3 ms·

I disagree. In your case, the problem formulation is inconsistent with the answer (actually I don't think one question in this case suffices anyway): from the f

I disagree. In your case, the problem formulation is inconsistent with the answer (actually I don't think one question in this case suffices anyway): from the formulation we expect that the roads don't have detours; so the question formulation is omitting the truth -- indeed if you aren't truthful in your formulation, any puzzle would be unbeatable. But in this case there is no missing information from the formulation -- it is truthful and complete. He even puts quotes on the labels, which indicates they are not necessarily true (but they are necessarily as written). A 'Gotcha' in this case could be for example Q:"The two labels are "..." and "..."" A:"There is no solution, because we decided to use another label!". The solution of the puzzle shown is the correct way to perform inference assuming what the statement says is true (and in real life if this happens -- that is, the inquirer is sincere -- if you chose either box you may fail).

ChrisLomont 11y ago
>in real life if this happens Except he claimed it was a "logic puzzle," and he does not meet the requirements of a logic puzzle as the term is used. If you're allowing misuse of terms, then anything is possible, and my solution is as ridiculous as his, given the claim. In fact, it's formally provable his solution makes the problem not a logic puzzle. Logic puzzles, by definition in the genre, require statements to have truth values, hence the word "logic." If labels are either true or false, as is always the case in style of problems labeled "logic puzzles" unless the statement claims a random outcome, then his puzzle leads to the red solution. To see the logical outcome of his "solution", by putting the treasure in the in the green box, the label "the treasure is in this box" on the green box is true. Then the label "exactly one of the labels is true" on the red box has indeterminate truth value, because it cannot take the value true (since then both it and the green label are true), and it cannot take the value false (because then exactly one of the labels is true, contradicting the red label). Thus, under his solution, the "logic puzzle" is not a logic puzzle. Statements cannot have indeterminate truth value by taking a final answer and working backwards and cancelling any statements that become indeterminate. He even finished with "16 people correctly said that the treasure was in the green box. This has to be counted as a lucky guess, unacceptable as a solution to a logic puzzle." So he claims any "correct" answer to his non-logic puzzle had to be a lucky guess? Well, he got that right - the green solution is certainly unacceptable as a solution to a true logic puzzle.
- darkmighty 11y ago
  As I said, I do believe that if the formulation is abusive anything is possible. My quip is that logic puzzles shouldn't necessarily follow classical logic -- instead it should roughly be understood as "assume the statement is sincere and infer from that". Perhaps that's not the convention though. Here's a system of logic where the puzzle has a solution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic#Kleene_and_Priest_logics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic#Kleene_and_... If your logic system doesn't accept an inconsistent statement when they may occur, I tend to blame the logic system rather than reject reality. Here's a paradox illustrating my point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox (and others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes#Logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes#Logic)
- TuringTest 11y ago
  > So he claims any "correct" answer to his non-logic puzzle had to be a lucky guess? Not at all. He said the statement "the treasure was in the green box" is correct; but that is not the solution to the puzzle. The solution is "There is not enough information to determine the answer", which was explicitly provided as a possibility.

ChrisLomont 11y ago

>in real life if this happens Except he claimed it was a "logic puzzle," and he does not meet the requirements of a logic puzzle as the term is used. If you're allowing misuse of terms, then anything is possible, and my solution is as ridiculous as his, given the claim. In fact, it's formally provable his solution makes the problem not a logic puzzle. Logic puzzles, by definition in the genre, require statements to have truth values, hence the word "logic." If labels are either true or false, as is always the case in style of problems labeled "logic puzzles" unless the statement claims a random outcome, then his puzzle leads to the red solution. To see the logical outcome of his "solution", by putting the treasure in the in the green box, the label "the treasure is in this box" on the green box is true. Then the label "exactly one of the labels is true" on the red box has indeterminate truth value, because it cannot take the value true (since then both it and the green label are true), and it cannot take the value false (because then exactly one of the labels is true, contradicting the red label). Thus, under his solution, the "logic puzzle" is not a logic puzzle. Statements cannot have indeterminate truth value by taking a final answer and working backwards and cancelling any statements that become indeterminate. He even finished with "16 people correctly said that the treasure was in the green box. This has to be counted as a lucky guess, unacceptable as a solution to a logic puzzle." So he claims any "correct" answer to his non-logic puzzle had to be a lucky guess? Well, he got that right - the green solution is certainly unacceptable as a solution to a true logic puzzle.

darkmighty 11y ago
As I said, I do believe that if the formulation is abusive anything is possible. My quip is that logic puzzles shouldn't necessarily follow classical logic -- instead it should roughly be understood as "assume the statement is sincere and infer from that". Perhaps that's not the convention though. Here's a system of logic where the puzzle has a solution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic#Kleene_and_Priest_logics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic#Kleene_and_... If your logic system doesn't accept an inconsistent statement when they may occur, I tend to blame the logic system rather than reject reality. Here's a paradox illustrating my point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox (and others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes#Logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes#Logic)
TuringTest 11y ago
> So he claims any "correct" answer to his non-logic puzzle had to be a lucky guess? Not at all. He said the statement "the treasure was in the green box" is correct; but that is not the solution to the puzzle. The solution is "There is not enough information to determine the answer", which was explicitly provided as a possibility.