 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
