I am very used to people coming around to my ideas a couple of years after I present them. Almost without exception, such ideas are at first arrogantly dismissed (without proper argument) by the people who later come to embrace them, even though by then they’ve often forgotten where they got them. So until someone responds to what my points rationally and to the point (I am hoping Carleas will in a promised PM) I am not quite exactly prompted to think that they’ve been understood.
Your posts were just rambling—i.e., all over the place. And indeed, why must you refer to three posts?.. Kindly give a systematic account of your reasoning, in one post. You can copy/paste from those three posts if you think it’s functional (I doubt it).
By the way, I still don’t think value ontology is the revolutionary innovation you so arrogantly proclaimed it was.
I think so too. It’s a great explanation making use of a valid example-form. I very much enjoy this sort of insight.
Yeah… I think you’re just way too lazy on this one. As I said I’m used to people taking a lot of time coming around to my logic, which admittedly gets very involved and counterintuitive.
The fact that y’all copied the canonical and began defending it at a point where it wasn’t even being attacked, but all failed, even refused to demonstrate the epistemic necessity of the guru (which is the point you’re relying on), has gradually led me to think perhaps you didn’t really penetrate the logic of that solution.
I did penetrate that, first by thinking that the hypothesis “if there was only one and the guru said she said one” was false. And it still is. But that doesn’t matter, as it is meant to be false. Its falseness is its epistemic status. Start there, do you understand what I mean when I say that?
This is a puzzle about epistemology, about the status of knowledge in epistemic agents. On the surface, the guru is a great tool. But the structure is not as simple as the three of you make it out to be.
By the by, as I’ve shown (and as Sauwelios even admitted when I told him “humbly” (the key to teaching) the explicit text doesn’t even allow for the canonical solution, as all people see each other at all times, disallowing for the whole “in the morning they were still there” scenario. But that’s just a minor flaw, should not distract from the major falseness of the first hypothesis.
I was right then, you’ve contributed exactly nothing. And indeed, to nothing, no one need concur.
Seriously, all I get from you is “I don’t understand, and that’s your fault”.
But it’s not only my fault - I make things too complex for you, you want things to be more simple than I can make them.
This is just an ungrounded insinuation. Are you in fact trolling here?
The “if” part of an “if/then” statement (jargon?) cannot be true or false, as it’s not a complete statement… Anyway, your reasoning seems to go like this:
- The one, blue-eyed person does not know his own eye colour.
- The guru tells him that she sees a blue-eyed person.
- The one, blue-eyed person, supposing that the guru is to be believed, knows he has blue eyes.
Now according to you, it seems, the 3rd step somehow retroactively cancels the 1st. This is nonsense.
I didn’t “admit” that, it’s just a truism.
Perhaps it’s because you don’t think in words, that you can’t put your thoughts into words very well.
Yeah… I think you’re just getting carried away on a cloud of self-believed but undemonstrated superiority on this one.
The fact that you’re attacking a strawman just leads me to think you didn’t really penetrate the logic of my/our solutions.
See how when I emulate how you speak, it sounds annoying? Yeah, that’s how you’re sounding when you speak. I recommend you follow your own advice and switch back to humble mode if you at least expect your theory on teaching attitudes to be valid - else it becomes apparent that you don’t (and perhaps never did) intend to teach anything, just say stuff and “proclaim” it’s correct, but just too deep for us to get (that JSS-style tactic won’t fly I’m afraid).
Please start by explaining why the Guru “saying she sees one” is incompatible with the thought experiment of “what one would do if there was only one”.
As for the “all people see each other at all times” thing - this is not incompatible with anyone leaving or staying on the island (perhaps the ferry doesn’t take them out of view, and they might even see perfectly well at night and never sleep for all we know). The whole “see them in the morning” thing is perfectly fine when taken as it was intended, as “seen on the island even after the ferry had been and gone, picking up anyone who knew their eye colour while it was there at midnight - as in the puzzle”. Even this attempt at a minor point seems to hold no water.
And please, to both you and Sau, stop squabbling. It really doesn’t lend yourself any of the credibility either of you are fighting for here.
It’s my honest impression. Should I accuse you of trolling every time you fail to be convinced by some point I want to make?
It is falsely inserted.
“the blue eyed person does not know his eye color”
“the blue eyed person does know his eye color”
Yes, these statements contradict each other.
You (all) seem to think that “Supposing that the guru [speaks and] is to be believed” applies only to step 3. Where, if it is valid at 3., it would also have been valid at 1. which cancels out the content of 1.
Oh wait, I am thinking.
I mean rambling.
It’s simply true. But not to the point here.
Abstract thoughts, when they are in fact a force, insight, always are hard to put into words. Clever word-play is often mistaken for thinking. I’m not of that school, indeed.
I personally doubt that there isn’t. A proof of a biconditional like “the problem is solvable IFF the board has [some property or set of properties]” would necessarily prove both.
On a much smaller board, the mutual solution is easy: A two by two board is solvable if and only if the removed squares are adjacent, because that implies that the remaining squares are adjacent, and the remaining 2-square board is solvable if and only if it is a 2x1 rectangle.
