Subject:
|
Re: King, Queen & Jack
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 03:13:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
163 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Shiri Dori writes:
> 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...
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 both arrived at (I snipped the filler and the answer she gave)...
So how about it Scott, did Shiri analyse it the way you expected it to be
analysed?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: King, Queen & Jack
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: King, Queen & Jack
|
| 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)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
