I told you that my examples were a reflection of your example, each merely making a convenient assumption that allows the puzzle to seem like it is solvable, even though in the final analysis, it actually isn’t.
Carl, you are just doing as I said that you were going to do back at the beginning of this; repeat yourself over and over while ignoring my counter arguments (although you did manage to muster up the answer to one usually ignored question). You seem to be incapable of seeing the obvious but perhaps are merely wrapped up into an ego concern of one type or another. In either case, you appear to not really care of the truth of this matter and thus I no longer care to discuss it with you. Your “Blue-eyes” class of puzzles are not being validly addressed.
But Wiki is in error in many articles, so this one wouldn’t be anything exceptional.[/tab]
And I distinguished my proposed solution from your examples: my proposed solution relies on deductive logic of the form “if X → impossible, ~impossible |- ~X”. Your examples do no such thing, they are (and you’ve acknowledge they are) scientifically inductive, and thus not based on deductive logic.
Your attempts at psychoanalysis aside, I’ve responded to every argument you’ve made clearly and directly. Indeed, when your arguments were good, I’ve acknowledged as much and revised my arguments to address your valid points; you have ever reason to believe that a valid criticism clearly expressed will be seriously considered and result in a revision of my position, as it has onmultipleoccasions).
And while of course Wikipedia can be wrong about common knowledge, the syllogism I’ve offered (which you haven’t bothered to address directly, i.e. by pointing to a specific line that you have a problem with) is not original to Wikipedia. When you doubt wiki’s accuracy, follow the sources: look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and its entry on the problem. A Nobel Prize winner built his most famous work on it, read his paper.
There are two possibilities: You have actually identified a defeater of the logic at play, and refuse to reveal it clearly even though it would clearly be a significant achievement; or you have not, and you care not to discuss it because you care not to admit it.
If you would admit it, we could focus on the SR, where I think you have a real possibility of being right (although I still think you’re wrong about that too).[/tab]
Last week I bought a book in Italy. The cashier got hundred Euros and gave me twice as much and five cents more back than my entitlement was. Obviously the cashier had confused the amount in euros with the amount in cents.
The cashier got hundred euros (for you: dollars ) and gave me twice as much (back as my entitlement was) and five cents more back than my entitlement was. Obviously the cashier had confused the amount in euros (for you: dollars ) with the amount in cents (of the change).
I estimate that the probability that your problem with my task is no pure text comprehension problem is about 90%.
A linguistical hint: tabAccording to the text the cashier did not confuse one thing with itself.[/tab]
A linguistical-mathematical hint: tabIf the cashier confuses two things, then they have to be considered as two “things” in a mathematical sense too.[/tab]
A mathematical hint: tabThere is merely one unknown in your equations.[/tab] or or or all ?
I think I got it. Pardon if your hits or james answers already say this is false. I haven’t opened any tabs.
[tab]If book dude cofused the cent amount with the euro amount, that means that the amount of euros he was supposed to get back was 5.
If he was supposed to get 5 and got twice as much, then he got 10euros.
He was supposed to get 5 euros, 10cents, but got 10euros, 5 cents.
Therefore the book cost 94 euros, 90 cents.
Also, no idea why I said 94.80 before. Bot enough coffee i think[/tab]
) and gave me twice as much (back as my entitlement was) and five cents more back than my entitlement was. Obviously the cashier had confused the amount in euros (for you: dollars 
or 
or 
or all ?