Skip to content

What does a rich man need that a poor man has, and if you eat it, you will die?

What does a rich man need that a poor man has, and if you eat it, you will die?

What does a rich man need that a poor man has, and if you eat it, you will die?

Nothing. The rich man needs nothing, the poor man has nothing, and if you eat nothing, eventually, you will surely die.

What does a rich man need that a poor man has, and if you eat it, you will die?


Rich men have everything and need nothing.

Poor men have nothing.

If you eat nothing, you will die of starvation.

What does a rich man need that a poor man has, and if you eat it, you will die?

The answer is quite simple, actually, and the people explaining is funny. Its Nothing. That’s the true answer. If you eat nothing, you die, and if you have nothing, you’re poor. A rich man needs nothing because he has it all. Simple..simple..simple

What does a rich man need that a poor man has, and if you eat it, you will die?

As mentioned by others, rich people have anything and everything that they need. These rich people, in spite of having a lot of wealth, are still greedy(*exceptions accepted)). As a result, they tend to need to remember to live in the moment because they are so busy making money. The poor people work hard, day in and day out, for both ends to meet, but don’t get carried away with the income they get…they don’t forget to live in the moment..(*exceptions again)…I guess ‘time’ plays different roles in everybody’s life. To the second part of the question…I like the way you made the question a little dramatic… I guess the person is asking about the rich people in the country eating the money of the poor(*sorry if this is not what you meant..but I kind of understood it this way, so…*) These rich people who eat the poor people’s money..what do they get ultimately….. basically nothing…why…because all their life they were behind money and sad they didn’t think about their health…these guys thought they could buy health with money…but couldn’t… Eventually, they die with nothing in their hands. Whatever they had possessed will be again eaten by their generations…(*again exceptions accepted*).

What is a great riddle that has no right answer?

Originally Answered: Puzzles and Trick Questions: What is a great riddle that has no right answer?

The woman in front of you places two envelopes on the table. One is labeled Envelope A, and one is labeled Envelope B.

“Here’s the deal,” she says. “Each of these envelopes contains a significant sum of cash. One of them contains exactly twice as much money as the other.”

You nod eagerly, excited to see where this is going.

“You can keep one envelope, and I’ll keep the other one,” she says. “The decision is yours. But you’re only allowed to look inside one of them before you decide which one you want.”

She slides Envelope A towards you, and you open it and count the money inside.

“Now,” she says, “do you want to keep Envelope A, or do you want to switch to Envelope B?”

Here’s the dilemma: No matter which envelope you’re holding, your expected value is always higher if you switch.

Let’s say you looked inside Envelope A and found $1,000. You know that one envelope contains twice as much money as the other, but you don’t know which envelope has more. That means there’s a 50% chance that Envelope B contains $2,000 and a 50% chance that it only contains $500.

So, let’s say you give up Envelope A and take Envelope B instead. If B is the better envelope, then you’ll gain $1,000. And if B is the poorer envelope, then you’ll only lose $500.

That means that if you switch, there’s an equal chance that you’ll gain $1,000 or lose $500. Seems like a good deal, right? Your expected gain is higher than your expected loss, so if your goal is to go home with as much money as possible, it makes sense to switch envelopes.

But once you’re holding Envelope B, the same logic applies. If the amount of money in Envelope B is X dollars, then by switching back to Envelope A, you know you’ll either gain X dollars or lose X/2 dollars. So, once again, it makes sense to switch envelopes.

And after you’ve switched back to Envelope A, you should switch back to Envelope B again.

And so on.

This is a version of the “two-envelope problem,” also known as the exchange paradox. It’s one of my favorite riddles in decision theory. Several solutions have been proposed, but there isn’t really a correct answer.

What would you do?

What is a great riddle that has no right answer?

A group of people are standing around in a circle.

Every ten seconds, every person simultaneously shoots a random other person (with a laser tag system, of course. Nobody is actually hurt). If you’re hit, you’re out. Everyone is a great shot: they don’t miss. Whoever they picked at random to take out is out.

Ten seconds later, once again, everyone still standing shoots someone else at random. And so it goes on until one of two things happens: either a last lucky person is standing, or there’s Nobody left.

Question: what’s the probability that Nobody’s left at the end of the game?

The answer obviously depends on the number of people we had to begin with. The probability is one thing if you start with 5 people and another thing if you start with 50. So, being the mathematicians that we are, we’re curious about the value of this probability when the initial number of people is really large – a million, a billion, etc. “As n� tends to infinity,” to use the common math parlance.

So, what is it? What is this limiting value of that probability? Does it tend to be zero? Does it tend to be 100%? Does it tend to have some value in between?

