Monday Puzzle #3: "Circular Reasoning"
- Thread starter Jadzia
- Start date
Yay!! 
I'm not going to play this time.
I don't like this sort of logic-based/number-crunching puzzle. Anyone can force an answer from the information provided, by running through a series of rules and testing which fails. That kind of puzzle is best done by machines.
I much prefer the lateral-thinking detective type of puzzle. Or, if you like, crosswords to sudoku.
I don't like this sort of logic-based/number-crunching puzzle. Anyone can force an answer from the information provided, by running through a series of rules and testing which fails. That kind of puzzle is best done by machines.
I much prefer the lateral-thinking detective type of puzzle. Or, if you like, crosswords to sudoku.
You will love next week's.I'm not going to play this time.
I don't like this sort of logic-based/number-crunching puzzle. Anyone can force an answer from the information provided, by running through a series of rules and testing which fails. That kind of puzzle is best done by machines.
I much prefer the lateral-thinking detective type of puzzle. Or, if you like, crosswords to sudoku.
Often easier said than done.
It is good that anyone can answer it. It makes it a balanced and accessible question. The skill is in coming up with an effective method for solving it. This makes the problem solving as intuitive and holistic as it is logical and analytic.
Point taken.
Well, put more simply, I just don't find this kind of problem solving enjoyable to do.
Puzzles should not be fair. They should be grossly UNfair, requiring a rare and unique moment of incisive inspiration to solve and make it all suddenly clear. Puzzles that are fair are not puzzles, they're maths or logic PROBLEMS. I don't do problems for fun.
I'll see you next week.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
I'll post in thread since the thread is now over.
This puzzle makes no sense for the following reason:
Ok so a yellow must be either circle or triangle because they are never square.
So a yellow object cannot be rough because a yellow object can only be a circle or triangle.
Only squares can be rough, therefore they're not circles and therefore from what you say must be yellow.
But you've said (in the top quote of this post) that yellow shapes are never square.
So this makes no sense at all. It contradicts itself.
How anyone got the answer is beyond me.
This puzzle makes no sense for the following reason:
Ok so a yellow must be either circle or triangle because they are never square.
So a yellow object cannot be rough because a yellow object can only be a circle or triangle.
Only squares can be rough, therefore they're not circles and therefore from what you say must be yellow.
But you've said (in the top quote of this post) that yellow shapes are never square.
So this makes no sense at all. It contradicts itself.
How anyone got the answer is beyond me.
I don't think the thread has quite run its course yet, Tachyon Shield... the answer is normally given on Friday. 
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
oh sorry I thought thread was over. 
I saw the last post said "such and such is correct" so I thought the winner had been named. 
Sorry.
It still don't make sense though.
I saw the last post said "such and such is correct" so I thought the winner had been named. Sorry.
It still don't make sense though.
That's the great thing about this contest. There's a winner, but the contest goes on until the last one is dead.oh sorry I thought thread was over.
Sorry.
It still don't make sense though.
oh sorry I thought thread was over.
Sorry.
It still don't make sense though.
Okay, well I might as well give some general help with the puzzle.
Contradiction is a valid tool in reasoning, and arguably the most important. When you chain several logical statements together, it is common to create contradictions with values of some the variables, and that says something important about those variables -- specifically values which cannot appear in any solution.
So for example, if one statement said "blue objects are always hexagons" and another said "hexagons can never be blue", then you can deduce that "blue objects cannot be blue".
This is not a contradiction of the "colour" variable, but is a contradiction of a specific value of the colour variable. This simply means that the colour variable cannot take the value of "blue" in any solution to the problem.
If there are no blue objects, then rules about blue objects are arbitrary and become irrelevant.
Last edited:
oh sorry I thought thread was over.
Sorry.
It still don't make sense though.
Okay, well I might as well give some general help with the puzzle.
Contradiction is a valid tool in reasoning, and arguably the most important. When you chain several logical statements together, it is common to create contradictions with values of some the variables, and that says something important about those variables -- specifically values which cannot appear in the solution.
So for example, if one statement said "blue objects are always hexagons" and another said "hexagons can never be blue", then you can deduce that "blue objects cannot be blue".
This is not a contradiction of the "colour" variable, but is a contradiction of a specific value of the colour variable. This simply means that the colour variable cannot take the value of "blue" in any solution to the problem.
It's the various contradictions that make it possible to solve
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
Well i'm beat, my head hurts with it so I give in.
::Tents fingers::
I like the direction the ____ Quiz is going.
I like the direction the ____ Quiz is going.
Similar threads