I would guess that adjacency is a special case of some property for which color is a proxy, and that “the board is solvable IFF the removed squares have property X such that X is a superset of adjacency”.
Oh really?
I’m listening…
“IF they all start counting from the same number, will they always be able to deduce their eye color?”
I found that much less annoying than how you normally write in this thread. It seems at least far less arrogant and oblivious.
Jesus, just fucking read my posts. My God. Or better yet, think.
Right. Sau says it’s a truism, you say it’s false -
you guys are clowns.
Sillybilly you are a true comedian.
This does not suggest that either is wrong, but that the problem as originally stated is ambiguous. I think your clarification, that the islanders can only see each other during the day, and they disappear during the night if they learn their eye color, resolves the ambiguity.
Right. So saying “just fucking read my posts. My God. Or better yet, think” as though your posts are so obvious (even though nobody gets them), and that I’m the one who isn’t thinking even though what I’ve said has been agreed with on multiple occasions, and even referenced in order to help combat the two trailing contributors who still don’t get it.
What you say doesn’t make any more sense now than it did the first time I read it. Take a leaf out of my book - from the part where I have proactively improved on my original presentation of the correct solution on multiple occasions, just to more clearly rebuke all the presented criticisms of it and how it is the only correct solution. That’s how you gain credibility: proactively showing and improving on the many hours of thought you’ve put into solving a problem and problems with others not understanding it. And when they don’t, try again and harder until they do.
Like I said: your lazy approach of merely claiming correctness without (clear) demonstration - whilst only angrily pointing fingers at others for not being as clever as you think you are “to back you up” will get you nowhere.
Er, have the 9-11 attacks cancelled out the fact that the Twin Towers ever existed?
I think sau hit the nail on the head: perhaps FC didn’t realize that 3 was taking place after 1? 1, 2, and 3 were a chronological sequence of facts/events.
???
Did the towers need to fall hypothetically after a guru said they had fallen before someone could calculate that they had actually fallen?
You don’t seem to understand that the hypothesis they’re using is not occurring within the same timeline as the actual events, but in their mind.
After about a fucking million time I told you that I GET THE ORIGINAL SOLUTION.
Honestly, dude, if even that is too difficult for you to understand – that I get the original solution, as I’ve repeated and repeated an repeated – it is not much of a miracle that you don’t understand my posts. But I don’t feel that I can do anything about that.
There are four blues and four browns.
All know that all see that there is at least one of each color: The REAL SET of REAL UNITS.
The day/night/ferry things apply.
All reason:
- If there was only one blue eyed who knew that there was at least one blue eyed (one REAL UNIT of the REAL SET), he would leave the first day. And:
- If there was only one brown eyed who knew that there was at least one brown eyed (one REAL UNIT of the REAL SET), he would leave the first day.
No one leaves the first day. Therefore there are more than 1 of each color, and all know that they might belong to either one, or possibly another color.
Since no one leaves the second day, there are more than 2 of each color.
Since no one leaves the third say, there are more than 3 of each color.
Since all blues see only 3 blues, they leave the 4th day. Since all browns see only 3 browns, they all leave the 4th day.
Wow, FC, you take some serious time out from this place. A good thing. Well, two weeks… I’d hoped it was due to bowing out after realising your error that Sau so sufficiently presented in analogous form, but I guess that was wishful thinking.
You know that’s not an argument, right?
And that it does nothing to defend your strange claim that someone can not be ignorant of something one moment, come to know it, and know it the next moment. Somehow, to you, this is a contradiction - that if they knew it the next moment, they must have known it all along. Yes, that’s what it sounds like you are saying.
Ok. Whilst I hear you say such things, things like this say otherwise:
As I thought, and have said before, your mistake is to say that since 4 blues (or browns) know that everyone else knows that everyone else knows that there is at least 1 blue-eyed islander and at least 1 brown-eyed islander, 1 blue (or brown) must also know that everyone else knows that everyone else knows that there are at least 1 blue-eyed islander and at least 1 brown-eyed islander.
I know why you think this is an ok assumption, because the reality (in this 4blue/brown scenario) is that there ARE 4 blues and 4 browns, and so they can attribute their knowledge to whatever scanerios they are imagining. The problem is that they have to be hypothesising about what 1 blue/brown would know IF there were only 1 blue/brown. In this case, they have to deduce about this 1 blue/brown aside from the knowledge of 4 blues/browns.
The reason you don’t get this appears to be at least one reason why you don’t get the correct solution. You can say you get the solution a million more times, but when you consistently demonstrate that you do not, it just holds no water. You have to do better than just “saying” you get it.
Perhaps it is too difficult for you to understand what I do. It sounds like we both think the same of the other in regard to the validity of one another’s positions. At least one of us has the correct understanding of the problem. How will we decide who this person is? It would be wrong to base my validity on the fact that all other members of this place and the place that hosted the problem side with my explanations, bar the one “I want to be special, even at the expense of sense” person here, and yourself. We must arrive at a much more acceptable measure of validity - any suggestions? Showing you flawless reasoning doesn’t appear to be sufficient so far. I will continue to try.