ThePortForum.com

Glenn E. wrote:All 15 offspring of your grandparents started out with your surname

I had four Grandparents and my mother and father were not related by blood, so some of their offspring did not share my surname

None of the above guesses can be described as being close to the correct answer.

12

15 + 23 = 38

Given an average of 2.2 per cousin, gives 83.6, plus the 38 = 121.6, add in grandchildren at a rate of 1.2 gives 100.32. Adding altogether we have 221.92, multiply by 0.7 to get 155.344, add in Derek's lad and round down to 156 descendants on the grandfather's side, randomly halving for marriage, we get 78.

78

g-man is closer than KillerB, but neither of them have the answer.

Clue: My father had one younger brother and two younger half brothers.

DRT wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:All 15 offspring of your grandparents started out with your surname

I had four Grandparents and my mother and father were not related by blood, so some of their offspring did not share my surname

An excellent point. I also forgot your son, so (31+1)/2 = 16.

Glenn and KillerB are both way off the mark numerically, but they both used logic that leads to the answer.

Hmm... okay then, starting over using new information.

Father had 3 brothers. Father is excluded, so there's our first 3.

Father had >= 1 son who is excluded. 3 uncles should average 1 son each. So there's 3 more for a total of 6.

Male cousins should also average 1 son each, resulting in 3 more for a total of 9. As previously noted, most of those nephews also have children, all of whom will carry the Turnbull surname. Since 3 would be all and 1 would not be most, 2 is the answer. 2 children each on average results in 4 more for a total of 13.

DRT also has a son who is not excluded. So 14.

If 16 can be described as "way off the mark" then 14 cannot possibly be correct.
38 is also "way off the mark."
20, 25, 31, and 42 cannot "be described as being close to the correct answer."
12 is closer than 78, implying the answer is less than 45.

So... time to think outside the box. It is not possible to guess higher than 12 and lower than 45 without guessing within 3 of a prior guess that has been described as way off the mark or not close. Since I would consider a guess that was off by 3 to be reasonably close, the answer must be less than 12. (It is duly noted that 12 was not described as being un-close.)

We also have a lower limit, unless the previously mentioned half-brother uncles do not carry the Turnbull name.

3 uncles + 1 son = 4.

I have another guess as well using slightly different logic, but it will have to wait until I get another turn.

6?

4 and 6 are both wrong, but both are closer to the answer than previous guesses. Some good deduction has been expressed in Glenn's latest email.

If 4 and 6 are closer than previous guesses, which included 12, then we can deduce that the figure is < 9 and > 2. If 4 is closer than 12, we could even assume that 8 is too high.

7

My last leap of logic is that neither half-brother uncle carries the Turnbull name, but that the full uncle does and has produced a statistically average family tree.

Full uncle + male cousin + nephew + 2 nephew children + DRT son = 6 which is already taken. So I'll guess 5.

8?

5, 7 and 8 are all incorrect. One of KillerB's parameters is also wrong.

I believe there are only two possible answers left, so I'll take the known likely minimum: 2. (Full uncle + DRT son)

3

Not 2 or 3.

Just the boy? 1

I realise the incorrect parameter now.

KillerB wrote:Just the boy? 1

Correct!

Grandad was a naughty boy. He fathered 7 children by my Grandmother and then took off to France where he fathered a further 3 children by his bit on the side who he met during WWII. He then took off to London leaving both women to bring up the kids. My father was the only child who kept his name. I am his only son and Ross is the last in this particular branch of the Turnbull line.

KillerB is up...

I didn't read the question properly - sorry.

My cat Maya is currently doing her best to let me know that food is in order. I have two cats, Maya and Columbo who eat nothing but Felix Senior 100g pouches. How many, on average, do they get through between them in a week?

100g is about 3.5 ounces. If moist, that seems like a reasonable serving for a cat. If dry, that's a lot of cat food. Since it comes in a relatively small pouch I'm going to guess that it is moist, so probably intended to be a single-serving package.

Felix Senior implies that they're older, which implies that they eat less than an average cat. In the US, cats tend to be housepets and so can be a bit overweight like their owners. I'm going to guess that English cats are not and weigh around 10 lbs, reinforcing the guess that 100g is intended to be a single-serving package.

