Yes, I followed. It was based on a premise that you just threw in there that I was saying is unjustified – the premise that they know there are 2 colors. They don’t know that. Do you remember me saying that? That’s not part of the puzzle. They don’t know ANYTHING other than what they see about peoples’ eyes, and what the guru says. And the guru only says ‘Go’. So no, they don’t know that there are 2 colors. I don’t know why you say that they know that, and you still haven’t explained it.
I would agree that IF they knew there was only 2 colors, your logic would work. But that makes it an entirely different problem from the one we’re talking about, because that’s not part of the problem. They don’t know anything about the colors in the problem we’re talking about, other than what they see and what the guru says. If you have to add some adhoc premise to make your logic work, then your logic doesn’t work.
In in small case that I brought it down to of merely a 2x2, there is a possibility of them thinking that all 4 have the same color, so they can’t count on anyone’s deductions. But in every case more than that, they will all already see that there are at least two colors and thus don’t have to be told that they are not all the same color.
I had to add that merely because I reduced the scale down to the point of 2x2. If I had said 3x3, I wouldn’t have had to throw that in, but there would be a lot more to explain due to the size. I was trying to keep it as simple as possible.
So…you’ve proved that IF there are 4 people, 2 with blue eyes and 2 with brown eyes, and IF they know that there are only 2 colors, then they go when the guru says ‘Go’?
I’d agree, but
a) Adding this extra premise makes the problem significantly dissimilar from the one we’re actually doing, so I can’t see any conclusion we can draw from it
b) The Guru doesn’t have to say ‘Go’ at all. They can simply wait one night, and be able to leave, without the Guru saying anything at all.
So I don’t know what I’m supposed to take from this other than that you’ve invented some kind of similar puzzle with an added premise that makes it a lot easier.
Well, like phyllo said, the red is what makes it complicated.
Actually phyllo seems to catch these logic issues easiest.
I wish he had more interest in RM so he could pick me apart on that.
Eugene is just being bullheaded.
Anyway, due to the red, I think you are right.
By the guru saying blue, the red is no longer an option and the sequence can begin.
And then on the 99th day when all of the blues leave, the browns still don’t know if they are red.
So the browns don’t leave at all because there is still two choices left.
They could never begin the sequence. They just know that they are not blue.
I’m sure you still missed my point concerning the fact that the series is just hypothetical in their minds, but no matter.
Obviously it’s just hypothetical. They see 99 blue-eyed people, why would the case of the 1 blue-eyed person be anything but hypothetical? Why are you sure I missed it? That’s insulting.
Anyway, I guess you agree now, so despite that little insult…I get the compliment of you having changed your mind to my position, I think.
The easy with which you assume insults implies a weak character/ego.
‘I’m sure you don’t understand this’…it’s pretty easy to see how that could be taken negatively. Doesn’t take a weak ego. I also find it a bit unfriendly that you’re doing ego-jabs at me. Are you alright? Are you angry?
Anyway, obviously now that you know my position was the correct one and that yours was wrong, maybe what I wasn’t understanding was not being understood because my thinking was clearer. I wasn’t understanding it because, in the context of the rest of the information, it wasn’t a good point. Maybe you’re supposed understanding of your own mistaken position was the misunderstanding.
You did it again.
Over-sensitive people see anger or emotion where there was none. 
Actually the problem was that I forgot the red.
If you had understood MORE clearly, you would have seen that the red (or “other”) was actually the whole issue.
And btw, I have agreed with your reasoning on this from the start, except for the guru call.
So your arguing about the reasoning part was misleading us both.
Well I think, given that we now know I was correct from the start, that you’re not really in a position to tell me I didn’t understand enough. Right? I can’t read your mind. I didn’t know that you had forgotten that the color of someone’s eyes could be anything. I can’t read your mind bro. It doesn’t have to do with understanding the problem, it has to do with me being unable to know that you don’t understand something that was explicitly stated in the problem. That’s not a fault of my understanding – I understood that the eye color could be anything all along, I just didn’t realize that YOU didn’t understand that.
