3 ms·
If you attacked that formulation with the normal assumptions for logic problems, the answer would be the same. If you break the assumption that you can trust al
by ajanuary 11y ago
If you attacked that formulation with the normal assumptions for logic problems, the answer would be the same. If you break the assumption that you can trust all logical statements in the problem, regardless of their origin, then you could get a solution like "John is a dick and tells a mixture of truth and lies as he sees fit just to mess with you". But you could get that solution with any problem where the source of information is an entity in the problem itself, which is why we tend to assume that isn't the case.
- peteretep 11y agoThat's entirely wrong. The whole point of the article is that there are two distinct types of information present in all problems of this type: information about the problem (which the author calls certification, and which is assumed to be true), and then information presented in the problem, which - in almost every problem I've ever seen of this type - has statements that aren't true in it. > "If you break the assumption that you can trust all > logical statements in the problem" That is never the assumption - you are normally told explicitly that you can trust some and not others.