Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

Logical Puzzle

 Posts: 991 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 12:59:04 AMPosted: 5 months agoTake two scenarios.In the first, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a red chair.In the second, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a black chair.In which of these scenarios is it more likely that "all gloops are red", or are they equally as likely?
 Posts: 2,772 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 1:20:28 AMPosted: 5 months agoThis is a trick question, isn't it.
 Posts: 62 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 2:27:15 AMPosted: 5 months agoIt's equally as likely.Probability is dependent on the character of the 'riddler'.
 Posts: 991 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 2:30:15 AMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 1:20:28 AM, rross wrote:This is a trick question, isn't it.Not a trick question. It just has a surprising answer.
 Posts: 2,772 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 2:33:13 AMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 2:30:15 AM, Cobalt wrote:At 6/26/2016 1:20:28 AM, rross wrote:This is a trick question, isn't it.Not a trick question. It just has a surprising answer.Hmm. Okay, so is it less likely in the black chair scenario because there's a tiny chance that the chair is a gloop?
 Posts: 991 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 2:37:39 AMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 2:33:13 AM, rross wrote:Hmm. Okay, so is it less likely in the black chair scenario because there's a tiny chance that the chair is a gloop?Ah, that very well could be true. Let's assume that the chair is definitely *not* a gloop.
 Posts: 2,772 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 2:50:14 AMPosted: 5 months agoI don't want to say equally as likely because I'm getting the feeling that's the wrong answer. But...equally as likely?
 Posts: 2,181 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 2:59:18 AMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 12:59:04 AM, Cobalt wrote:Take two scenarios.In the first, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a red chair.In the second, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a black chair.In which of these scenarios is it more likely that "all gloops are red", or are they equally as likely?They are equal .Because the question that comes from both statements are ." What's a gloop. "And if you don't know what a gloop is .How can you possibly know what color they are.
 Posts: 2,181 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 3:08:37 AMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 12:59:04 AM, Cobalt wrote:Take two scenarios.In the first, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a red chair.In the second, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a black chair.In which of these scenarios is it more likely that "all gloops are red", or are they equally as likely?In the room with the black chair because you can rule out gloops being chairs.
 Posts: 991 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 3:10:39 AMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 3:08:37 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:In the room with the black chair because you can rule out gloops being chairs.I should have clarified -- "chairs" and "gloops" are not the same. A "gloop" cannot be a chair
 Posts: 2,181 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 3:10:46 AMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 3:08:37 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:At 6/26/2016 12:59:04 AM, Cobalt wrote:Take two scenarios.In the first, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a red chair.In the second, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a black chair.In which of these scenarios is it more likely that "all gloops are red", or are they equally as likely?In the room with the black chair because you can rule out gloops being chairs.But in the red room you could rule out gloops being red . Because all chairs are not red.
 Posts: 2,181 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 3:13:04 AMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 3:10:46 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:At 6/26/2016 3:08:37 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:At 6/26/2016 12:59:04 AM, Cobalt wrote:Take two scenarios.In the first, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a red chair.In the second, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a black chair.In which of these scenarios is it more likely that "all gloops are red", or are they equally as likely?In the room with the black chair because you can rule out gloops being chairs.But in the red room you could rule out gloops being red . Because all chairs are not red.I'm not playing any more .This messes with my head .Good day.
 Posts: 991 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 3:20:38 AMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 3:13:04 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:I'm not playing any more .This messes with my head .Good day.Ha, I understand. The answer is that the second scenario provides the more likely situation in which "all gloops are red" is true.Basically, any observation which alludes to the truth of a statement makes said statement more likely to be true. Ie, if you saw one gloop and it's red, you might say "all gloops are red". Seeing another gloop that happens to be red increases the likelihood that "all gloops are red" is true. (Since there are a finite number of gloops in the universe.)The statement "all gloops are red" is exactly equivalent to the statement "All non-red things are non-gloops". Because of what is mentioned above, any evidence supporting this statement increases the likelihood of its truth. So seeing a non-red object and determining it is not a gloop is evidence for the claim "all gloops are red". Thus, the latter scenario is the correct answer, since in that scenario you see one more "non-red, non-gloop object" than in the former scenario.