2 cats, 2 meals per day, 7 days per week. 28 pouches.

Glenn E. wrote:100g is about 3.5 ounces. If moist, that seems like a reasonable serving for a cat. If dry, that's a lot of cat food. Since it comes in a relatively small pouch I'm going to guess that it is moist, so probably intended to be a single-serving package.

Felix Senior implies that they're older, which implies that they eat less than an average cat. In the US, cats tend to be housepets and so can be a bit overweight like their owners. I'm going to guess that English cats are not and weigh around 10 lbs, reinforcing the guess that 100g is intended to be a single-serving package.

2 cats, 2 meals per day, 7 days per week. 28 pouches.

man... my friend had a fat cat, and they give new meaning to furry shower mat.

32 pouches.

14?

Aside:

DRT wrote:Grandad was a naughty boy. He fathered 7 children by my Grandmother and then took off to France where he fathered a further 3 children by his bit on the side who he met during WWII. He then took off to London leaving both women to bring up the kids. My father was the only child who kept his name. I am his only son and Ross is the last in this particular branch of the Turnbull line.

DRT: working backwards, continue the sequence ’93, ’65, !. (I.e., are all the Turnbulls rubbish?)

Or as recommended by Felix Senior... 2 cats, 3 meals per day, 7 days per week = 42 pouches.

21?

Not 28, 32, 14, 42 or 21.

One of the above is using a sensible method of deduction but needs a little adustment due to sizes of cats and another limiting factor.

KillerB wrote:Not 28, 32, 14, 42 or 21.

One of the above is using a sensible method of deduction but needs a little adustment due to sizes of cats and another limiting factor.

is the cat in the profile the size of teh cat?

34

18?

g-man wrote:

KillerB wrote:Not 28, 32, 14, 42 or 21.

One of the above is using a sensible method of deduction but needs a little adustment due to sizes of cats and another limiting factor.

is the cat in the profile the size of teh cat?

34

He is not either cat, he is Sebastian, no longer of this world.

Not 34 nor 18.

Maya is a Chocolate British Shorthair, aged 8, Columbo is a Lilac-Point Birman, aged 16.

19?

23

20?

jdaw1 wrote:Aside:

DRT wrote:Grandad was a naughty boy. He fathered 7 children by my Grandmother and then took off to France where he fathered a further 3 children by his bit on the side who he met during WWII. He then took off to London leaving both women to bring up the kids. My father was the only child who kept his name. I am his only son and Ross is the last in this particular branch of the Turnbull line.

DRT: working backwards, continue the sequence ’93, ’65, !. (I.e., are all the Turnbulls rubbish?)

Dad is from 1939. Will find out about Grandad next time I'm up north.

15?

19, 23, 15, 20 - Nope.

I will tell you that all answers so far are too... low.

The one bit of sensible research gave the closest answer but only took into account average cats. Birmans are considered large cats, British Shorthairs very large. However, Columbo is getting on a bit and Maya is a girl; one that is currently purring very loudly.

70?

49

49 and 70 nope, but one of these is very close. Take into account another limiting factor that makes Sunday mornings interesting from a cat pacification point of view.

Large cats... hmm... lets feed them an extra pouch each morning and each evening, so instead of 3 pouches per day per cat we have 5. Sunday's interference causes lunch to be missed. So that gives us a total of 68 pouches per week.

My but these are expensive cats! Felix Senior runs 10 pounds for 12 pouches so you're spending as much on cat food as I drink in Port in a week!

52

DRT wrote:52

Not 52 nor 68 but the limiting factor has now been mentioned (not price). Don't know where you're looking for Felix at that price though, Glenn.

65?

jdaw1 wrote:65?

Nope

50

g-man wrote:50

Nope - moving further away now.

It was at Ocado.com, but in clicking on the same link today their price is now just £3.57 for a 12-pack. I wonder what I was looking at yesterday?

72?

Glenn E. wrote:It was at Ocado.com, but in clicking on the same link today their price is now just £3.57 for a 12-pack. I wonder what I was looking at yesterday?

72?

Ooops - wrong direction, but you have now established the limiting factor. That price is more like it.

60

71?

Not 60 but the limiting factor is now in place and not 71 as that is not bound by it.