One day you are perusing the puzzles and posers forum on RHP, when you come across a puzzle posed by the user Anthem. You think about the puzzle and then you give your answer, which is: No (though you might have written it less concisely).
Is it possible that this (the puzzle that you are reading right now) is the puzzle described above?
Suppose you, me, everyone on RHP, the Oxford English Dictionary, Bertrand Russell, Aristotle and God all agree that in order for something to be a puzzle it must have an answer.
Suppose you, me, everyone on RHP, the Oxford English Dictionary, Bertrand Russell, Aristotle and God all agree that in order for something to be a puzzle it must have an answer.
One day you are perusing the puzzles and posers forum on RHP, when you come across a puzzle posed by the user Anthem. You think about the puzzle and then you give your answer, which is: No (though you might have written it less concisely).
Is it possible that this (the puzzle that you are reading right now) is the puzzle described above?
One day you are perusing the puzzles and posers forum on RHP, when you come across a puzzle posed by the user Anthem. You think about the puzzle and then you give your answer, which is: No (though you might have written it less concisely).
Is it possible that this (the puzzle that you are reading right now) is the puzzle described above?
I'll bite. 🙂
The answer is "No". Despite the fact that both the current puzzle and the hypothetical puzzle can both be answered by a "No.", I don't see why that would create a loop.
If you answer "yes" to this puzzle, its clear that you are incorrect, because I stated that you answer "no" to the described puzzle. However, if you answer "no" then all of the details of this puzzle match those of the described puzzle (you read it on the puzzles forum, you (presumably) thought about it, and then you answered "no" ), and so the described puzzle could possibly be this puzzle, so again you are incorrect. To summarize: Whether you answer "yes" or "no" the correct answer is the opposite.
forkedknight - I guess I shouldn't be too surprised you made that connection, but I thought this up while reading Mr. Hofstadter's "I am a Strange Loop".
edit: rereading my original post, perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "day", as this leaves a loop hole open for those that post at night.
Originally posted by Anthem If you answer "yes" to this puzzle, its clear that you are incorrect, because I stated that you answer "no" to the described puzzle. However, if you answer "no" then all of the details of this puzzle match those of the described puzzle (you read it on the puzzles forum, you (presumably) thought about it, and then you answered "no" ), and so the described puzz the word "day", as this leaves a loop hole open for those that post at night.
If it could, that would lead to a contradiction, so it can't. I still don't see any paradox. There can be other puzzles that do match all the details, you need to exclude that possibility in order to claim that a No to the question implies a Yes in the original setup.
Originally posted by Palynka If it could, that would lead to a contradiction, so it can't. I still don't see any paradox. There can be other puzzles that do match all the details, you need to exclude that possibility in order to claim that a No to the question implies a Yes in the original setup.
This is why I ask if it is possible that this is the puzzle, not if this is the puzzle. Because I asked about possibility, not actuality, we do not need to exclude other puzzles.
Also: The correct answer could be "yes" or it could be "no" without any contradiction. It is also required that you give that answer correctly for there to be a contradiction.
Originally posted by Anthem This is why I ask if it is possible that this is the puzzle, not if this is the puzzle. Because I asked about possibility, not actuality, we do not need to exclude other puzzles.
Also: The correct answer could be "yes" or it could be "no" without any contradiction. It is also required that you give that answer correctly for there to be a contradiction.
I'm not saying you're wrong (probably I am), but I just don't get where the contradiction is, sorry. 🙁
No problem Palynka, let me lay my argument out step by step, and you tell me where you don't follow/disagree. I'll use the term "given puzzle" for the puzzle that we're trying to answer, and "described puzzle" for the puzzle that is described in the puzzle that we're trying to answer.
Suppose you provide the answer "no" and that answer is correct.
(1) Then you are saying that it is not possible that the described puzzle is the given puzzle.
(2) The set (I'll call it S) of all puzzles that the described puzzle could possibly be is the set of all puzzles that match the description.
(3) Thus, because "no" is the correct answer the given puzzle is not in S.
(4) So, the given puzzle does not match the description.
(5) However, because you said "no" (and the other details match too) the given puzzle does match the description. Contradiction.
This puzzle?
09 Aug '11 19:251 edit
Back to Top