Logic Problem!

[Wernazuma III]

Oh, and I invented even a better hypothetical case, taking into account also the intention part:

The guy has 10$ each day, and he really goes to KFC each day. But the statement is a lie because he only did so because he didn't find a $5 whore all week long. If he had found one, he would not have kept his promise.

[Provost Harrison]

This has nothing to do with probability, it is to do with the dependency of one situation on another. It may be the opposite way round, it may be that he has to have $20 to buy a KFC. Nor do we know if he had KFC or not that week. Thus it is impossible to say if any of the conclusions are correct - we do not have the sufficient data.

[Provost Harrison]

Truth-value? Wern, it's a logic puzzle, not a Freudian assessment!

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
This has nothing to do with probability, it is to do with the dependency of one situation on another. It may be the opposite way round, it may be that he has to have $20 to buy a KFC.

That's right, you may insert any value. $10000000 if you want. It doesn't affect the reasoning, but how realistic the fictional situation is. So let's not argue on that ground. We agree here.

Nor do we know if he had KFC or not that week. Thus it is impossible to say if any of the conclusions are correct - we do not have the sufficient data.

Sorry but you repeat yourself. Yes, we don't know, that's why those values are variables. Luckily, they can have only 2 possible values (eat/not eat; 10$, not 10$), so we can simply check.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Truth-value? Wern, it's a logic puzzle, not a Freudian assessment!

Truth-value: TRUE or FALSE.
Whatever the correct term for my word "truth-value" may be, that's what I mean. Excuse my bad English.

[Wernazuma III]

I take you're trolling, so I give up.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Sorry but you repeat yourself. Yes, we don't know, that's why those values are variables. Luckily, they can have only 2 possible values (eat/not eat; 10$, not 10$), so we can simply check.

One state is dependent on the other. We cannot know one without the other. Hence the statements are crap.

[Provost Harrison]

Even if we did, we don't even know the relationship between the two. How do you know it is just the reverse relationship? How do you know it doesn't actually depend on the day of the week? There are far too many variables that can influence the relationship between the two, and therefore it is impossible to draw any conclusion.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


So you say the statement can be false even if he never reaches $10 because he wouldn't have gone to KFC even if he had had more.

Please ask God or the Great Inquisitor, I can't look into people's souls.
We have no good parameters for guessing intentions, we can only judge the action.

Except that in this case, no ACTION has occured yet, so we have to judge not what they have done but what they would do.

[SlowwHand]

He may get 2 dollars a day, go hungry all week, and enjoy succulent KFC on Friday. If he does, he's an idiot, but that's not the question.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Gibsie


Except that in this case, no ACTION has occured yet, so we have to judge not what they have done but what they would do.

But without knowing how much money he is going to have and what the relationship between money and his action is, we can't say a thing!

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Gibsie


Except that in this case, no ACTION has occured yet, so we have to judge not what they have done but what they would do.

Past or future is not relevant. Even if this already has happened, we don't know if he had the money or not. I'm just saying that if you don't judge on behavior only but also on intention, the whole thing is invalid.

[Gibsie]

Well, we do judge on behaviour, and IF he were to have $10 and then not go to KFC that would be a violation. If if if. The statement isn't ever proved false so we can only go by what he would do, which means we must consider what he would do in the future. And if he would break the "rule" then it falsifies the statement even if he never gets a chance to do it.

[Kuciwalker]

Wernazuma: your use of the word is correct.

edit: oh, there's another page. Responding to the last post on page 1.

[LordShiva]

Re: Logic Problem!

Originally posted by Gibsie
Consider the following statement: "Every day this week, if I have $10 in my pocket, then I will eat lunch at KFC."
If this statement is false, then which of the following statements must be true?

a. I will never eat lunch at KFC this week.
b. I will never have $10 in my pocket this week.
c. There is a day this week when I will have lunch at KFC.
d. There is a day this week when I will not have lunch at KFC.
e. None of the above

This poll is invalid