I am asking for you to prove your assertion that there is no other way possible other than what you have proposed.
“It is evident” is not a proof.
Just let me get clear on this. What you are asking me to prove is that you can’t find out an unknown color from an infinite set of colors. Is that correct?
I gave my answer. The only way to find out a color (or an int, or a string, or etc) from an very large set is by guessing. This is a popular computational process called brute forcing.
I find that to be evident. Can you, please, explain why you require proof of that?
No.
I am saying that whatever your proposed solution algorithm is, by whatever method it works, you absolutely must prove that no other algorithm could have worked in its place (given a specific color arrangement). That is the ONLY way to be able to choose what color arrangement is satisfactory, which would then cause the Master to be correct in his claim of resolvability.
If there is any other way to constrain the color group, I would like to hear it.
What that says is “I don’t know”. And that is why it is not a “PROOF”, but merely a probability (aka not deductive logic).
James, it is a fact.
“Turtles all the way down.”
“The Earth is flat.”
Edit: I did not mean to say that 
I was thinking just now about situations in which you don’t have a perfect sequence of numbers of people wearing the same color, and as far as I can tell the solution still holds. The only thing is that sometimes the bell rings and nobody leaves.
These puzzles are on Wikipedia with solutions explained.
When it comes to logic and philosophy, Wiki is beneath us. They are wrong on many things. Wiki can only tell you what “has been excepted” or what “hasn’t been disputed by anyone reputable enough”.
But the more that happens, the more likely it is that you are not seeing the right algorithm.
And as far as the missing color issue: if you can assume that you can see a color similar to your own color, why can’t you assume that your color is a primary or secondary color (or integer) if all of the others are? It seems to me that those two assumptions are the same kind of assumption.
That’s cheating benny.
If your color is the same as one of the colors you can see, and all the colors you can see are primary, your color is primary.
Assuming all the colors are primary and never repeat, yoy’d have 3 logicians (red, yellow, blue).
The person wearing blue sees a red and a yellow and can make a guess that his color is blue to complete the group of primaries. But since he does not have any information about what the group is or how many times each color can repeat, this has many possible answers. Maybe you are blue, but maybe you are red or yellow, or maybe you’re not a primary color at all and the master is a bastard trying to fool you. There are many possible answers because you don’t have the necessary constraints.
That’s cheating benny.
You have the same constrain as before, “the Master said that it was solvable.”
I agree that it is really only a probability guess. My point is that so are the other algorithms.
All of the algorithms involve the intelligence test question of “What is missing in this picture”, similar to the “what doesn’t belong in this picture”. Both of those are rationality issues, “what is probably missing in this picture”, a part of the “Similarities and Differences” category.
Logical proof, certainty, requires that all potential alternatives be eliminated. That means that you have to prove that it is impossible for any other algorithm to fit the pattern that you see. And because of the bells issue, it also means that you have to eliminate all potential alternate algorithms even if they resolve the same color, because all of the members have to be using the same algorithms at the same time (although the algorithm could change from bell to bell).
It is impossible to solve this problwm without constraining the group of colors to only colors that can be known by all participants.
We agree on that.
And likely wise the algorithm must be equally constrained.
But you can’t do that by assuming that the algorithm is the one that all of the members can see.
Fuck you.
love you too, benny
I didn’t pay much attention to what you guys/gals were saying, but you two seemed to be arguing about possible solutions.
I read brute force from phon, and the solution given by Wikipedia does not require it. The argument seems to be easily resolved by considering the solution given on the site.
From what I read of you, your solution was in adherence to that posted.
Can there be alternate solutions to solving the puzzle? No doubt.
Do they all involve brute force? No.
More often than not, the key is in the details. They’ll give you all the tools necessary to solve the puzzle.