41–46 of 46 posts
Is the Gödel Escher Bach worth the reading? I started, but I feel it's fluff. People say he is good, though. Are there some practical insights?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're simply playing semantics and defining "puzzle" as "something that has a solution". But if you're at work and your boss says "I have a puzzle I need you to solve: Given these constraints, find an answer" You need to be able to say "Here is my solution" or "No solution is possible, and here is why." Or take something simpler: a 500 piece "Puzzle" only there's a manufacturing defect in all copies: one piece is mi…
I think his point: "If it asks you for a solution that doesn't exist, It's a Riddle" is a perfectly valid point and your comment was a bit "overreactive", in my opinion.
You and the parent comment claim it's not a puzzle, it's a riddle, with the implication that's somehow unfair or deceptive in how the problem was framed.
That is a semantic hair splitting that dodges the problem & its answer. In real life problems you don't get to define away responsibility for problems put in front of you. And if thoroughly stating my case is "overractive", then I'm guilty, but I find it's generally better to over-support my argument than state claims without justification.
I have learn more geometry from trying to solve the unsolvable "squaring the circle" problem than all the Geom. classes I had in my life. For example: No one ever has told me in school that for all squares, the length of the diagonal equals The Square Root Of Two times the side of the square's, so for a square where the side is 1 meter, the diagonal will be Sq.Rt.o'2 meters (around 1,4 m), And I came to find that by…
> No one ever has told me in school that for all squares, the length of the diagonal equals The Square Root Of Two times the side of the square's This is basic knowledge (and as someone said, comes from the Pythagorean theorem) and taught on school in a lot of places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would continue arguing that "unsolvable" is not a valid solution to this puzzle . If the description asks you to "find the solution" and the solution does not exist, then it is a riddle, not a puzzle.
You're simply playing semantics and defining "puzzle" as "something that has a solution". But if you're at work and your boss says "I have a puzzle I need you to solve: Given these constraints, find an answer" You need to be able to say "Here is my solution" or "No solution is possible, and here is why." Or take something simpler: a 500 piece "Puzzle" only there's a manufacturing defect in all copies: one piece is mi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say the first half is great, second half is terrible. It is a lot of fluff and meandering, but the dialogue are just too good, and I still enjoy them. Some people have recommended reading "I am a strange loop" as a basically more mature and better written version of GEB.
There is a section in the book where he laments that certain mediums (like books, and movies) leak information about where the story ends (because in a book as you are reading it you will know you are coming towards the end). He explained one way to avoid this and retain some mystery in story-telling would be to finish the story some distance before the end and pad the remainder of the book with blank pages. However…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're simply playing semantics and defining "puzzle" as "something that has a solution". But if you're at work and your boss says "I have a puzzle I need you to solve: Given these constraints, find an answer" You need to be able to say "Here is my solution" or "No solution is possible, and here is why." Or take something simpler: a 500 piece "Puzzle" only there's a manufacturing defect in all copies: one piece is mi…
Different contexts. In the real world it's understood that anything is possible (you can also clarify if unclear). But in a book like this, you put trust in the author to use precise language, and especially given the nature of this particular book. Maybe it was done purposefully for effect, but that's still jarring.
All of which is besides the point: "Puzzle" and "Riddle" are pretty much interchangeable. They appear as synonyms for each other in thesauri; "riddle" is given as one of multiple definitions for "puzzle" in wiktionary. Many sources treat "riddle" as a kind of "puzzle". The degree to which riddle might be more appropriate in a given context relies on a few factors, for example riddles often tend towards more verbal basis, spoken or written. A puzzle is the broader category and can include things like physical object such as a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle. But any difference is still only that of broader category and specific type. Either term is valid here.
So stating "It's not a puzzle, it's a riddle" is indeed splitting hairs, or simply not knowing the nuances of the actual definitions of those words. The OP of that comment appeared to be doing so with the implication that the whole problem was somehow unfair as a result. I cry foul on that assertion for the reasons stated.