Talk:Missionaries and cannibals problem

Added Graphic

It has been years since I created the graphic for this and nobody shifted into the article. I have done so now. I created the graphic because the article is confusing without it. I 'got' the article, but I found it unpleasant to follow. Anybody can 'get' the diagram. Feel free to remove if you think it does not belong. Oh yeah -- I used Husbands/Wives rather than Missionaries/Cannibals because the latter has a cultural bias that could be construed as racist DeepNorth (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Am mystified by the current text. Much too hard to read. The general reader would like to have an explanation. What is currently on the page is not for a general reader. I have done my best to create a graphic of a what I *think* is a solution for the problem, but given the treatment currently on this page, I am not certain it is...

Graphic is here. If someone else who reviews this finds that it is OK and does not add to the confusion please shift it to the article page. Cheers! DeepNorth (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Graphic of solution to Jealous Husbands River Crossing Problem.

It would be nice to have a better description of how to cross the river. The sequence of numerical triplets is a bit too terse for easy comprehension.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsspiegel (talk • contribs) 08:43, 22 June 2006

We had that, but then Spacepotato took it off because the solution was "already given above".

see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missionaries_and_cannibals_problem&diff=317352775&oldid=317240052

Perhaps he can explain why we can't have a simpler description as well.

—Adm.Wiggin (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You can see how many missionaries or cannibals travel to the left or right at each step by looking at the third column of the table in the article. There's no need to list this information again. By the way, the comment you are replying to is from three years ago and refers to a different way of giving the solution that is no longer present in the article. Spacepotato (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That diagram is a lot clearer than the solution hidden away in the 3rd column, with its cryptic Greek. But is says it is copyright Bob Trower. 87.102.44.18 (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I am that alleged Bob Trower and if I did not put it up on Wikimedia with a liberal license already feel free to do so. The copyright is mostly to ensure somebody does not slap a copyright on themselves. The image is intended to be spread far and wide for free. For the record, I would abolish copyrights and patents in a heartbeat if I could. :) I used 'DeepNorth' as a pseudonym for many years, but it is a very poorly kept secret http://blog.bobtrower.com/ DeepNorth (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Women are cannibals

You heard it here folks, according to wikipedia, women are cannibals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkygravity (talk • contribs) 23:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

The page is titled "missionaries and cannibals", but much of the content refers to "jealous husbands". I get that they are actually the same puzzle, but it's still confusing for a reader to have the puzzle's name jump in the middle of the page. I think it should be consistent.

Do people agree? If so, which one should it be? Scimonster (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Art show

I removed the following text from the References section:

"The Missionaries and Cannibals Problem (Opening)" Originally shown as part of an installation for VWVOFFKA's Soundoffka Vol. 2, November 2010, Philadelphia, PA; by Megan Kelley and Christopher Gage. At youtu DOT be FORWARDSLASH_zerbOnj-qU

It was formatted suspiciously but I don't think it was actually *vandalism* exactly. It's possible that the art installation in question is worth mentioning in the article (but sectioned, described and linked appropriately).

Heavy Joke (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity in graphic

Why does the graphic use black men and white women? What is the purpose of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.201.38 (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Alternative solution

another solution is the first two wives (wife 1 & wife 2) will cross the river, wife 2 return. wife 2 and wife 3 cross the river, wife 3 return. husband 1 and husband 2 cross the river, husband 1 and wife 1 return. husband 1 and husband 3 cross the river, wife 2 return. wife 1 and wife 2 cross the river, wife 2 return. wife 2 and wife 3 cross the river. end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lights Beatlemania (talk • contribs) 11:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

What about more than three?

Is it possible to do this riddle with more than three of each? 2601:147:4200:E350:3C33:F10:75C9:BDB0 (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)