Logic

Post Reply New Topic

Is Sherlock Holmes logical?

He makes far-reaching speculations.

"I see you have some mud on your shoe ... therefore, that tells me X, Y, Z".

I found it.

Speculative reason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_reason

"Speculative reason, sometimes called theoretical reason or pure reason, is theoretical (or logical, deductive) thought, as opposed to practical (active, willing) thought".

"Speculative reason provides the universal, necessary principles of logic"

So, since speculative reason is logical.

Therefore, it's logical to believe in GOD.

This puzzle is a bit more advanced logic.

3 gnomes walk along the Vondelpark in Amsterdam.
Helga, Carl, and Pinkie.
Helga claims that they are all three liars, Carl claims that exactly two of the three are liars,
and Pinkie claims that Helga & Carl are lying.

Is Pinkie a sincere or a liar

Not terrible advanced. The claim that all three are liars means that statement itself is a lie. “Exactly two” is kinda vague, but is most likely true. If it were a lie, it would mean only one gnome is lying. Since we already know Helga is a liar, assuming Carl is lying, that would mean only Helga is lying. If Pinkie is telling the truth, then there are still exactly two liars. But if Carl is lying, there’s only one liar. There can’t both be two liars and only one liar. So what Pinkie says is false.

In reality, nobody CONSISTENTLY tells the truth or lies, so all three could be either telling the truth or lying in some sense. So my conclusion is only one of several possibilities based on certain assumptions—that being that all three are either consistent liars or they are not.

Another thing that help is reverse the story, since in the readers mind starting the story out with an obvious lie creates bias within the reader’s mind. Pinkie claims the other two are lying. Carl claims exactly two are lying. Ok, but that COULD be true, and you STILL get that Pinkie is a liar. You could assume only one is lying (Helga), but that would make both Pinky AND Carl liars, which means Helga is telling the truth, except if only one is telling the truth and the truth statement “all three are liars” is false, Helga can’t possibly be telling the truth. So Pinkie is STILL lying. Doesn’t matter how you look at it!

Fun times. Reminds me of Sarah’s door riddle in “Labyrinth.”

Reading comprehension is not my strongest side, I will get there, but it will take much longer than the average person before something dawns. This was also with the above spell. Fantasy & logic are the opposite of each other, was the reaction in the first flash of a second. But a few seconds later it dawned on me that the spell is not that bad at all. If the starting point of your path of thought starts via the creativity fantasy, the frame of mind of your mind is much and much larger than that your starting point starts linearly from logic. Starting from the logic framework is much stricter, if not impossible, to start thinking from the logic creation. A swimming pool which is frozen, it is difficult to swim. A swimming pool where you can swim in, you can do much more than just swim, you can also drink the swimming water. That it is much slower to get into the logic mode via creativity mode also seems very 'logical' to me. In the creative mindset there are extremely much more variable than through logic. The pin that I find in a haystack is that the same pin that is sometimes found in a matchbox
I don't think so, the possibility that you can draw at a haystack is many times greater. That pin in a haystack therefore also seems to me to be more advanced-pointed than the pin that I find in a matchbox.

Einstein's Logic Puzzle

On a dutch autism-forum http://www.autsider.net i posted the logic-puzzle from below. Somebody did give the answer. So i don't know iff i was able to solve it by myself. If i have plenty of time maybe i could do it. But with my extreme slow processing speed i was unable to solve it in a quick way.

Albert Einstein once posed a brain teaser that he predicted only 2% of the worlds population would be able to solve.

FACTS:
1. There are 5 houses in 5 different colours.
2. In each house lives a person with a different nationality.
3. These 5 owners drink a certain beverage, smoke a certain brand of cigarette and keep a certain pet.
4. No owners have the same pet, brand of cigaratte, or drink.

CLUES:
1. The Brit lives in a red house
2. The Swede keeps a dog
3. The Dane drinks tea
4. The green house is on the left of the white house.
5. The green house owner drinks coffee.
6. The person who smokes Pall Mall keeps birds.
7. The owner of the yellow house smokes Dunhill.
8. The man living in the house right in the center drinks milk
9. The Norwegian lives in the first house.
10. The man who smokes Blend lives next to the one who keeps cats
11. The man who keeps horses lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill
12. The owner who smokes Camel drinks beer
13. The German smokes Marlborough.
14. The Norwegian lives next to the blue house
15. The man who smokes Blend has a neighbour who drinks water.

The question is, who keeps the fish

The German has the fish.

Very clever la_fenkis !
Did you solve it by visualize it with pen and paper, or just in your mind?

Pen and paper: The German keeps the fish.

I wrote it out. It's a bit too much to keep in working memory.

7th Grade (c.1970): The German in the green house (4th from the left) drinks coffee, smokes Prince, and keeps fish as pets. The green house could also be 4th from the right if the order of the houses was reversed, but the rest would still be the same.

That's exactly what I got, except the brand of cigarette, but that's from the variation presented here. It's a pretty simple problem of the same general class as sudoku.

The puzzle below i did make it by myself some years ago. So it shall be difficult to find the answer on the internet

Move 2 matches so that it is mathematically correct.
No matches may be laid flat on top of each other. The 2 matches to be moved may not be placed in the box, they must be placed so that they remain visible. The matches may not be broken. All the matches inside the box have to stay inside, no matches from the box have to be moved.

Fallacies are a great study. That book sounds interesting. I can recognize some of them in the day to day. (eg. strawman, the undistributed middle, reductio ad absurdum, etc)