 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmail isthebestcom> wrote:
> > OK, I think I've got it:
> >
> > "If you were to lie about telling me the truth about which door was safe,
> > which door would you indicate was safe?"
> >
> Just shoot him on the foot!
It wouldn't work in the original situation where you can only ask *one*
question (which implies that you can interact with the guards just once).
If you can ask them limitless questions or interact with them in an
unlimited way, the task becomes trivial.
I thought about another way of restricting the situation: The guards
will never answer to questions (or to actions) which would directly reveal
whether they are lying or telling the truth. (The solution to the original
problem never actually reveals which one is lying and which one is telling
the truth, and thus it's still a solution in this situation.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:47:27 -0500, Warp wrote:
> It wouldn't work in the original situation where you can only ask
> *one*
> question (which implies that you can interact with the guards just
> once).
I disagree - there's no explicit implication in the original riddle for
this. That would be a matter of interpretation.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I disagree - there's no explicit implication in the original riddle for
> this.
If that's the case then the original riddle doesn't make any sense.
It's too trivial.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:29:43 -0500, Warp wrote:
> If that's the case then the original riddle doesn't make any sense.
> It's too trivial.
Well, I disagree with that as well. Within the confines of the riddle
itself, asking one question is what's allowed - doing other things is
undefined within the scope of the riddle. Being undefined doesn't mean
it can't be done - most people don't think outside the scope of a
question being asked, particularly in the case of a riddle.
Q. Why is a duck?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:29:43 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> If that's the case then the original riddle doesn't make any sense.
>> It's too trivial.
>
> Well, I disagree with that as well. Within the confines of the riddle
> itself, asking one question is what's allowed - doing other things is
> undefined within the scope of the riddle. Being undefined doesn't mean
> it can't be done - most people don't think outside the scope of a
> question being asked, particularly in the case of a riddle.
>
> Q. Why is a duck?
>
With a conical answer of: 'Why the "?"?'?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:31:09 +0100, andrel wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:29:43 -0500, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> If that's the case then the original riddle doesn't make any sense.
>>> It's too trivial.
>>
>> Well, I disagree with that as well. Within the confines of the riddle
>> itself, asking one question is what's allowed - doing other things is
>> undefined within the scope of the riddle. Being undefined doesn't mean
>> it can't be done - most people don't think outside the scope of a
>> question being asked, particularly in the case of a riddle.
>>
>> Q. Why is a duck?
>>
> With a conical answer of: 'Why the "?"?'?
Conical? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:31:09 +0100, andrel wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:29:43 -0500, Warp wrote:
>>>
>>>> If that's the case then the original riddle doesn't make any sense.
>>>> It's too trivial.
>>> Well, I disagree with that as well. Within the confines of the riddle
>>> itself, asking one question is what's allowed - doing other things is
>>> undefined within the scope of the riddle. Being undefined doesn't mean
>>> it can't be done - most people don't think outside the scope of a
>>> question being asked, particularly in the case of a riddle.
>>>
>>> Q. Why is a duck?
>>>
>> With a conical answer of: 'Why the "?"?'?
>
> Conical? ;-)
>
I did my best to construct a interesting sequence of punctuation
characters that actually makes sense and then I blow it by such typo. :(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:08:02 +0100, andrel wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:31:09 +0100, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:29:43 -0500, Warp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If that's the case then the original riddle doesn't make any
>>>>> sense.
>>>>> It's too trivial.
>>>> Well, I disagree with that as well. Within the confines of the
>>>> riddle itself, asking one question is what's allowed - doing other
>>>> things is undefined within the scope of the riddle. Being undefined
>>>> doesn't mean it can't be done - most people don't think outside the
>>>> scope of a question being asked, particularly in the case of a
>>>> riddle.
>>>>
>>>> Q. Why is a duck?
>>>>
>>> With a conical answer of: 'Why the "?"?'?
>>
>> Conical? ;-)
>>
>>
> I did my best to construct a interesting sequence of punctuation
> characters that actually makes sense and then I blow it by such typo. :(
LOL, but given that this is a povray group, "conical" just makes it that
much funnier. :-)
YKYHBRTTMW.....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel escribió:
> With a conical answer of: 'Why the "?"?'?
Nitpick: afaik, quotes are supposed to be used the other way around.
First double quotes.
With a coMical answer of: "Why the '?'?"?
Or use <q> HTML tag (ass-u-ming the browser supports it), which
(standard says) will put the correct quotes for the current language,
even handling nesting.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:04:56 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Or use <q> HTML tag (ass-u-ming the browser supports it), which
> (standard says) will put the correct quotes for the current language,
> even handling nesting.
Assuming also that you post in HTML, which on newsgroups is generally
considered bad form.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
