Subject:
|
Re: King, Queen & Jack
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 10:15:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1036 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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?
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 responders who were "cold called" with this question get it wrong.
Not persuaded? Try this one - the question in each test is: "Can both
statements be true at the same time?"
Test 1
There is a pin and/or a bolt on the table, or else there is a bolt and a
nail on the table.
There is a bolt and a nail on the table
Test 2
There is a pin and/or a bolt on the table, or else there is a bolt and a
nail on the table.
There is a pin and a bolt on the table
Test 3
There is a pin and/or a bolt on the table, or else there is a bolt and a
nail on the table.
There is a nail but no bolt on the table
Test 4
There is a pin and/or a bolt on the table, or else there is a bolt and a
nail on the table.
There is no pin and no bolt on the table
This is taken from December's New Scientist. The full article can be read here:
http://archive.newscientist.com/archive.jsp?id=22684400
Have fun.
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: King, Queen & Jack
|
| (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: King, Queen & Jack
|
| (...) 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 (...) (26 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
|
|
|
|