The actual answer to the question, as I phrased it, is that there is no answer. The probability, as a function of the number of people n�, does not tend to any limit. It fluctuates without converging.

The answer to such questions is very often 0 or 1 (Zero–one law). Sometimes, it’s some limiting intermediate value that we may or may not be able to calculate explicitly. Still, it’s really rare to have such naturally defined probabilities that fluctuate for no obvious reason (it’s easy to make it so that the values depend on the parity of n�, for example, and then it’s no surprise that they don’t converge. But this isn’t the case here).

Here’s a graph of the probability p� that Nobody survives as a function of log(n)log⁡(�). This is taken from the paper “The asymptotics of Group Russian roulette” by van de Brug, Kager, and Meester.

What is a great riddle that has no right answer?

Here’s one that I like:

There was an outlaw in a small town in the Old West who was sentenced to death for a series of crimes. The sheriff of the old town offered the outlaw a choice of method of execution based on the outlaw’s last words.

“If you tell a truthful statement, you will be electrocuted. Otherwise, you will be hanged,” said the sheriff.

A few days passed, and it was the day of the scheduled execution. The townspeople gathered around the square, waiting to hear the outlaw’s last words as they would decide his method of execution.

The outlaw said, “I will be hanged”.

What happened to the outlaw?

This riddle is an example of the Liar paradox (See Wikipedia for a list of other common self-reference paradoxes at List of paradoxes).

There are alternate versions of this riddle that are just told as a story, with one of the possible conclusions being the sheriff just letting the outlaw go free.

Source: I retold this from memory

It’s better than God, worse than the Devil. Poor people have it, and rich people need it. You will die if you eat it, and when you close your eyes, you can see it. What is it?

It is Nothing. Nothing is better than God. Nothing is worse than the Devil. Poor people have Nothing, and rich people need Nothing. You will die if you eat Nothing, and When you close your eyes, you see Nothing. It is Nothing.

Who makes it does not need it. Who buys it has no use for it. Those who use it can neither see nor feel it. What is it?

A coffin.

Coffin makers do not need a coffin.

Neither does the person who buys the coffin.

The person who needs it(a dead person) can’t see or feel the coffin.

What does a rich man need that a poor man has, and if you eat it, you will die?

Manual Labour. A rich man needs it, a poor man can give it, and the rich man would probably die if he tried it.

What is it that the poor have and that the rich need?

The rich have the capital, and the poor have the labor. In order to make people experiencing poverty willingly serve themselves and thus have more capital. The rich build factories and let the poor enter them as workers. The rich man pays the poor man just enough to live on so that the poor man has to stay in the rich man’s factory to work. The rich provide the poor with a lot of tittytainment so that the poor do not think about it and devote all their energy to entertainment. The rich controlled all kinds of social institutions and even infiltrated the unions in the factories, making it difficult for the poor to resist.

In short, through various measures, the rich took away the labor of the poor, controlled the poor, dumbed down the poor, and kept growing themselves.

What is something that poor people have that rich people need?

All the poor have to give to the rich is their labor power. Most rich people are rich because they exploit the labor power of the poor.

The executives and stakeholders of any corporation need their workers to work for near minimum wage if they want to remain wealthy. Pay them too much, and there’s not much surplus value left for consumption. Pay them too little, and they lose access to their labor power. Without that, they can say goodbye to the company’s profits and, as a result, their fortunes.

Because of these relations between workers and capitalists, the existence of the rich is dependent on the existence of the poor. That’s an unchangeable trait of capitalism. It makes for quite a bit of struggle between the two classes, and that struggle is more present in all areas of life than you might think.

What does a poor man have that a rich man wants?


Most poor people waste time on TV, entertainment, movies, their phones, dramatic relationships, and worrying.

A rich person is generally bursting with interests, dreams, and desires—-even if it’s as big as wanting to live long enough to travel to another planet. They might have the resources to make any possibility happen for their body, but the breakdown of the body and physical death is the race, the marathon that they’re running against. But then you see poor people listening to just loud music, sitting on street corners day after day, experiencing monotony, and you think, if only that time were transferable—-they’re wasting time.

What we really mean is they’re wasting (Time) Life!

That properly focused time can cross oceans and galaxies and build the Taj Mahal and, find the secrets of oceans’ depth, or write a thousand books.

I look at poor people, and I envy the space of time, the span of what could be accomplished if The Already Rich and Bored Housewives of Getting Paid weren’t Must-See TV. I think about what the world could be if people were, I don’t know, solving problems, hive minding on their smartphones, and not playing Minecraft or Solitaire or Word Jumble. Then I wonder what poor people’s lives could be, bringing it down to the individual if the movie of the superhero sci-fi week wasn’t what got 10, 20, 50 million people around Earth to take very specific action on Fridays-Sundays. If they totaled up all of those hours, what could occur in their own lives, and if the big goal wasn’t to get to be a celebrity but was to create, to save the planet and its inhabitants?

