Three guesses to the forums as to what would've been said by forumites if I had stated what Starfox is stating, other than what has been stated to Starfox (i.e. "you're an idiot").
Seeming as you ask. It's because you'd be an obnoxious idiot about it as opposed to a common or garden idiot.
I guess I don't really know what to say besides it can. Rules of formal logic and all. Call the two circles "married" and "single" if you want. It just so happens that in English they are the complement of each other, but one cannotassumethat.
You don't come from Utah, by any chance?
Seeming as you ask. It's because you'd be an obnoxious idiot about it as opposed to a common or garden idiot.
And you'd be as much so for giving idiocy a different status coming from a different person. Idiocy is classed as to itself, no matter whose mouth it comes from.
And you'd be as much so for giving idiocy a different status coming from a different person. Idiocy is classed as to itself, no matter whose mouth it comes from.
Ah, but you miss the point. It is the way in which he would have said it that would make him obnoxious.
And you'd be as much so for giving idiocy a different status coming from a different person. Idiocy is classed as to itself, no matter whose mouth it comes from.
Idiocy is idiocy, but it means different things from different people. For one person, it might be the norm; for another, it might be a lapse.
You guys are right. You all probably know more about formal logic than my professor.
O lawd, Is that some argument from authority?
He can be the king and queen of cheese, for all I care, but that doesn't make him right - It just makes him a more intelligent person, who has made a stupid statement while trying to justify his chosen answer.
Yeah, it would be, except he's a professor of philosophy. I believe that qualifies him as an expert in the subject.
Sure, but experts can be wrong. He's more likely to be correct, though.
Now, let's say that, in our logic puzzle, the states "married" and "unmarried" are specifically defined as being mutually exclusive and binary. As in "all persons are either married or unmarried." What happens then?
You guys are right. You all probably know more about formal logic than my professor.
Look, as Chaos pointed out earlier, your argument is invalid because there are not two circles. There is one circle that says Married. Everything that's not in that circle is unmarried. There are not a neither and a both state. What you're failing to see here is that Married and Unmarried are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
In logic, two mutually exclusive propositions are propositions that logically cannot both be true.
Except for the possibility of Anne not being a person - which means C is more correct.
Well, let's say we also define Anne as a person.
So the problem is more one of specific wording than anything else. You're right, framing it as a "logic puzzle" was a bit of a misnomer. It's a colloquial use, not a technical one.
So the problem should include these two stipulations: "All persons are either married or unmarried" and "Jack, George, and Anne are all persons." Then, it's a valid logic puzzle. That's what I read into the problem, but I also didn't read it as a true logic puzzle.
So the problem should include these two stipulations: "All persons are either married or unmarried" and "Jack, George, and Anne are all persons." Then, it's a valid logic puzzle. That's what I read into the problem, but I also didn't read it as a true logic puzzle.
At heart, it is a logic puzzle, however. Also, I still hold that the first stipulation is not required at all - by definition, the terms "unmarried" and "married" are mutually exclusive. If we don't use accepted definitions of words, it is impossible to communicate a logic puzzle in the first place, short of using lots of unwieldy symbols - the syntax for which is nothing but a widely accepted convention, and not "the one true Logic passed down by the Holy Creator".
I was also going to say that the stipulation that Jack is a person is unnecessary since being married meant he was definitely a person, but then I came across this.
Further possible stipulations that I believe are implicit and unnecessary include the fact that the two uses of "Jack" both refer to the same person, and similarly so for "George".
WIN!, well done Scott. The whole point of the question was to make people consider the states the second person could be in, not some four point, married, not married, un married or super married test about high level logic
Ah, but is the sea married to the sailor if the sailor is married to the sea? If not, it's only the sailor that's married, not the sea. Shit, that's kind of a tongue twister.
FICTIONAL being the operative word in that sentence.
What entities other than people are "married"?
A sailor can be "married" to the sea, for example.
Romantic and flowery description does not equate to a literal marriage. If I said that someone was married to the sea would you actually think they were married?
FICTIONAL being the operative word in that sentence.
Nowhere in the puzzle does it state that Anne, Jack and George cannot be fictional. Indeed, they are fictional by definition, because they are entities whose only purpose for existence is the logic puzzle itself.
FICTIONAL being the operative word in that sentence.
Nowhere in the puzzle does it state that Anne, Jack and George cannot be fictional. Indeed, they are fictional by definition, because they are entities whose only purpose for existence is the logic puzzle itself.
Ah, but is the sea married to the sailor if the sailor is married to the sea? If not, it's only the sailor that's married, not the sea. Shit, that's kind of a tongue twister.
The accepted definitions of "marriage" indicate a mutual relationship, so I contend that the sea is also married to the sailor.
Romantic and flowery description does not equate to a literal marriage. If I said that someone was married to the sea would you actually think they were married?
Ah, but those are valid uses of the word "married." You can also use the word to describe entities which are joined or united. The term "married," while most often used to describe the bonds of matrimony, is often used in other ways. So, yes, the sailor is literally married to the sea, but he is not in matrimony with the sea.
Ah, but is the sea married to the sailor if the sailor is married to the sea? If not, it's only the sailor that's married, not the sea. Shit, that's kind of a tongue twister.
The accepted definitions of "marriage" indicate a mutual relationship, so I contend that the sea is also married to the sailor.
Comments
He can be the king and queen of cheese, for all I care, but that doesn't make him right - It just makes him a more intelligent person, who has made a stupid statement while trying to justify his chosen answer.
Now, let's say that, in our logic puzzle, the states "married" and "unmarried" are specifically defined as being mutually exclusive and binary. As in "all persons are either married or unmarried." What happens then?
So the problem is more one of specific wording than anything else. You're right, framing it as a "logic puzzle" was a bit of a misnomer. It's a colloquial use, not a technical one.
So the problem should include these two stipulations: "All persons are either married or unmarried" and "Jack, George, and Anne are all persons." Then, it's a valid logic puzzle. That's what I read into the problem, but I also didn't read it as a true logic puzzle.
I was also going to say that the stipulation that Jack is a person is unnecessary since being married meant he was definitely a person, but then I came across this.
Further possible stipulations that I believe are implicit and unnecessary include the fact that the two uses of "Jack" both refer to the same person, and similarly so for "George".
Google Charts is pretty limited with Venn Diagrams, but adequate.
Damn those married animals!
Shit, that's kind of a tongue twister.