 Posts: 2,772 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 4:15:15 AMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 3:20:38 AM, Cobalt wrote:At 6/26/2016 3:13:04 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:I'm not playing any more .This messes with my head .Good day.Ha, I understand. The answer is that the second scenario provides the more likely situation in which "all gloops are red" is true.Basically, any observation which alludes to the truth of a statement makes said statement more likely to be true. Ie, if you saw one gloop and it's red, you might say "all gloops are red". Seeing another gloop that happens to be red increases the likelihood that "all gloops are red" is true. (Since there are a finite number of gloops in the universe.)The statement "all gloops are red" is exactly equivalent to the statement "All non-red things are non-gloops". Because of what is mentioned above, any evidence supporting this statement increases the likelihood of its truth. So seeing a non-red object and determining it is not a gloop is evidence for the claim "all gloops are red". Thus, the latter scenario is the correct answer, since in that scenario you see one more "non-red, non-gloop object" than in the former scenario.Yes, I see it, but when you come from a life of seeing objects in numbers which we can model as approaching infinity, and when you're not sure what a gloop is, and therefore whether any of the red objects in your memory are gloops nor the non-red objects, then any difference in likelihood is negligible.This just confirms me in my belief that too much emphasis on formal logic in decision-making is a mistake. It just doesn't work.
 Posts: 1,867 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 8:25:40 AMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 12:59:04 AM, Cobalt wrote:Take two scenarios.In the first, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a red chair.In the second, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a black chair.In which of these scenarios is it more likely that "all gloops are red", or are they equally as likely?Its more likely in the room with the red chair because a red gloop could camouflage itself against a red chair and be less apparent then if it had to hide in a room that had no red to conceal itself.
 Posts: 1,867 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 8:58:34 AMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 12:59:04 AM, Cobalt wrote:Take two scenarios.In the first, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a red chair.In the second, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a black chair.In which of these scenarios is it more likely that "all gloops are red", or are they equally as likely?You're using ambiguity when you ask which scenario is it more likely to affirm your information. Simply being told something doesn't give someone enough information as to the validity of it being true. But then you use scenario to imply that the room is relevant when it is ambiguous as well.Someone may simply say that if the room is relevant then only the room containing red will be more likely to have something red in it, a gloop.
 Posts: 1,867 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 9:02:53 AMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 3:20:38 AM, Cobalt wrote:At 6/26/2016 3:13:04 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:I'm not playing any more .This messes with my head .Good day.Ha, I understand. The answer is that the second scenario provides the more likely situation in which "all gloops are red" is true.Basically, any observation which alludes to the truth of a statement makes said statement more likely to be true. Ie, if you saw one gloop and it's red, you might say "all gloops are red". Seeing another gloop that happens to be red increases the likelihood that "all gloops are red" is true. (Since there are a finite number of gloops in the universe.)The statement "all gloops are red" is exactly equivalent to the statement "All non-red things are non-gloops".That statement is false. Just because all gloops are red doesn't mean there are things that are red that aren't gloops. You keep changing the goal posts, which is a fallacy, in some of your answers to other people.Because of what is mentioned above, any evidence supporting this statement increases the likelihood of its truth. So seeing a non-red object and determining it is not a gloop is evidence for the claim "all gloops are red". Thus, the latter scenario is the correct answer, since in that scenario you see one more "non-red, non-gloop object" than in the former scenario.
 Posts: 62 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 9:19:28 AMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 3:08:37 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:At 6/26/2016 12:59:04 AM, Cobalt wrote:Take two scenarios.In the first, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a red chair.In the second, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a black chair.In which of these scenarios is it more likely that "all gloops are red", or are they equally as likely?In the room with the black chair because you can rule out gloops being chairs.This is a nice answer.
