Logic

i dunno about that. since rocks are usually pretty old, and don't exhibit a very high mental age on the stanford-binet scale, they tend to have, well, negative iq's.bush, on the other hand, is somewhat capable of pretending to hold a conversation, and seems to be able to read.

---

אָרַח

ok then. goldfish?

nope, still can't talk.now, parrots...

---

אָרַח

true.

(Another puzzle that can be solved using logic).There are 4 Pink Unicorn (P.U.) churches in the country.One in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Nottingham.Goal: To locate the church Joe is at, and the day.Clues:Joe, a member of the public, is in one of the 4 specified P.U. churches.The Manchester P.U. church is closed on Thur - saturdays. (Open the rest of the days)
The Liverpool P.U. church is closed on week days. (open the rest of the days)
The Nottingham P.U. is closed mon - Thur.(open the rest of the days)
The Birmingham P.U. church is closed on Sundays.(open the rest of the days)Joe will always prefer and therefore always choose to be in P.U. church on Wednesdays rather than Fridays and saturdays, he'll always choose Sundays rather than Mondays and Tuesdays and always choose Thursdays rather than Sundays and wednesdays.Joe never attends P.U. church on Mondays, Tuesdays, Fridays and Saturdays.Rather than answering each poster everytime they have an answer; Here is the answer, highlight to see it;

This is why I don't like these kind of puzzles (and don't do too well at them ).I don't see how you can state the answer given the information provided.You are using words like 'prefer' and 'choose' - well sometimes yor choice or preference don't count for squat. What if Joe has to be in Manchester for four weeks on business? If you are replying on assumptions or common sense or cultural norms then I don't think you can really call it a logic problem.I think you have to specify Joe has complete freedom of movement or, better yet, specify an itinerary for him moving between the four cities to make the puzzle harder.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

I think, in fact, that he's relying on the absence of assumptions for you to arrive at the answer. In the context of a logic problem - which is different than a word problem, or riddle - the nouns are really nothing more than placeholders; it's the relationships described between them, and often modeled "behind-the-scenes" in predicate logic, which form the basis of the puzzle.On the other hand, a riddle like "If King Midas sits on gold, who sits on silver?" depends entirely on your ability to understand and catch onto allusions to shared cultural elements.

I understand (and agree with) your points.Having said that I still think there is an implicit assumption in MTW's puzzle, namely that the only factor affecting the movement of the object is the defined preference of time.Actually I think it's more of an incomplete specification resulting in an assumption. I guess I'm just a pedant. Who's on first surely?

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

Yeah!!!! Everything omni-frog said, is .....erm....what I say!Yeah!!!!!I think what matters is that you can infer from the information. In this case, other possibilities are irrelevant. All YOU know is what the information tells you.

It's doesn't actually mean anything if you fail at the puzzle, and there's no need to be sad (aaww). They're meant to be confusing. I can't solve these puzzles myself, yet look at the character of irrefutable brilliance in which I embody.

That's sort of a creationist position - the idea that "assume no other influences" is itself a positive assumption that must be defended, rather than simply the lack of any other positive assumptions. And erroneous, as far as I can see.No other factors are assumed because no other factors are specified. The idea that it's not reasonable to dismiss unspecified factors comes from your improper assumption about Joe; that what would tend to be true about a human man - he's got a job he needs to be at, or a home in one or another city, or other factors - must neccesarily be true for the noun named "Joe."In the context of a logic problem, it doesn't matter what the word "Joe" refers to. The only qualities that are relevant to the problem are specified in the problem. That's how logic problems work.You're trying to solve a logic problem with the tools you'd use for a riddle. No wonder you have a tough time with them. The Lone Ranger.

And that's exactly my point That's why I said there was insufficient information!

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

And that's why I don't like them because that's not strictly true. He specified four churches in a country and further specified real place names. This places it in the real world as far as I concerned. It also talks about Joe having preferences - another factor placing it in the real world.If it isn't in the real world why isn't it specified along the lines of 'There are four locations A, B, C and and an object (or entity?) X which can move between them and so on...' ?If it's expressed like that it's a piece of cake.P.S. I'm off to Paris (in the real world ) in a couple of hours so I won't be around until Monday, so if you reply I'm not ignoring you I'm just enjoying myself in one of the greatest cities on Earth. Surely he sat on Silver not silver?
[/pedant]

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

For interest or readability.If it helps you to frame the question in that regard, and substitute variables for names, you're absolutely free to do so, because it's a logic problem. Hey, have a great time. Eat a croque monsieur for me.

Okay. I think Crashfrog's reply in message #101, is far more articulate than I can strive to muster, so I'll just try and show you why other information is not relevant.None of this is relevant because we have all the information we need, in a logical capacity, so to speak.So you have to remove your insistance on assumptions. Assumptions about Joe are irrelevant, because I've only give you the information you require. The inference (as described in the answer), is allowed because like with a syllogism, you simply infer with the information you have.If I said;All pigs are pink
Dan is a pig

​

Dan is pink,Then complaining, "but what if Dan was painted green?", is an irrelevancy because it doesn't effect the inference.So many people are insistant upon having premisses as absolutes that they think they can't infer. (And I'm happy to discuss this.)A puzzle is absolute, because everything in it is made for the puzzle. Like Crash amusingly stated, poor Joe is just a noun. Every member only exists in the puzzle. Joe doesn't exist, so if he chooses to stuff church and kick back with a pizza and soda, more power to him. In the context of a riddle, it TRULY doesn't matter about real-world possibiities.In a way you're being logical, but for the wrong reasons. You're not assuming anything unless you absolutelycan. You just need to realize that YOU CAN because like with the syllogism, the premisses give you permission to infer.