Anyway, if you think that I have a weak ego and that I’m over-sensitive, then surely you’d also think that telling me I have a weak ego and that I’m over-sensitive would be perceived as insulting by me, so you MUST be saying it in order for me to perceive it that way. Right? It doesn’t take a genius to realize that telling someone with a weak ego “you have a weak ego” would be taken as insulting. So…what I see happening is that you do think that that would bruise my ego, and so you’re doing it to try to bruise my ego.
Why? I’m not your enemy brother. Why not go easy on me? It seems like you’re upset about something. I can’t see any other reason for you to deliberately try to make me feel insulted.
You could just stop with this whole analyzing me ego shit, you know. Idk what you’re trying to accomplish with it, other than to make me feel insulted. I thought we were on pretty good terms, and I generally perceive you as quite respectful and kind. But…you’re changing that perception now.
Not that it matters, but actually it does.
I’m not sure that I can explain that. It is a psychology issue wherein more is seen than the obvious when the obvious is seen more clearly.
A person can see where the other person is confused, “read their mind”, more quickly when they don’t have to think about the particular problem involved at all. They instinctively take a high view of the scene over the discussion. But of course, over attention to one’s defense tends to destroy that as well… :-"
It wasn’t about my defense at all. It was about yours. I thought you might have actually had a good case that the browns can leave too, which is why I repeatedly asked you to show the logic for it – like pulling teeth.
And I actually did respond directly to that misunderstanding of yours in my posts about 1 brown-eyed person. I said that he could think his eyes are any color. I actually explicitly said that. So…that WAS me understanding the issue, and responding to it. Do you not remember those posts?
“If there is 1 brown-eyed person, he sees various other people, not with brown eyes, and he doesn’t know his own eye color, could be red, could be blue (until the other blue-eyeds leave), could be green, whatever, and so he doesn’t leave, because he doesn’t know.”
I had already gone back and read that.
That was beneath my point.
Enough of this.
Hobbes remains unconvinced, but that’s alright, he seems like someone who holds onto his conclusions real tightly.
Yeah, he and Eugene ought to get together… 
You now know you are wrong.
You are now just trying to save face by being picky.
At line 3 the only thing you can infer about being not leaving is that no one has figured out what their eye colour is.
If you want me to take you seriously tell me how this is false.
Until then I think our conversation on this thread is at an end.
You now know you are wrong.
You are now just trying to save face by being picky.
At line 3 the only thing you can infer about being not leaving is that no one has figured out what their eye colour is.
If you want me to take you seriously tell me how this is false.
Until then I think our conversation on this thread is at an end.
Haha… geeezz…
You restate exactly what I said and then tell me that I am wrong by saying it… wow.
And what FJ and I worked out was exactly how I was wrong about one issue and YOU were wrong entirely (which we both already knew).
But since you want to insist and not actually go through the logic, you will stay that way.
Okay I have said this again, and again.
I think you guys are now getting wary of reading my posts.
LDC1 works if there were ONLY ONE blue eyed person.
When there is only ONE BLUE EYED person.
IF there is more than ONE blue eyed person the inference that ;“The BLUE EYED PERSON IS ME” does not apply.
In the problem LDC1 can never apply as there is NEVER ONLY ONE blue eyed person. There appears to be 99 or 100 depending on who you are.
That is where the chain of LOGIC breaks.
The problem is shit, unless you can come up with yet another counter intuitive “solution”.
Look at it this way.
Taking all the conditions as described by the problem at face value.
100B, 100b 1g. No one knows what their own eye colour is and they do not have any other information.
The guru says I see a blue eyed person. This provides no new information. Yet the problem claims that the monks figure out how to leave.
TIme passes and no new information can reached them because the only thing you can safely infer from the fact that no one leaves has nothing to do with eye colour in a positive sense; ALL IT CAN EVER MEAN IS THAT NO ONE HAS GOT THEIR OWN EYE COLOUR FIGURED OUT.
It does not mean that one monk did not figure out his eyes were blue. As that is what the chain is logic demands.
Your chain of logic infers a positive from a negative. It’s like saying that my wife must have bought apples because she did not buy bananas.
In the philosophy of logic it is what is called a schoolboy error.