I think I’ve got about 50 years of life left. No smoking, minimal drinking, I’ve never done drugs. So the 2060s. Shit, my farthest visions have been to 2212. I want to see 2300. 2400. Can you imagine 3000?

And this momo on the corner is sitting there with a sign all day long about how his life isn’t working. And I’m thinking maybe it’s not working because you’re not even in kinetic motion.

I know what I can write, film, and create in 50 years; I can’t even consider 100 or 500. I would literally kill myself if I considered how little I’d do in that time.

And then I see someone wasting Life (Time), and I grimace.

Time is wasted on those who mismanage it the most.

A woman is standing by the grave, looking down, and thinking, “This grave was my father’s, but my son is buried inside it, and if he were alive, he would have been my husband.” Who is the person inside the grave?

Once, there was a woman whose father was a gangster. Following his father-in-law, the Woman’s husband and later his one and only son got into this gangster business. Meanwhile, she met a fortune-teller who told her she’d have to lose a loved one among those three males in her life. This can’t be stopped from happening.

The Woman had to choose. She makes a deduction that his father is too old anyway. He should die instead of his son/husband. She makes a plan to kill his father. But, unfortunately, when the good old gangster was supposed to be alone, he was not. He was with his son-in-law and grandson. In this fight, the son dies in a fire.

When her son was getting buried at the graveyard, the Woman cried and said, “This grave was for my father. But my son is in it. If he were alive, he (who died) would have been my husband.”

She loved her son the most, and she would sacrifice her father or even her husband.

When the Woman says the grave was her father’s, she could mean her father was a gravedigger. Or her father owned the land where the grave was located, or she could be referring to a priest whom she calls “father.”

When she says her son is buried inside it, she could mean her son is literally buried inside the grave or that her hopes of having a son were buried when her fiance died.

When she says that if he were alive, he would have been her husband, she could mean her fiancé died before they were able to get married. And with him died her hopes of having a son.

I wonder if this is supposed to be some allegory where the Woman is a tree, the son is an acorn, and the husband is some other tree, but that does not make a lot of sense.

The music stops, and a woman dies. Why?

The Woman is a tightrope walker in a circus. Her act consists of walking the rope blindfolded, accompanied by music, without a net. The musician behind the scenes is supposed to stop playing when she reaches the end of the rope, telling her that it’s safe to step off onto the platform. But unfortunately, the music stopped a little early, and she knew she reached the end and she lost her balance at the risk of her death.

The Woman is a tightrope walker. Her act is that of walking the rope blindfolded. The band leader signals to her that she has reached the end of the rope by switching off the music. One day, he switches off the music prematurely, and she steps off the rope and dies.

This is a standard puzzle.

A murderer is condemned to death. He has to choose between three rooms:

  1. Full of raging fires.
  2. Assassins with loaded guns.
  3. Lions who haven’t eaten in years.

Which room is the safest?

This one is the oldest and most epic one.

The answer is room with the lions, as you have specified already that lions have not eaten anything for years, so they must be dead by this time now.

Hope this gets your answer

Edit: Wow, first time, 154 upvotes. Thanks a lot to everyone!!

I would definitely choose the Lions. I’m pretty sure that lions who haven’t eaten in years would be dead at that point.

However, if the lions were somehow still alive, I would choose the assassins. Generally, assassins don’t kill anybody unless they are being paid to do it. It is highly unlikely that the criminal justice system would pay the required amount to hire assassins, alongside the costs of managing a room filled with fires and keeping lions alive with magical means.

A man and his son were in an accident. The Man died on the way to the hospital, but the boy was rushed into Surgery. The emergency room surgeon said, “I can’t operate, that’s my son!” How is this possible?

Okay, Man & his son were in an accident.

The Man Died, but the son was rushed into Surgery.

Now, the person who is going to operate is saying, “That’s my son.”

So, the Surgeon is the boy’s MOTHER.

The Surgeon is his mother.

This is a classic question that demonstrates that we should think out of the box. Generally, it is common to think that surgeons are male. However, to answer this question, we need to break such gender stereotypes.

This can be possible in the below-mentioned circumstances:

I’ll refer to a Hindi movie that was released a few weeks back, which features Nawazuddin Siddiqui titled ‘Babumoshai Bandookbaaz.’

Modifying the story a little bit for the interest of the readers,

The lady (mother of the son) falls in love with the 1st Man, starts living with him, gets married to him, and has a son. The 1st Man gets a tattoo engraved on the child’s hand with their names and the same one on his hand, too!!

