DUUUUHHHH!!!
At last, it sinks in!
But although you have reached the same conclusion you have done it for the wrong reasons.
The logicians do not know that the groups are even, and thus cannot make any logical conclusions based on that.
DOn’t worry.
You don’t have to thank me for my patience and fortitude.
neither do you have to apologise for your insulting behaviour
That’s the mistake.
If I see one brown eyed person that didn’t leave, I know that he is seeing another.
Because I cannot see another, it must be me that he is seeing.
Nice try (and expected), but no cigar.
You have still been totally wrong.
How in the world do you know that?
I just demonstrated that if there is only 1 brown-eyed person he wouldn’t leave. So the fact that he doesn’t leave obviously CAN’T logically imply that he’s necessarily seeing another, since if he wasn’t seeing another…didn’t I just prove that if he wasn’t seeing another, he wouldn’t leave?
Please take the trouble to replace the word BROWN with BLUE. There is NO difference.
No one knows his group. No one can ever tell which group his is in.
Your logical solution depends on that ‘belonging’ and thus the whole thing is rubbish.
Wait, I stated that wrong… let me back up…
Hobbes, you agreed with the 1-person case, so…you agreed with the contradiction of your above post.
So, you now have to make up your mind:
Can the case of 1 blue-eyed person work, or can it not?
Are you changing your mind about that?
If you’re not changing your mind, then clearly we can’t just replace ‘brown’ with ‘blue’, because to do so would be to say that the 1 blue-eyed person case can’t work.
Choose 1 and only 1.
Denial is not an argument.
No logician can ever see any other logician of any eye colour ever leaving as there is not way for any logician to even accurately determine his eye colour.
The guru could have said that he saw a brown-eyed person. The same logic which you used for the 1 blue-eyed person scenario would equally apply.
But he didn’t say that…
IF, counterfactually, the guru did say that, then yes, I agree.
James’ position is not ‘If the guru said that’, James’ position as I understand it, is ‘Given what the Guru actually said.’
The guru could have merely said, “START!!”
Everyone can already see that there are many of both blue and brown.
If the number of both groups wasn’t exactly even, they all could.
FJ,…
The logic that you presented is merely saying that IF THERE WERE ONLY 1, or 2, or 3…
In the actual case, there is not only 1, 2, 3,…
In the real case, everyone knows that there are more than one of each color and thus they all know that the case of only 1, never actually applies. The scenario that you presented isn’t an actual sequences of events, it is merely a display of the type of reasoning involved. None of the “groups” actually existed. They were each just relaying the type of thinking to be used.
The only actual logic involves a single group of 100 of whatever color and that always begins with everyone seeing at least 99 of their own color without knowing it.
It only works if there are only two logicians; one brown eyed and one blue eyed.
As the blue eyed one can see the other has non-blue eyes he can conclude that his own eyes are blue.
The brown eyed logician knows that the blue eyed one can leave, but still has no clues as to the colour of his own eyes.
So the non-blue one has to stay.
If they are both blue eyed, they both have to stay as they cannot know what their own colour is.
In the case of there being more logicians, they are completely clueless whilst any of them can see any other blue eyed person.
If you look above, to view the permutations I posted, it is obvious that no one logician can tell his own eye colour with certainty and none of them can ever leave.
The problem is bogus. It is not better or worse than the Monks with the red dot problem - that is also at fault.
What is the matter with you.
THEY ARE IGNORANT of whether or not the groups are even or odd; they are ignorant of the number of different colour, which could be either 3 or 4; either blue, brown and green, or also some other unknown colour such as red.
So all your thinking based on odds or evens is not only false, but also irrelevant.
Why only two?
What if there is one blue-eyed and 400 brown-eyed? The guru still says ‘I see someone with blue eyes,’ the blue-eyed person sees 400 people without blue eyes, and knows that he has to be the only one. So surely he can leave.
Okay.
Guru says blue and the blues leave.
Guru says brown and the browns leave.
Now. No individual who hears this has any more information than they had prior to the statement. Yet there are two different results. The logic can’t be right.
Unless they all leave or none leave.
If he said ‘start,’ there is no logic that can tell you what eyes you have.
Would you like me to prove 4? And then 5? How many until you accept that my logic is indefinitely scalable? 6? 7? 8? I can go pretty high, I guess. Maybe I can even go to 100, if I figure out a very easy proof for each successive one. How many do you need to accept my position?
Well, I’ve presented very explicit logic and nobody’s attacked it directly. I don’t know why. Surely if the logic is wrong, I’ve made an easy target.
They don’t need to know that the groups are even. Merely the fact that they are, stagnates anyone from leaving.
On the 99th day, considering the sequence of rationale, there is one brown eyed and one blue eyed neither of which can tell if he is the blued cause of the problem or the brown eyed cause of the problem.
If the groups had not been even, one of the groups would have already left.
I’ve proved the 1-person-blue case. I’ve proved the 2-person-blue case. Nobody is even acknowledging that. I’m the only person proving anything in this thread. I’m offering to do more proofs. Are you guys scared of proofs? What the hell?
Your logic is fine. You just seem to be missing the point that those groups were merely mental exercises and would apply regardless of the color mentioned because everyone already knows that were blue and brown.
The sequence you present is correct, but does not merely apply to the color mentioned. They each already knew there was a blue and they also already knew there was a brown.
As usually, the guru is merely fucking with your mind because the groups were even and he wanted to imply inequity and start a fight.
I showed you why brown doesn’t work for 1 person. In my blue-eyed example, the only reason it works for 2 people was because it works for 1 person. Since that’s not the case with the brown-eyed people, the argument is not the same. You started to make the argument for 2 brown-eyed people, and then took it back. That you took it back tells me you had a stroke of understanding. For a brief moment. Try to get that understanding back.