You sit down at a table. The above cards are displayed on the table. You are told that each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other.
Now, consider the following rule:
Now, given that each card really does have a letter on one side and a number on the other, flipping as few cards as possible, which cards would you have to turn over to see if the rule you are considering is true of these four cards?
Now, consider the following rule:
If there is a vowel on one side, then there is an even number on the other.
Now, given that each card really does have a letter on one side and a number on the other, flipping as few cards as possible, which cards would you have to turn over to see if the rule you are considering is true of these four cards?
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
You sit down at a table. The above cards are displayed on the table. You are told that each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other. Now, consider the following rule: If there is a vowel on one side, then there is an even number on the other.…
Which cards would you have to flip to determine if the rule?
Final Results
20%
Just E
0%
Just K
10%
Just 4
2%
Just 7
10%
E and 4
20%
E and 7
18%
E, 4, and 7
0%
E, K, and 4
4%
E, K, and 7
16%
All 4 cards
The Daily Poor is apparently now a logic puzzle channel
A new report indicates almost half of young adults experience “money dysmorphia”.
According to a report from Qualtrics commissioned by Intuit Credit Karma, 29 per cent of Americans say they often find themselves comparing their financial situation to others, sparking feelings of inadequacy and insecurity. While surveying 1,006 US adults above the age of 18 from 18 to 26 December 2023, researchers found that these feelings were found predominantly among younger adults, specifically 43 per cent of Gen Z and 41 per cent of millennials.
This new phenomenon was defined as “money dysmorphia,” which describes the distorted view of one’s finances, and how it could contribute to poor decision-making as a result. Those who experienced this issue were more likely to feel financially behind their peers, with 82 per cent reportedly noting that they struggled with financial insecurity.
Learn to be happy with less and you can leave the feelings of monetary insecurity behind. Who cares if you have less if you're able to live as well or better with less? Focus first and foremost on improving yourself so that you can be a good human being and live well, then you won't have to worry so much about finances.
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
You sit down at a table. The above cards are displayed on the table. You are told that each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other. Now, consider the following rule: If there is a vowel on one side, then there is an even number on the other.…
You have to flip the E and the 7.
Why do you need to flip the E? To see if there's an even number on the other side, like the rule suggests.
Why do you need to skip the 7? Because if there is a vowel on the other side, then the rule is falsified, as a card with a vowel has an odd number when the rule says it should be even.
Additionally, the other two cards do not need to be flipped because no possible combination could falsify the rule. The K is a consonant, and the rule says and implies nothing about what needs to be on the other side of consonants. Similarly, 4 does not need to be flipped since the rule does not suggest that even numbers necessarily have vowels on the other side; evens are necessary, but not sufficient, for a vowel to be on the other side.
Why do you need to flip the E? To see if there's an even number on the other side, like the rule suggests.
Why do you need to skip the 7? Because if there is a vowel on the other side, then the rule is falsified, as a card with a vowel has an odd number when the rule says it should be even.
Additionally, the other two cards do not need to be flipped because no possible combination could falsify the rule. The K is a consonant, and the rule says and implies nothing about what needs to be on the other side of consonants. Similarly, 4 does not need to be flipped since the rule does not suggest that even numbers necessarily have vowels on the other side; evens are necessary, but not sufficient, for a vowel to be on the other side.
Berta says that Greta tells lies.
Greta says that Rosa tells lies.
Rosa says that both Berta and Greta tell lies.
Who is telling the truth?
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
Berta says that Greta tells lies. Greta says that Rosa tells lies. Rosa says that both Berta and Greta tell lies. Who is telling the truth?
Who is telling the truth?
Final Results
19%
None of them
8%
Just Berta
19%
Just Greta
21%
Just Rosa
0%
Berta and Greta
2%
Berta and Rosa
0%
Greta and Rosa
10%
All 3
22%
It's impossible to tell
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Not what I expected from a talk by Vladimir Kramnik, but I'll take it. Lol
Forwarded from Working Man Memes (Howdy)
Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
Berta says that Greta tells lies. Greta says that Rosa tells lies. Rosa says that both Berta and Greta tell lies. Who is telling the truth?
We are looking for the combination of truth-telling and lying that does not lead to a contradiction.
Let’s say Berta is telling the truth. It follows that Greta is lying. So, since Greta is lying, Rosa must be telling the truth. But if she is telling the truth, then both Berta and Greta are lying, which contradicts our previous idea that Berta was telling the truth. Given that all of this emerged just from the assumption that Berta was telling the truth, she must be lying. This is a Reductio ad Absurdum, a form of argument that establishes a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to contradiction.
Now, we just have to test the idea that Berta is lying. If Berta lying also leads to a contradiction, then we've discovered a paradox that will be unsolvable, in which no real answer exists. If, on the other hand, we find that it doesn't lead to a contradiction, then we've discovered the truth.
Berta lying implies that Greta tells the truth. And then Greta telling the truth implies that Rosa is lying. Lastly, since Rosa said that both Greta and Berta are lying, and was herself lying according to our current results, at least once of them must be telling the truth. And, since we have labeled Greta as telling the truth, this works out.
So, the correct answer is that Greta is telling the truth and the other two are lying.
Let’s say Berta is telling the truth. It follows that Greta is lying. So, since Greta is lying, Rosa must be telling the truth. But if she is telling the truth, then both Berta and Greta are lying, which contradicts our previous idea that Berta was telling the truth. Given that all of this emerged just from the assumption that Berta was telling the truth, she must be lying. This is a Reductio ad Absurdum, a form of argument that establishes a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to contradiction.
Now, we just have to test the idea that Berta is lying. If Berta lying also leads to a contradiction, then we've discovered a paradox that will be unsolvable, in which no real answer exists. If, on the other hand, we find that it doesn't lead to a contradiction, then we've discovered the truth.
Berta lying implies that Greta tells the truth. And then Greta telling the truth implies that Rosa is lying. Lastly, since Rosa said that both Greta and Berta are lying, and was herself lying according to our current results, at least once of them must be telling the truth. And, since we have labeled Greta as telling the truth, this works out.
So, the correct answer is that Greta is telling the truth and the other two are lying.
Forwarded from Post Cards from Bogogobo (Specter - 1)