

 

If you're in the box, you can't interact normally with the house until you get out of the box.

Excellent. A process of refinement!

 

If you are in a chair in the house you are in the house.

If you are tied to the chair, hands and legs bound tightly, and let's say gagged and blindfolded for good measure, then you are not in the house.

 

Perhaps that's the answer. You're in a coffin in a mausoleum, which looks like a house:

Question: If you're in a box in a house are you in a house or a box??

Answer: You're in a coffin in a mausoleum, which looks like a house.

 

I like it. It's just the sort of enigmatic answer that these riddles are looking for.

 

I also think "You're a refrigerator, and you're on the toilet," is an acceptable if unconventional answer.

 

 

And your earlier example removed the top of the box. Is a house still a house if it has no roof? If you won a contest that had strict rules that said the grand prize is a house, and they tried to give you one without a roof, wouldn't you argue that a house needs a roof or it's not technically a house?

 

Good point. And if I won a house and they left the door open, that would be no good either. People could just walk in and out willy-nilly!

If I won a contest where the prize was a box, but it was open, I'd demand that they close it to restore it to its full 6-sided box definition.

 

[Phi for All]

 

Problem solved.

Beautiful. And that even refutes Cap'n Refsmmat's answer in post #2.

 

If you're in a box in a house are you in a house or a box?? Answer: Neither, you are both the box AND the house!

 

Very Zen. Good find, Appolinaria.

 

If you are in a chair in the house you are in the house.

OK.

 

If you are tied to the chair, hands and legs bound tightly, and let's say gagged and blindfolded for good measure, then you are not in the house.

If you keep adding atypical things to the scenario, like restraints on a chair, and refrigerators on toilets, you're distorting what I've said in order to justify your argument. Moving the goalposts like that seems weak. Is that a straw man tied to the chair?

 

Question: If you're in a box in a house are you in a house or a box??

Answer: You're in a coffin in a mausoleum, which looks like a house.

 

I like it. It's just the sort of enigmatic answer that these riddles are looking for.

Is this our final answer (for the million)?

 

I also think "You're a refrigerator, and you're on the toilet," is an acceptable if unconventional answer.

I'm not sure how I'll react if you're correct.

 

Looking back, if you remove all but the first two posts of the thread, which is the more interesting answer?

 

 

Good point. And if I won a house and they left the door open, that would be no good either. People could just walk in and out willy-nilly!

But you still won a house. Yay!

 

If I won a contest where the prize was a box, but it was open, I'd demand that they close it to restore it to its full 6-sided box definition.

I'm sorry, were those last two sentences supposed to make ME sound silly?

[md65536]

If you keep adding atypical things to the scenario, like restraints on a chair, and refrigerators on toilets, you're distorting what I've said in order to justify your argument. Moving the goalposts like that seems weak. Is that a straw man tied to the chair?

I'm trying to generalize the argument for why you're "not in the house".

Yes, it changes the question being asked, but you've handled the different cases that I've presented, and I won't try to claim that the answers to the different cases apply to the main question.

 

Is this our final answer (for the million)?

Sure! The answer of "Yes, both," is just too simple, straightforward, and obvious to possibly be true.

 

 

But you still won a house. Yay!

Not if the door's open I didn't.

 

 

I'm sorry, were those last two sentences supposed to make ME sound silly?

No, I'm just being silly now for fun.

 

 

But let's recap!!!

When using "in" as a preposition to describe the noun in the locative case, [only] the most immediate location is implied (so you can be in a box, but not in the house that the box is in),

unless the functional sense of being in something is not disrupted (so you can be in both clothing, and in the house that the clothing is in, because you can still use the bathroom),

where the functional sense of something is defined by allowing at least one interaction with it, but only "normal interactions" (so you can be in bed and be in the house, even though you can't interact with the bathroom).

 

 

For example, we might witness the following scene:

 

A mother yells at her kids: "Are you playing in that box in the living room again?! Get back in the house! It's not normal for kids to play in a box!"

The father replies: "It's alright honey, it's not a box. They're leaving it open."

Edited November 4, 2011 by md65536

[Phi for All]

I'm trying to generalize the argument for why you're "not in the house".

Yes, it changes the question being asked, but you've handled the different cases that I've presented, and I won't try to claim that the answers to the different cases apply to the main question.

Well, then I can't help you there. It's an infinite possibility vs finite spare time kind of thing.

 

 

Sure! The answer of "Yes, both," is just too simple, straightforward, and obvious to possibly be true.

I see a lynch mob in small bang's future.

 

 

Not if the door's open I didn't.

So it's the holes in the box that make it a box? Or are the sides more important? I could see that, since you couldn't even have a top without at least two of the sides.

 

 

But let's recap!!!

When using "in" as a preposition to describe the noun in the locative case, [only] the most immediate location is implied (so you can be in a box, but not in the house that the box is in),

unless the functional sense of being in something is not disrupted (so you can be in both clothing, and in the house that the clothing is in, because you can still use the bathroom),

where the functional sense of something is defined by allowing at least one interaction with it, but only "normal interactions" (so you can be in bed and be in the house, even though you can't interact with the bathroom).

I think we've gone far beyond the grammatical reasoning. I was just using it to separate a case for the box being different from the house.

 

What we really need is a way to differentiate "in" from "inside". Stupid English.

 

For example, we might witness the following scene:

 

A mother yells at her kids: "Are you playing in that box in the living room again?! Get back in the house! It's not normal for kids to play in a box!"

The father replies: "It's alright honey, it's not a box. They're leaving it open."

What if we had a wall to wall piece of cardboard that covered every inch of the floor in a house, and also ran six inches up each wall? Then you could have your definition of a box, and it would fit my definition of being able to interact with the house while in a box.

[JustinW]

The house is a box.

 

 

[md65536]

So it's the holes in the box that make it a box? Or are the sides more important? I could see that, since you couldn't even have a top without at least two of the sides.

I don't know. I'm a little slow when it comes to the peculiarities of riddle logic. I was referring to the original, unchanged definitions of "box" or "house" that get changed if you open them, as in:

And again, technically, if the box is open, you've just changed the definition of "box" to include "open box".

 

 

What if we had a wall to wall piece of cardboard that covered every inch of the floor in a house, and also ran six inches up each wall? Then you could have your definition of a box, and it would fit my definition of being able to interact with the house while in a box.

If the goal of a riddle is to find the most convoluted way to answer the question (which could be acceptable, since the riddle didn't specify what "you" are (human? refrigerator?)), this would be a good way of arriving at the same appallingly simple answer of "yes".