Poison Tea Riddle

Once upon a time, in a dark, stormy night, there were a young merchant and his wife traveling into the mysterious woods by their carriage. Seemingly lost, they sought out a shelter and finally found a small shack nearby. After the soaking lovers knocked on the front door, an old lady politely invited them in and let them warm themselves before the fireplace. Then she served 2 cups of tea and handed 2 pots of sugar cubes to her guests, the husband and wife thanked for her hospitality before both adding 1 sugar cube into the tea independently and drinking it.

Old lady: Now there's 43% chance that one of you shall die and one shall live.

Soon afterwards, the wife dropped to her knees, gasping for air, while the bewildered husband looked back at the old woman, who now revealed herself to be an evil witch and told him that she had dipped some sugar cubes with deadly poison. The poor man begged for his loved one's life, so the witch challenged him.

Witch: I will give you an antidote if and only if you can tell me the number of poison sugar cubes before you had your tea.

The merchant counted all sugar cubes and saw that there remained 29 cubes in his pot and 19 in another, but all those looked identical and so impossible to tell which were poisoned. Anxiously, he asked for more clue, and the witch slyly agreed to give it if he would give her something she would need in the future. In desperation, he made a promise.

Witch: It would be more likely for both of you to die than both of you to live when you drank that tea

Originally, how many sugar cubes were poisoned in total?


The answer is 35.

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

1 solution

Zico Quintina
Jun 16, 2018

Since the pots ended up with 19 19 and 29 29 cubes in them, they must have contained 20 20 and 30 30 cubes to begin with.

Suppose there were originally m m and n n poisoned cubes in the pots with 20 20 and 30 30 cubes, respectively.

By the witch's first statement, exactly one of the two people took a poisoned sugar cube.

P ( poisoned from 20 -pot, non-poisoned from 30 -pot ) : m 20 30 n 30 = 30 m m n 600 P ( non-poisoned from 20 -pot, poisoned from 30 -pot ) : 20 m 20 n 30 = 20 n m n 600 \text{ } \\ \\ \begin{aligned} - \ \ P \ ( \text{ poisoned from } 20 \text{-pot, non-poisoned from } 30 \text{-pot }): \qquad & \dfrac{m}{20} \cdot \dfrac{30 - n}{30} = \dfrac{30m - mn}{600} \\ \text{ } \\ - \ \ P \ ( \text{ non-poisoned from } 20 \text{-pot, poisoned from } 30 \text{-pot }): \qquad & \dfrac{20 - m}{20} \cdot \dfrac{n}{30} = \dfrac{20n - mn}{600} \end{aligned}

Then applying the probability the witch mentions:

P ( exactly one person took a poisoned sugar cube ) = 43 100 30 m + 20 n 2 m n 600 = 43 100 15 m + 10 n m n = 129 m n 15 m 10 n = - 129 [ Now we notice the left side is similar to the expansion of ( m 10 ) ( n 15 ) ] m n 15 m 10 n + 150 = 21 ( m 10 ) ( n 15 ) = 21 \begin{aligned} P \ ( \ \text{exactly one person took a poisoned sugar cube } ) &= \dfrac{43}{100} \\ \\ \dfrac{30m + 20n - 2mn}{600} &= \dfrac{43}{100} \\ \\ 15m + 10n - mn &= 129 \\ \\ mn - 15m - 10n &= \text{-}129 \qquad \small \text{[ Now we notice the left side is similar to the expansion of } (m - 10)(n - 15) \ ] \\ \\ mn - 15m - 10n + 150 &= 21 \\ \\ (m - 10)(n - 15) &= 21 \end{aligned}

Thus ( m 10 ) (m - 10) and ( n 15 ) (n - 15) are (not necessarily positive) factors of 21 21 .

The factor pairs of 21 21 are ( - 21 , - 1 ) , ( - 7 , - 3 ) , ( - 3 , - 7 ) , ( - 1 , - 21 ) , ( 1 , 21 ) , ( 3 , 7 ) , ( 7 , 3 ) (\text{-}21, \text{-}1), (\text{-}7, \text{-}3), (\text{-}3, \text{-}7), (\text{-}1, \text{-}21), (1, 21), (3, 7), (7, 3) and ( 21 , 1 ) (21, 1) .

The respective solutions for ( m , n ) (m, n) are ( - 11 , 14 ) , ( 3 , 12 ) , ( 7 , 8 ) , ( 9 , - 6 ) , ( 11 , 36 ) , ( 13 , 22 ) , ( 17 , 18 ) (\text{-}11, 14), (3, 12), (7, 8), (9, \text{-}6), (11, 36), (13, 22), (17, 18) and ( 31 , 16 ) (31, 16) .

We can reject any solutions with negative m m or n n , as well as any with m > 20 m > 20 or n > 30 n > 30 .

This leaves the possibilities ( 3 , 12 ) , ( 7 , 8 ) , ( 13 , 22 ) (3, 12), (7, 8), (13, 22) and ( 17 , 18 ) (17, 18) .

The first two would give a higher probability of both people living than both people dying (see note below), so due to the witch's final statement, they are also rejected.

In either of the remaining two cases, we get that the total number of poisoned sugar cubes is m + n = 35 m + n = \boxed{35}

\text{ } \\ \\

Note: It's not difficult to individually calculate this probability for the last two rejected possibilities, or we could use the following algebra:

P ( both people die ) > P ( both people die ) m 20 n 30 > 20 m 20 30 n 30 m n > 600 30 m 20 n + m n 3 m + 2 n > 60 \begin{aligned} P \ ( \text{ both people die }) &> P \ ( \text{ both people die }) \\ \\ \dfrac{m}{20} \cdot \dfrac{n}{30} &> \dfrac{20 - m}{20} \cdot \dfrac{30 - n}{30} \\ \\ mn &> 600 - 30m - 20n + mn \\ \\ 3m + 2n &> 60 \end{aligned}

which disqualifies those two possibilities.

Good solution - I did it the same way. Perhaps you could include the algebra behind the witch's final statement and showing that it boils down to 3m + 2n > 60

Stephen Mellor - 2 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

Done. Thanks for the suggestion!

zico quintina - 2 years, 11 months ago

I wasn't sure if the wife took from the pot with 20 sugar cubes or if I was to assume like a 50/50 chance, can the problem statement please be updated?

Alex Li - 2 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

It had already said in the problem that one pot was "his" pot when referring to the merchant, and that the wife took the other pot

Stephen Mellor - 2 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

It says one pot is his, but I don't see where it says that the wife took the other pot. Can you point out specifically where?

Alex Li - 2 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

@Alex Li I agree that it doesn't explicitly say that, and maybe the author should add it. However, saying one was his implies that the other was hers

Stephen Mellor - 2 years, 11 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...