Newest at the top
| 2024-05-13 22:14:16 +0200 | euphores | (~SASL_euph@user/euphores) |
| 2024-05-13 22:12:33 +0200 | todi | (~todi@p57803331.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2024-05-13 21:59:23 +0200 | philopsos | (~caecilius@user/philopsos) |
| 2024-05-13 21:56:52 +0200 | philopsos1 | (~caecilius@user/philopsos) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2024-05-13 21:54:25 +0200 | robosexual | (~spaceoyst@5.167.241.127) (Quit: Konversation terminated!) |
| 2024-05-13 21:50:21 +0200 | yin | (~yin@user/zero) (Quit: leaving) |
| 2024-05-13 21:50:11 +0200 | <mauke> | monochrom: in my version of the puzzle, it is very possible that neither box contains the key since all the information you have about the situation came from me |
| 2024-05-13 21:49:56 +0200 | <monochrom> | It's why my really pragmatic choices are starving to death or blowing to death. |
| 2024-05-13 21:49:26 +0200 | <mauke> | hah. "None of the doors actually lead out." |
| 2024-05-13 21:49:17 +0200 | <monochrom> | Yeah I was ready to believe that the lunatic has one more locked room outside my current locked room. |
| 2024-05-13 21:48:29 +0200 | <int-e> | Oh and I also love this take on this general type of puzzle: https://xkcd.com/246/ |
| 2024-05-13 21:48:07 +0200 | <monochrom> | Then you need to appeal to Penrose and hope that your brain has a Geiger counter built-in. |
| 2024-05-13 21:47:52 +0200 | <dolio> | If that's the analogy, then aren't you the one assuming that the program does have undefined behavior even though it doesn't? |
| 2024-05-13 21:47:38 +0200 | <monochrom> | The lunatic didn't give you a Geiger counter, so you probably can't. :) |
| 2024-05-13 21:47:33 +0200 | <EvanR> | like quantum suicide |
| 2024-05-13 21:47:04 +0200 | <EvanR> | i didn't follow the entire discussion but can I fork two processes each opens one of the boxes |
| 2024-05-13 21:46:44 +0200 | <mauke> | similarly, the compiler doesn't worry about it because it is then the programmer's fault |
| 2024-05-13 21:46:28 +0200 | <int-e> | (and many others) |
| 2024-05-13 21:46:27 +0200 | <mauke> | <monochrom> But I don't worry about it because it is then the question's fault. |
| 2024-05-13 21:46:24 +0200 | <int-e> | cf. Gödel |
| 2024-05-13 21:46:14 +0200 | <int-e> | Eh I wouldn't call it blind trust. |
| 2024-05-13 21:45:47 +0200 | euphores | (~SASL_euph@user/euphores) (Quit: Leaving.) |
| 2024-05-13 21:45:32 +0200 | <mauke> | and mathematicians are C compilers that blindly assume UB can never happen :-) |
| 2024-05-13 21:45:27 +0200 | <monochrom> | FSVO "like". |
| 2024-05-13 21:45:08 +0200 | <mauke> | this is like the C standard and undefined behavior |
| 2024-05-13 21:44:59 +0200 | <mauke> | ooh, I know what this is |
| 2024-05-13 21:44:43 +0200 | <int-e> | (I feel that a complete solution to the original problem should exhibit a model. Or both :)) |
| 2024-05-13 21:44:37 +0200 | <monochrom> | But I don't worry about it because it is then the question's fault. |
| 2024-05-13 21:44:37 +0200 | rekahsoft | (~rekahsoft@184.148.6.204) |
| 2024-05-13 21:43:50 +0200 | <monochrom> | You are right, but since your version contains a contradiction (equivalently a fixed point equation that has no solution), every complete proof system will prove the same nonsense. This means even natural deduction is vulnerable. |
| 2024-05-13 21:43:40 +0200 | <int-e> | It's not. It's just assumed that the assumptions are consistent, and in your case they aren't. |
| 2024-05-13 21:40:54 +0200 | <mauke> | but what makes this derivation different from the "proof" in the paper? |
| 2024-05-13 21:40:21 +0200 | <mauke> | I consider this derivation defective because you can't just plug some (possibly contradictory) statements into a formula, derive a result according to some logical rules, and then call it a day |
| 2024-05-13 21:39:15 +0200 | tromp | (~textual@92-110-219-57.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl) |
| 2024-05-13 21:39:05 +0200 | <mauke> | yes :-) |
| 2024-05-13 21:38:57 +0200 | <int-e> | mauke: You can also prove that the portrait is in the silver casket, so you get two portraits! |
| 2024-05-13 21:37:40 +0200 | <monochrom> | My supervisor (that would be the Hehner mentioned in the paper) changed that to the less morbid: The teacher says there is a surprise test this week. :) |
| 2024-05-13 21:36:07 +0200 | <int-e> | has anybody mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox yet? (at least not by this name) |
| 2024-05-13 21:35:51 +0200 | <mauke> | true ==> true \/ P(G) ==> (S = -G) \/ P(G) ==> (S = -S) \/ P(G) ==> false \/ P(G) ==> P(G) |
| 2024-05-13 21:34:43 +0200 | <mauke> | ok, what's wrong with the following? consider a similar situation but with the gold inscription G being "the silver inscription is true" and the silver inscription S being "the gold inscription is false". I can then formally prove that the portrait is in the gold casket (P(G)) in a derivation similar to that in the paper. |
| 2024-05-13 21:33:20 +0200 | yin | (~yin@user/zero) |
| 2024-05-13 21:28:22 +0200 | <monochrom> | Right? We know of escape rooms that are way more logical than the lunatic. :) |
| 2024-05-13 21:27:04 +0200 | <monochrom> | For the lunatic case, I may consider adding the simulation hypothesis and say that I'm in a simulation, not the least because why else there is lunatic targetting me, so I open both boxes to ensure efficient end of the simulation. >:) |
| 2024-05-13 21:25:26 +0200 | <ncf> | in other words, logic puzzles are not a survival manual |
| 2024-05-13 21:24:44 +0200 | <int-e> | ncf: ah. how long has... oh god. |
| 2024-05-13 21:24:37 +0200 | <monochrom> | In the same way the sentinel puzzle begins with "you don't know whether he's honest or lying but it is one of them". |
| 2024-05-13 21:24:19 +0200 | <ncf> | if you refuse to read the inscriptions there is no puzzle |
| 2024-05-13 21:24:11 +0200 | <ncf> | we've been over this <ncf> the hidden piece of information is that both sentences are meaningful |
| 2024-05-13 21:23:49 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | it draws a conclusion from the inscriptions |
| 2024-05-13 21:23:47 +0200 | <int-e> | the inscription could be meaningless |