August 2007 Puzzle Solution

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Solutions:

1. The first shipper should declare a value of 640 gold pieces. If the inspectors purchase at that price, then the next ship pays no toll whatsoever. So the net receipts to the two ships are 1,640 gold pieces.

Conversely, if the inspectors accept the toll based on 640 gold pieces, then the first shipper will pay 160 gold pieces in toll and receive a net sale price of (1000 – 160) = 840 gold pieces. The second ship will then (based on the solution to the warm-up problem) declare its value at 800 gold pieces and will receive a net value of 800 gold pieces whether the shipment is purchased or not. In the two alternatives, the shippers receive a total of 1,640 gold pieces.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


2. First the shippers should all value their cargo at the same amount V (less than or equal to 1,000). Suppose the inspectors purchase two shipments and accept the tolls on the other three. Then the five ship owners receive (2*V) for the purchased shipments and (3*(1000 - 0.25V)). The total is 2V + 3000 - 0.75V = 1.25V + 3000. But then it is also possible that the inspectors would decide to accept the toll, in which case the shippers receive (5 * (1000 - 0.25V)) = 5000 - 1.25V.

Setting these two answers as equal (so that the ship owners receive the optimum return either way), we get:

5000 - 1.25V = 3000 + 1.25V
or 2000 = 2.5 V
or V = 800.

At this rate, the shippers receive 4,000 gold pieces.

3. Intuitively, sending in the ships one at a time should be a better strategy, because once the warehouses are filled, the shippers can put the value at 0. In practice (this solution demands a careful case analysis), altogether they get only about 60 more gold pieces.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe