21–30 of 146 posts
I think this satisfies the requirements: there's certainly some number of blue dots for which the statement would be false, namely zero.
Love in Kleptopia needs to be explained better. The problem can only be solved if you can afix two padlocks onto a box, and I was presuming the lock box had a single, normally shaped padlock eye, which would make such a thing impossible. I find this happens a lot with "thought" problems: I can't solve it (and can often prove that) because the rules of the problem are inadequately explained.
I haven't looked at the solution but I don't see why it requires a box that can have two padlocks attached. A sends their open padlock and a box to B. B puts their open padlock in the box, and locks it with A's padlock and sends it back. A opens his padlock, puts the ring inside, locks it with B's padlock and sends it back. Maybe it was just too hard for you? :P
And they are both promptly stolen, because neither is inside a padlocked box. "anything sent through the mail will be stolen unless it is enclosed in a padlocked box". Anything includes padlocks and boxes. In fact, even the padlocked box would be stolen because it's not inside a padlocked box. And if it were, the outer box would just be stolen. The puzzle as written is just turtles all the way down.
The proper form of the riddle would be that anything except for a padlocked box will be stolen from the mail.
Love in Kleptopia needs to be explained better. The problem can only be solved if you can afix two padlocks onto a box, and I was presuming the lock box had a single, normally shaped padlock eye, which would make such a thing impossible. I find this happens a lot with "thought" problems: I can't solve it (and can often prove that) because the rules of the problem are inadequately explained.
To get super pedantic, even if that was the case you could use a lock out tag out type device to still attach two locks. https://www.media-partners.com/upload/i20121017160441/img1.j...
Love in Kleptopia needs to be explained better. The problem can only be solved if you can afix two padlocks onto a box, and I was presuming the lock box had a single, normally shaped padlock eye, which would make such a thing impossible. I find this happens a lot with "thought" problems: I can't solve it (and can often prove that) because the rules of the problem are inadequately explained.
In the Dot-town suicides, say the stranger says "Alice has a blue dot." Alice then kills herself. Why would the other residents die? I think this satisfies the requirements: there's certainly some number of blue dots for which the statement would be false, namely zero.
Love in Kleptopia needs to be explained better. The problem can only be solved if you can afix two padlocks onto a box, and I was presuming the lock box had a single, normally shaped padlock eye, which would make such a thing impossible. I find this happens a lot with "thought" problems: I can't solve it (and can often prove that) because the rules of the problem are inadequately explained.
In the Dot-town suicides, say the stranger says "Alice has a blue dot." Alice then kills herself. Why would the other residents die? I think this satisfies the requirements: there's certainly some number of blue dots for which the statement would be false, namely zero.
Yeah, I was thinking about if the stranger said something like, “not all the dots are blue.” This is non-trivial by the definition given, and no one would have to kill themselves at all.
In the Dot-town suicides, say the stranger says "Alice has a blue dot." Alice then kills herself. Why would the other residents die? I think this satisfies the requirements: there's certainly some number of blue dots for which the statement would be false, namely zero.
Yeah, I was thinking about if the stranger said something like, “not all the dots are blue.” This is non-trivial by the definition given, and no one would have to kill themselves at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I was thinking about if the stranger said something like, “not all the dots are blue.” This is non-trivial by the definition given, and no one would have to kill themselves at all.
If that were said to a population of 2 people, one with a blue dot and one with a red dot, the person with the red dot would kill themself immediately
If it was the latter, a one person town would always die.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I was thinking about if the stranger said something like, “not all the dots are blue.” This is non-trivial by the definition given, and no one would have to kill themselves at all.
"not all the dots are blue" - in the case where there are n people with n-1 blue dots and 1 red dot, the person with the red dot kills themself, and then everyone else kills themselves because they know that the red dot person killed themself because they did not see any red dots.
In a one red dot town, you could say “there is at least one blue dot”