 Posts: 2,181 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 9:29:34 AMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 9:19:28 AM, M0nK3Y wrote:At 6/26/2016 3:08:37 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:At 6/26/2016 12:59:04 AM, Cobalt wrote:Take two scenarios.In the first, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a red chair.In the second, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a black chair.In which of these scenarios is it more likely that "all gloops are red", or are they equally as likely?In the room with the black chair because you can rule out gloops being chairs.This is a nice answer.Yes but chairs can be ruled out to start with because not all chairs are red.But it could of been a different type of chair you haven't seen or known ov.
 Posts: 2,181 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 9:32:23 AMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 9:29:34 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:At 6/26/2016 9:19:28 AM, M0nK3Y wrote:At 6/26/2016 3:08:37 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:At 6/26/2016 12:59:04 AM, Cobalt wrote:Take two scenarios.In the first, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a red chair.In the second, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a black chair.In which of these scenarios is it more likely that "all gloops are red", or are they equally as likely?In the room with the black chair because you can rule out gloops being chairs.This is a nice answer.Yes but chairs can be ruled out to start with because not all chairs are red.But it could of been a different type of chair you haven't seen or known ov.What's your thoughts on what a gloop is.?I think it might be some Disney characters .
 Posts: 428 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 11:48:43 AMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 3:20:38 AM, Cobalt wrote:At 6/26/2016 3:13:04 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:I'm not playing any more .This messes with my head .Good day.Ha, I understand. The answer is that the second scenario provides the more likely situation in which "all gloops are red" is true.Basically, any observation which alludes to the truth of a statement makes said statement more likely to be true. Ie, if you saw one gloop and it's red, you might say "all gloops are red". Seeing another gloop that happens to be red increases the likelihood that "all gloops are red" is true. (Since there are a finite number of gloops in the universe.)The statement "all gloops are red" is exactly equivalent to the statement "All non-red things are non-gloops". Because of what is mentioned above, any evidence supporting this statement increases the likelihood of its truth. So seeing a non-red object and determining it is not a gloop is evidence for the claim "all gloops are red". Thus, the latter scenario is the correct answer, since in that scenario you see one more "non-red, non-gloop object" than in the former scenario.There's stronger evidence in the first room though. Evidence that red is actually a color.To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
 Posts: 710 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 12:33:57 PMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 12:59:04 AM, Cobalt wrote:Take two scenarios.In the first, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a red chair.In the second, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a black chair.In which of these scenarios is it more likely that "all gloops are red", or are they equally as likely?Its more likely in the first scenario. In the second, you know that "gloops" aren't chairs, but in the first, they could be anything.I don't have a signature. :-)
 Posts: 87 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 12:56:46 PMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 3:20:38 AM, Cobalt wrote:The statement "all gloops are red" is exactly equivalent to the statement "All non-red things are non-gloops".Yeah, that's a great way of looking at it, but please adress this:At 6/26/2016 9:02:53 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:Just because all gloops are red doesn't mean there are things that are red that aren't gloops.
 Posts: 87 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 1:10:51 PMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 12:56:46 PM, OlaNordmann wrote:At 6/26/2016 3:20:38 AM, Cobalt wrote:The statement "all gloops are red" is exactly equivalent to the statement "All non-red things are non-gloops".Yeah, that's a great way of looking at it, but please adress this:At 6/26/2016 9:02:53 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:Just because all gloops are red doesn't mean there are things that are red that aren't gloops.His phrasing is kind of strange. It's either a spelling error in there or I'm not understanding it correctly.To clearify my own stance: Just because all gloops are red, doesn't mean that all red things are gloops.
 Posts: 2,667 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 2:36:33 PMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 12:59:04 AM, Cobalt wrote:Take two scenarios.In the first, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a red chair.In the second, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a black chair.In which of these scenarios is it more likely that "all gloops are red", or are they equally as likely?This is an amusing question. For each of these scenarios, is the universe outside of the room being disregarded?
