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]
Entitlements means my change, thus the money I would have got back from her (it was a woman), if she had not miscounted it, and “miscounted” means in this case: confused euro with cent.
(1) The information in the first tab (with the linguistical hint) is not very much more than in the original text, because the main problem with the task in it is mostly not a language (text understanding, translation and so on) problem. So the problem James and you seem to have with my task is probably (I estimated a probability of 90%) no language problem. (2) The information in the second tab (with the linguistical-mathematical hint) is already a key, because the main problem with the said task is the conversion / transformation from a linguistic text into a mathematic “text” (equations and so on). (3) And the information in the third tab (with the mathematical hint) contains already a reference to the first mathematic step in order to attain the whole solution of the task.
[tab]
No. Let me say: If you mean it as your own example, then you are right - of course -, but my story is more complicated than that example. So you are on the wrong way. Please read my text one more time.
No. Let me say: If you mean it as your own example, then you are right - of course -, but if you referred it to my story, then it would be false. Again: My example is more complicated than your example. So you are on the wrong way. Please read my text one more time.
No. Let me say: According to your example, but not according to my example. So you are on the wrong way. Please read my text one more time.
If that was right, then coffee would help, because in that example you have at least considered the 5 cents.
Yes. That is wrong.
Again: The “he” was a woman, and she gave me (not you ) twice as much (back as my entitlement [for you: change] was) and five cents more back than my entitlement was. … Comprende?[/tab]
Good luck!
) 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 ?