SO are you now agreeing with me that the problem is shit?
For my next trick I can show you all how not even an assumption of two colours helps.
The so-called solution relies on an assumption of the knowledge that the hypothetical logician has blues eyes.
Even if no red eye exists, there is still no information regarding the disposition of eyes so that any one logician can infer what colour his eyes are. Because the so-called Solution ALSO requires people to leave, which cannot happen as no one can yet know what is the colour of their own eyes.
The only way a person can know what his eye colour is, is if he happens to be THE ONLY PERSON WITH BLUE EYES, and we already know that cannot be the case.
Really= what is the matter with all you people?
Iāve been quite patient and had to filed a few insults, and implied insults.
Now you are all gradually coming round JSS is trying to claim I am too stupid to understand the crap logic.
I am going to move on and perhaps another problem tomorrow, I donāt think anything is served by arguing that a formal logic solution is wrong. Ok its not using the exact language of formal logic but its logic is undeniable IMO, and I see no purpose in denying formal logic without showing how it is flawed. This is not real this is a self contained problem that has a self contained answer. That is all I will say.
Donāt waste your time.
There is nothing in the problem that could make any single individual gain knowledge of his own eye colour.
Re-read the problem and take what you intuit - your mind should tell you that something is wrong, all you have to do is reverse engineer through the so-called solution and hey presto, you will see that the logical solution ceases when the hypothetical moves from one blue eyed person to a situation in which there are several blue eyed persons.
The words of the guru āI can see a blue eyed personā, only has significance if he means āI see ONLY ONE blue eyed personā. That IS THE NEW INFORMATION. But no one with any sense ought to pursue this problem any further.
The words of the guru supply no more information, and do not help any individual with knowledge of his own eyes.
The logical hypothetical assumes a knowledge that the blue and brown are evenly split, thus the person considering the case has to know he belong to the 99 group. But he has no warrant for this as there could be 101 brown eyed, and 99 blue, or in the full cass the permutation I listed above.
Hobbes, the point to philosophy is to work through reasoning, not merely profess it. That includes even bad reasoning so as to display its exact flaw.
So far, you have not worked through FJās reasoning such as to point out his first flaw that led to any fallacy that you profess. You are merely stating your opinion of the answer and calling everyone else an idiot.
So in FJās reasoning with the hypothetical "if"s, at what point did he make a logical mistake? Which of his lines (or mine) was flawed?
Mine was;
Line by line, which is true or false and why?
Else you are not helping, but merely expressing opinion, the lowest form of philosophy.
I already did that.
I annotated this passage line by line in blue.
Please look back, and if you really want to to keep banging on at this thread then you have to stop accusing me of being too stupid to understand the logic.
For now look at point 3.
3) If no one leaves, that is a clue that no one with blue eyes could deduce.
This is false.
3) If no one leaves that is because no one knows what colour their eyes are.
3a) Next day GOTO 3
That is it. It can go no further.
4 cannot be reached. It does not matter how many more days pass, because the information doe not increase
4 is false, logicians are perfect, and any thing that can be known has to be knowable from the outset, adding more days is irrelevant.
Day 5 no one can leave
Day 6 no one can leave.
ā¦ Day 36500 no one can leave.They are all dead.
Since you did not man-up and provide the āsolutionā to the MONKS and the RED SPOT problem (because it does not exist) Iām not bothered what you think. At the moment Iām hoping you to be a man of your word and bow out of this problem as you promised.
How could that line possibly be false?
That is the very essence of the situation. If anyone can deduce, they WILL leave.
Thus if no one leaves, then obviously no one could deduce.
Go through MY reasoning. I can work with that better. But first explain or correct what you just said.
LINE 3 IS FALSE as there are 201 persons on the island and your conclusion does not include them all.
NONE leave as none know their eye colour at all, never mind blue.
Fort a more detailed refutation, please refer to my older post. which I made
28 Mar 2013, 17:03
This includes a line by line annotated critique. (You obviously missed this , claiming Iām too stupid to get the logic.)
Please note that this is a critique IN ADDITION to the above one.
Your lines are correct for the problem. In other words they correctly take on the false position set up by the problem in an accurate way.
However several of the conclusions are false.
The solution offered by FJ can only work if there is ONE person with blues eyes, sadly there appear to be 99 for a blue eyed and 100 for a brown eyed. THEY DO NOT KNOW THAT obviously. They can only see what they see. They have no further warrant to deduce their own eye colour.
Even if you remove the line about red eyes, the problem is still bogus.
The whole problem is a complete mess, no better or worse than the MONKS/RED DOT problem.
Being right provides a person with staying power, being wrong is the impetus for running away, or apologising and learning from your mistakes.
WHich path is for you?
PS
I have not insulted you, all I have done is feed back to you what you have done. If you feel insulted then it is because you feel the shame of your actions. Look back - there is no insult there.
BTW, do you not remember calling me an ORC?
I do not say it is true I say that it is accurate to the bogus solution.
When no one leaves the only thing you can conclude is that no one has worked out what colour their eyes are.
THe way you have written line 3 includes an unwarranted assumption. It is NOT a clue; it says NOTHING about any colour either positively or negatively. It is a formal fallacy in which a positive is implied from a negative.
Please read my longer refutation
Seriously Iām begging to think you are just taking the piss.
Itās midnight in my part of the world, and I need to sleep and you need to review what you missed earlier today (yesterday).
Iām not sure Iāll be back, on this thread until you see what I have written previously. Itās not fair to ask me to continually repeat stuff I have already said more than once.
No.
That is an assumption that YOU are making.
The line merely states that certain people canāt deduce.
It doesnāt say that any others can deduce.
If none can deduce, then the statement is necessarily true.
Canāt you even see that?
It is no more fair for you to either ignore or make irrational statements concerning my posts.
But to get to a resolution, we need to stick to one line of reasoning, not mix them up.
I presented the logic in an easy-to-understand and clear format. Tell me which step in the logic you have trouble following. Donāt worry about issues of āapplicabilityā. LDC1 is either true or itās false. You agreed that it is true. LDC1 is true ā If there is only 1, he will leave on the first day. You agreed with this. Soā¦idk what āinapplicableā means, just tell me specifically which step in the logic youāre have trouble with. Also, try to calm down buddy. If the problem is shit, you can stop talking about it.