A horse and hay bail riddle: Is it logical?

Question

A riddle in the Jokes and Riddles section asked how a horse tied to a 15 foot rope could reach a hay bail from 25 feet away. The answer is (question is resolved) that the other end of the rope was not tied to anything. While that answer is plausible, and a horse with a rope tied to it would not always be secured to a stationary object, I'm not sure that it is the logical answer.

I am uncertain about this because it seems to me that the inference from the question is that the horse is secured by the rope, and that this is more probably the case than not, as there would not exist an implied problem if the horse was not so secured.

I suppose you could interpret my question as asking what is the most logical, if that can be asked, answer to a question like the one above?

Is the answer an example of "Occam's Razor?"

eferrell01, I can't argue otherwise, but it still strikes me as peculiar, even if it is the only logical answer. To me, I wouldn't argue wrongly, the rope should be tied to something stationary, or effectively so.

Well, I now accept the answer, as I indicated before. I do wonder if there are cases where the obvious inference cannot be removed and not effect the scenario. I've clearly found a weakness in my own reasoning skills, not that there might not be more.

Answer 1

Sure. That's exactly the point of the joke. You assume that the rope is tied to something else. Yet, nothing in the wording of the question says so.
It's a good example of Occam's Razor applied. Occam razor says any entity that can be removed and still leave you with a proper description of a state of affairs should be eliminated from a theory explaining a state of affairs. In this case, the pole, to which you assume the horse is tied, is unnecessary to describe 'a horse tied to a 15 foot rope'. You eliminate it and are left with a horse that can easily go where it pleases.

Answer 2

It would have been helpful to post the exact riddle :) but other possibilities include:

(1) the horse is tied with the rope, but can kick the hay bale (it doesn't say "eat" the hay.) Horses have long bodies and the "kick zone" extends well past the back legs.
(2) the horse is tied with the rope, but with the rope tied to a back leg, so it can stretch that back leg out, stretch out its neck and eat the hay.

I do take your point, though. There are reasonable and logical inferences and, often, riddles take advantage of people assuming the logical and reasonable. :) So, if a riddle doesn't say something explicitly, you don't need to assume it!

And this is probably not an example of Occam's Razor. That principle states that, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation. This issue doesn't seem to be one of complication vs. simplicity, but instead one of "how can this possibly happen?"

~DancesWithHorses~

Answer 3

How does a horse tied to a 15 foot rope reach a hay bale 25 feet away?
The only answer is: The other end of the rope is not tied to anything.

Answer 4

The easiest answer would be that the rope is not tied to anything else except the horse. I guess you can ask, from where is the distance of the 25 feet measured. The question does not say that the hay is 25 feet from the horse, only that it is 25 feet away.

Answer 5

The answer to your question is that the category is Jokes and riddles not logic.

It is assumed that the other end is tied and therefor not obtainalbe- that is why it is a joke.

I do not know about Occam's Razor and connot comment.

Answer 6

If, If you tie the rope to the very end of the horse's tail and said horse reaches out to fullest extent- 10 + feet- he could reach the hay bale too.