3 ms·

As I understand this problem, the challenge is determining the unclear phrasing of the task. It could be non-commutative, which is how the professor set it up.

by araes 11y ago

As I understand this problem, the challenge is determining the unclear phrasing of the task. It could be non-commutative, which is how the professor set it up. (Even = blue on back side. Flip 8) It could be commutative (I have to prove above + blue = even. Flip 8 and blue. How most people interpret) It could even be strict (even = blue && odd != blue && green != even. Flip all) As phrased, it's super vague, and since it's implied the problem is tricky, most people select the goal that at least includes the words (even + blue). The double brain mumbo-jumbo in the article seems like garbage. It's just a statistical goal assignment task with fuzzy bounds.

wutbrodo 11y ago
It's only unclear if you don't understand that if/then is not commutative. If I said that x/y = z, it wouldn't be "unclear" whether that implies that y/x = z, because the division operator simply isn't commutative.
breadbox 11y ago
In my experience, that's not the case. People (or at least people not primed to take a tricky-logic-puzzle stance) think they understand the problem just fine, and quickly give the wrong answer. Asking about it afterwards (once you get past the defensive denials et al), it's usually revealed that they did in fact understand the problem. They just failed to grasp what a proof/disproof actually requires, because they've never had to think too deeply about the issue before.
coldtea 11y ago
Actually the way they mean it is simple: IF even THEN blue. To show that the rule holds then you need to check: 8 (it's even, so should be blue. Is it?) and green (because if it's even, then it invalidates the rule that it should have been blue on the other side). The other cards/numbers don't matter as to the validity of the rule.
svachalek 11y ago
The non-commutative interpretation requires that you also flip the green card. I think a lot of people failed the question even if correctly interpreting the words.
vegedor 11y ago
Why wouldn't you flip green for the first case? If it's even you find a counter example. I'd say this system a bijective mapping of color=parity is simple (to learn) compared to a partially injective and partially surjective one. Common card games tend to employ simple rules, therefore it seems a fair assumption for this one. Additionally most sets have either a single back image or an equal amount of either of two back images, implying a bijection. The experience with cards is different than with the social contract, while the consequences of loosing at cards is less severe than in social games. That's no mumbo-jumbo.

by araes 11y ago

wutbrodo 11y ago

It's only unclear if you don't understand that if/then is not commutative. If I said that x/y = z, it wouldn't be "unclear" whether that implies that y/x = z, because the division operator simply isn't commutative.

breadbox 11y ago

In my experience, that's not the case. People (or at least people not primed to take a tricky-logic-puzzle stance) think they understand the problem just fine, and quickly give the wrong answer. Asking about it afterwards (once you get past the defensive denials et al), it's usually revealed that they did in fact understand the problem. They just failed to grasp what a proof/disproof actually requires, because they've never had to think too deeply about the issue before.

coldtea 11y ago

Actually the way they mean it is simple: IF even THEN blue. To show that the rule holds then you need to check: 8 (it's even, so should be blue. Is it?) and green (because if it's even, then it invalidates the rule that it should have been blue on the other side). The other cards/numbers don't matter as to the validity of the rule.

svachalek 11y ago

The non-commutative interpretation requires that you also flip the green card. I think a lot of people failed the question even if correctly interpreting the words.

vegedor 11y ago

Why wouldn't you flip green for the first case? If it's even you find a counter example. I'd say this system a bijective mapping of color=parity is simple (to learn) compared to a partially injective and partially surjective one. Common card games tend to employ simple rules, therefore it seems a fair assumption for this one. Additionally most sets have either a single back image or an equal amount of either of two back images, implying a bijection. The experience with cards is different than with the social contract, while the consequences of loosing at cards is less severe than in social games. That's no mumbo-jumbo.