32

There is a record whose value is expressed by a natural number. (The value is strictly discrete, not only continuous and then rounded to a natural number.) However, after the record is once established, any other person to topple the previous record-holder will break it by at least 2. The value of the record can be expressed by both odd and even numbers.

For instance, if the current score is 505, the next record-holder's score may be 507, 508, 509, etc., but it may not be 506.

What record is this?

Widdershins
  • 423
  • 4
  • 7
  • 1
    Welcome to Puzzling;) – Numberknot Sep 01 '16 at 12:54
  • just want to check, this is a real record right? – Beastly Gerbil Sep 01 '16 at 13:00
  • Generally, any riddles on this site need to go through the sandbox (http://meta.puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/5276/the-riddle-sandbox) If this has already, please mention so in the question. Thanks! – Avik Mohan Sep 01 '16 at 13:07
  • 7
    @AvikMohan. No they don't http://meta.puzzling.stackexchange.com/q/5372/19989. And this is not a riddle. – Marius Sep 01 '16 at 13:10
  • @BeastlyGerbil, yes this record does exist, but the solution is not strictly contingent upon its factuality. – Widdershins Sep 01 '16 at 13:18
  • @AvikMohan, oh, sorry. I didn't see that. If I happen to come up with anything else, I'll go there. :) – Widdershins Sep 01 '16 at 13:20
  • @Marius, according to the Stack definition, "[a] riddle gives indirect clues about an unnamed object or concept to be identified. It is often presented in the form of a poem." Doesn't that fit? – Widdershins Sep 01 '16 at 13:20
  • 2
    @Widdershins. I don't know what to say. This does not look like a riddle to me. It's not a poem, that's for sure. But this is not a requirement. Also it does not provide clues towards something. But I may be wrong on this one. But one think is certain. For now you don't need to go through the sandbox with any riddles. – Marius Sep 01 '16 at 13:23

4 Answers4

31

My shot:

The record for the most records a person has broken.

In order to break that record:

you need to break another record and you will break this one also. So +2

Example:

A person has broken 505 records and that's the biggest number of records.
In order to break that record, you need to break at least 506 records. But if you do, you instantly have at least 507 broken records, because you broke the record for the most records a person has broken.

Dan Russell
  • 16,028
  • 3
  • 45
  • 97
Marius
  • 18,049
  • 4
  • 54
  • 101
  • Say, if you get 506, and that bumps you up to 507, wouldn't that bump the old holder down to 504, since they don't hold that record anymore? – fuandon Sep 01 '16 at 13:14
  • 2
    @fuandon. Yes, it does, but that still does not break my explanation. The previous record was 505 and the new record is 507. What's on second place it does not matter. Even if you have a +3 over second place you still broke the record by +2. – Marius Sep 01 '16 at 13:16
  • Yeah, true, the question does say 'at least two', sorry! – fuandon Sep 01 '16 at 13:18
  • Congratulations. :) – Widdershins Sep 01 '16 at 13:31
  • I fear this is actually quite complicated. If Person A has 500 normal records, then 1 more for most records, he'd have 501. If Person B gets to 500 records, does he then share the "most records" record? If so, they'd both have 501 (or 500 if you count it that way). Person B then breaks another normal record would have his 501st and move ahead, so he'd now have 502 records and Person A, with only 500 normal records and no share of the most-records record would drop to 500. But the record number itself has only increased by 1, from 501 to 502. – Dan Russell Sep 01 '16 at 13:32
  • So the difference between 1st and 2nd will always be >= 2, but I think the record itself can increment by 1 (which is counter to the way the question's stated right now). – Dan Russell Sep 01 '16 at 13:34
  • @DanRussell,

    The way I perceive it, the answer to your question "If Person B gets to 500 records, does he then share the "most records" record?" is "no." Person B has to break 502 normal records to get the "most broken records" record (because the previous holder had 501 records, right). Thus, Person B has 503 records now, and that is 2 more than the previous record.

     – Widdershins Sep 01 '16 at 13:51
  • Okay, then there's an important distinction between holding records and breaking records, and this answer is not quite right. – Dan Russell Sep 01 '16 at 14:00
  • Well, yeah, I guess it could have been worded better. – Widdershins Sep 01 '16 at 14:11
  • Marius: hope you don't mind the edit. If we're talking about just how many records a person holds, then that number can go down which makes the puzzle moot, because then the record record holder's total could drop if a different one of his records were broken. – Dan Russell Sep 01 '16 at 16:46
  • @DanRussell. Thanks for the edit. It makes it fully politically correct now – Marius Sep 01 '16 at 17:11
  • @DanRussell You can't just brake the record of number of broken records. This can only be done if you have broken another record. So, if from 500 it gets to 501 but not 502, it seems it got from 499 to 500 to 501. – EKons Sep 01 '16 at 23:40
  • This record is currently held by Ashrita Furman of the USA, who is interviewed here: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/sep/11/guinness-world-record (yes, I googled it). – A E Sep 02 '16 at 22:05
6

It could be:

The record beating record :). Each time a record is beaten the record beating record increments twice (because it was itself beaten too).

Ivanhoe
  • 677
  • 7
  • 12
6

One possible answer is

The largest prime number found / calculated / verified

It is a valid category of records that is well maintained and looked after. It is a strictly discrete number that technically can be both odd and even numbers, however, after it's been established, both the current and new records will always be odd and thus the difference will be at least 2.

Peteris
  • 258
  • 1
  • 6
0

The answer is:

Biggest Largemouth Bass

To beat the previous world record, we need atleast 2 more ounces than previous.

KSR
  • 1,811
  • 11
  • 29
  • 1
    Would that apply to other fish records as well? and it doesn't have an explanation that regards all the tags – Areeb Sep 01 '16 at 13:05
  • 2
    I added information about the value's non-continuousness. Even if we need at least 2 ounces more, 2.5 will do the job, but the value of the record I was describing is expressed in natural numbers only. – Widdershins Sep 01 '16 at 13:30