 Posts: 1,867 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 7:03:50 PMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 1:10:51 PM, OlaNordmann wrote:At 6/26/2016 12:56:46 PM, OlaNordmann wrote:At 6/26/2016 3:20:38 AM, Cobalt wrote:The statement "all gloops are red" is exactly equivalent to the statement "All non-red things are non-gloops".Yeah, that's a great way of looking at it, but please adress this:At 6/26/2016 9:02:53 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:Just because all gloops are red doesn't mean there are things that are red that aren't gloops.His phrasing is kind of strange. It's either a spelling error in there or I'm not understanding it correctly.To clearify my own stance: Just because all gloops are red, doesn't mean that all red things are gloops.Yeah we both posted this but I posted it in order to "copy""All gloops are red"........"all non red things are non gloops"...This actually says when removing the double negation where there are 2 nons........all red things are gloops, which isn't the same. As I told him in another post he keeps moving the goal posts because his first post is ambiguous....as chaos also points out with the question as to what the rooms represent and is this about a particular world or our current world etc....
 Posts: 991 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 7:12:25 PMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 9:02:53 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:The statement "all gloops are red" is exactly equivalent to the statement "All non-red things are non-gloops".That statement is false. Just because all gloops are red doesn't mean there are things that are red that aren't gloops. You keep changing the goal posts, which is a fallacy, in some of your answers to other people.The statement "all gloops are red" is equivalent to the statement "all non-red things are non-gloops" by contraposition. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]The one thing I should have mentioned in the original puzzle was that "you know what a gloop looks like" or that "there is no gloop in the room" or something along those lines, since the ambiguity does allow one to think that a gloop could be a chair or that it could be "hiding" on the chair.
 Posts: 991 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 7:14:43 PMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 1:10:51 PM, OlaNordmann wrote:At 6/26/2016 12:56:46 PM, OlaNordmann wrote:At 6/26/2016 3:20:38 AM, Cobalt wrote:The statement "all gloops are red" is exactly equivalent to the statement "All non-red things are non-gloops".Yeah, that's a great way of looking at it, but please adress this:At 6/26/2016 9:02:53 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:Just because all gloops are red doesn't mean there are things that are red that aren't gloops.His phrasing is kind of strange. It's either a spelling error in there or I'm not understanding it correctly.To clearify my own stance: Just because all gloops are red, doesn't mean that all red things are gloops.That is correct. The contrapositive of "all gloops are red" is "all non-red things are non-gloops." Not that "all red things are gloops".
 Posts: 991 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 7:17:22 PMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 2:36:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:At 6/26/2016 12:59:04 AM, Cobalt wrote:Take two scenarios.In the first, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a red chair.In the second, you are told that all "gloops" are red. You are then brought to a completely white room in which sits a black chair.In which of these scenarios is it more likely that "all gloops are red", or are they equally as likely?This is an amusing question. For each of these scenarios, is the universe outside of the room being disregarded?I did not provide enough information in the OP. Allow me to fill in relevant details based upon the response I've been getting.The universe outside the room can be thought of as our universe. Notably, the universe outside the room is the exact same in both scenarios. The only change made from the first scenario to the second is the color of the chair.Furthermore, you know what a gloop looks like. You know that a chair is not a gloop.
 Posts: 87 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/26/2016 7:19:33 PMPosted: 5 months agoAt 6/26/2016 7:14:43 PM, Cobalt wrote:At 6/26/2016 1:10:51 PM, OlaNordmann wrote:At 6/26/2016 12:56:46 PM, OlaNordmann wrote:At 6/26/2016 3:20:38 AM, Cobalt wrote:The statement "all gloops are red" is exactly equivalent to the statement "All non-red things are non-gloops".Yeah, that's a great way of looking at it, but please adress this:At 6/26/2016 9:02:53 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:Just because all gloops are red doesn't mean there are things that are red that aren't gloops.His phrasing is kind of strange. It's either a spelling error in there or I'm not understanding it correctly.To clearify my own stance: Just because all gloops are red, doesn't mean that all red things are gloops.That is correct. The contrapositive of "all gloops are red" is "all non-red things are non-gloops." Not that "all red things are gloops".Yeah we agree on that. That's why I don't quite understand how the color of the chair changes the outcome, considering "all gloops are read" is not the same as "all red things are gloops". Sorry if I'm not making my argument clear enough.