A man without eyes saw pears on a tree; he did not take pears, he did not leave pears; how can that be?


closed as too broad by athin, Glorfindel, Sid, Lolgast, boboquack Mar 9 '18 at 8:17

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.


The usual answer to this very old riddle is that

the man had one eye, took one pear and left one pear.

I have to say that

I would not say that someone with one eye is "without eyes"; that's not how the word "without" works. Nor would I say that someone who takes one thing "does not take" whatever it is, and likewise for leaving. So this riddle is, for me, in xkcd 169 territory.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the input @Gareth I'll keep that in mind for further questions. $\endgroup$ – TMcSquared Mar 3 '18 at 17:02
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ XKCD 169 should be in the help centre for Puzzling SE :-) $\endgroup$ – Rand al'Thor Mar 3 '18 at 18:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't know. Seems to be the whole point of the cryptic-crosswords tag. $\endgroup$ – Rupert Morrish Mar 3 '18 at 20:20
  • $\begingroup$ I'd say this riddle is valid on a technical basis. "pears" can indicate a set of pears with more than one element. If there is only one pear, then it cannot contain a set of pears with more than one element. Similarly, if a man has only one eye, he has an eye, but arguably, not "eyes". $\endgroup$ – greenturtle3141 Mar 9 '18 at 4:44

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.