 | | King, Queen & Jack —Scott Arthur
|
| | | I read Dave's post the wrong way, I thought it one of those trick questions which go around at this time of year. It got me thinking about this one which I read a week or so ago: Only one of the following statements about a particular hand of cards (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: King, Queen & Jack —James Brown
|
| | | | | (...) Well, I haven't seen it before, but the answer is no. I'll refrain from explaining why, for folks still playing at home, but will offer a hint: 'might be true' doesn't hold any weight in logical puzzle solving. Think in terms of must be true (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: King, Queen & Jack —Geoffrey Hyde
|
| | | | Scott A <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:G5xI8M.8pC@lugnet.com... (...) questions (...) true: (...) False, it either has to be an either/or statement somewhere in the statement, or must have some rule that can be derived when compared (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: King, Queen & Jack —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | The thing is, Geoffrey, that the point is not proving a, b *or* c true or false; but rather answering the question (is there, or is there not, an ace). Which is why the wording *is* actually valid... Haven't ever seen this before, but I love solving (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: King, Queen & Jack —Geoffrey Hyde
|
| | | | | Thanks, Shiri - I think I got it right the first time. The statement I figured could possibly be true was most likely to have been correct, and after you posted, I think it is. -- Cheers ... Geoffrey Hyde Shiri Dori <shirid@hotmail.com> wrote in (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: King, Queen & Jack —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) In your 1st post, you seem to think that it is a matter of probability, when in fact, it's not, as Shiri pointed out (quite correctly). Let's examine closely. (Don't read if for some reason you're still figuring it out) (...) Alright. There (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: King, Queen & Jack —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Geoffrey... I have to agree with Shiri's analysis. I independently arrived at the same conclusion she did. So either we're both confused (and in similar ways), or the problem *is* consistent and admits of a logical answer which is the one we (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: King, Queen & Jack —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) She was correct - as are you. Apparently, our minds are unless in dealing with false information. If a fact is proven true - it is put in our "RAM". The problem is we don't have much RAM, so there is no space for the false data. 95% of (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: King, Queen & Jack —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Hmm... By my read, you probably meant to say in each statement that those were the ONLY things on the table? Otherwise I find that only the last test has two conflicting statements. DaveE (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: King, Queen & Jack —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) That is the point - you have to decide if there is a conflict within each test. As you point out, 4 is not true. (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
