3 ms·
I don't know why you're getting downvoted, afaict 9 is the problem.
by dlkf 6y ago
I don't know why you're getting downvoted, afaict 9 is the problem.
- inimino 6y agoPerhaps downvoted for spoiling the problem? Some people review the comments before looking at the article.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nathanwh 6y agoTFA will inform you of this though, it's intended to be a game of reasoning. Posting the answer is spoiling the fun for people who read the comments first
- vages 6y agoWhy isn't there a mechanism for hiding spoilers in your comments? I came to the comments to check whether my guess was right (it wasn't), and I'm very glad for the spoiler.
- Thorrez 6y agoYou don't need to come to the comments to check your guess, the website lets you check your guess yourself by clicking on the step. > See if you can figure out in which step the fallacy lies. When you think you've figured it out, click on that step and the computer will tell you whether you are correct or not, and will give an additional explanation of why that step is or isn't valid.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> it's intended to be a game of reasoning. Posting the answer is spoiling the fun for people who read the comments This is a very common example in math classes, though in my experience usually presented as a proof that "all horses are the same color".
- sdenton4 6y agoAll cats have nine tails... No cat has eight tails, and every cat has one more tall than no cat. Ergo...
- thaumasiotes 6y agoThere is a problem in step 9, but the problem is not related to introducing a third person. The existence of a third person makes step 9 correct. The problem is that we establish the base cases S(0) and S(1), and then we establish the inductive step S(n) -> S(n+1) subject to the restriction that n > 1. But this proof never demonstrates that S(1) implies S(2). The proof is completely correct that S(2) implies S(3), S(3) implies S(4), and so on. When step 9 says "Let R be someone else in G other than P or Q", the existence of a person in G other than P or Q has not been demonstrated. G is an arbitrary group of k+1 people, and the highest k for which our statement is known to be true is 1. Thus, the minimum size of G is 2, and R may not exist.
- shawnz 6y agoI think they mean, introducing a third person into the problem scope. Not into the set G.