The 1st Man is into criminal activities.

The lady keeps on asking the 1st Man to change his profession, which he promised to change after their marriage.

During the marriage (around 6 years), she also meets the 2nd guy, who lives in their neighborhood, is a good person, and gets inclined towards him.

After she observes that the 1st Man did not change his profession even after several warnings, she decides to leave the First Man without any further notice. She leaves the 1st Man and runs away with the 2nd one.

The 1st Man now understands that both of them ran away because she keeps asking him to become like the 2nd one.

He tries to find the couple with all his strength but can’t.

Hit by disappointment, he loses hope and realizes that he should also try to become a good man because ‘it’s never too late.’

Now he enters college at the age of Sanjay Dutt (Referring to Munnabhai MBBS, another Hindi movie, the age of Munnabhai is almost 35 years), gets a medical degree, and becomes a doctor.

Now, almost after a good time, when this incident happens (the one in the question), the 2nd guy with the son meets an accident, and the son is brought to the hospital in which the 1st Man is the doctor (like most of the Hindi serials).

The doctor (1st Man) has a look at the tattoo and then realizes that the guy is his son, and he couldn’t operate!!

There are 8 pills. They are all of the same size and color. One pill weighs slightly more and is poisonous. You have a balanced scale and can only use it twice. How can you find the poisonous pill?

The key in this particular puzzle is to realize that while you have two scale pans, that is sufficient to let you split the items to be weighed into three groups, not just two (and it also works for 9 pills). Here’s the algorithm:

  • weigh two groups of three pills each
    • if they weigh the same, the poison pill is in the group not yet weighed
    • If they weigh different, whichever pan has the heavier load of 3 pills contains the poison pill
  • Once you know which of the three groups has the poison pill:
    • Weigh two pills from that group
    • If they weigh the same, the poison pill is the one not being weighed
    • If they weigh different, the heavier pan has the poison pill


  1. Separate 2 pills from the rest.
  2. Put 3 pills on one side and 3 on the other side of the balance.
  3. Remove the 3 lighter pills.
  4. Remove 1 pill from the remaining pills and put 1 pill on each side. If the poison pill is on the balance, you will know. If the poison pill is not on the balance, it is the one you took out.
  5. In case none of these 6 pills in step 2 are poison pills, then put the 2 removed pills from step 1 on each side of the balance. You will find the poison pill on the heavier side of the balance.

Two men walk into a restaurant. One Man orders H2O. The second Man says, “I will have H2O too.” The second Man dies. Why?

H2O is the chemical formula for water; everyone knows that. And we all know that we need water to survive. The other guy also ordered water, but it’s the way he said it that got him killed. He said H2O too. The waiter might have gotten confused and brought him H2O2, which is Hydrogen Peroxide, which is very harmful to health.

In high concentrations, H2O2 is an aggressive oxidizer and will corrode many materials, including human skin. H2O2, either in pure or diluted form, can pose several risks. When concentrated, even domestic-strength solutions can irritate the eyes, mucous membranes, and skin. Swallowing H2O 2 solutions is particularly dangerous, as decomposition in the stomach releases large quantities of gas (10 times the volume of a 3% solution), leading to internal bloating. Inhaling over 10% can cause severe pulmonary irritation.

Hope this answers the question.

Hmm….a question such as this warrants serious thought. It cannot be diminished with a singular reply. 🙂

Possibility 1:

The 2nd Man died of old age. He was 89 years old. Had a pre-existing ailment. Died of heart failure after drinking water

Possibility 2:

Conspiracy. The 2nd Man is an important political player; hence, he was poisoned by the waiter, who was a spy in disguise.

Alternate: the 2nd Man was sleeping with the waiter’s wife. Poisoned as revenge. The reasons for poisoning can be many.

Possibility 3:

It was one glass too many. Strange but True: Drinking Too Much Water Can Kill

Possibility 4:

The question needs to be completed. This is an event that happened decades in the past. The 2nd Man had his fill of water. He then proceeded to live a long, healthy life. Then, he died peacefully in his sleep.

Possibility 5:

Last but most boring possibility:

H2O, H2O2 is hydrogen peroxide, which is poisonous to Man.

There is no end to the reasons why he died.

Please upvote if you liked the same. TIA

What does a rich man need that a poor man has, and if you eat it, you will die?

Do I sound cocky by saying that I stopped arguing with people 2024?

Why was the heroic airline pilot Sully Sullenberger’s pension cut 2024?

What does a half-Indian half-white look like 2024?

‘Onee-Chan Wa Game O Suruto Hito Ga Kawaru Onee-chan,’