entitlement means my change?
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]
wait that’s wrong. Not twice as much plus .5
Hold on. He gave me back twice as much total, or twice as many euros?
It means not your change but my change. 
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!
Carleas, listen to the first minute of this guy. He is explaining what my objection was as it applies to all theories (or in our case puzzle-resolutions). The rest is crap, but…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuUTABLz1Vk[/youtube]
Arminius, I think we need examples of the kind of exchanges and mis-exchanges that you are trying to say are taking place in that puzzle. For example, if you were supposed to get 50.25 euros back but she made that mistake of confusing euros with cents, how much would you have gotten back?
As I said several times: she made that mistake of confusing euros (for you: dollars) with cents. So now I respond to your example you just made: If I was supposed to get 50.25 euros back but she made the mistake of confusing euros with cents, then I would have gotten back 25.50 euros. Of course! Duh! 25 euros instead of 25 cents and 50 cents instead of 50 euros. Duh!
So to clarify (remove the ambiguity):
The confusion has been that you meant to say that she got only the cents portion of the change confused with euros and the euros portion confused with cents.
And that you should consider euros to be a thing, and cents to be another thing, and not as cents being fractions of an euro.
Yes (as opposed to euros being an amount).
James, I agree with that; I made that same point earlier. But that applies to scientific inductions, i.e. taking a series of data points and extrapolating a general theory that fits them. It doesn’t apply to deductive methods, including mathematical induction (so it doesn’t apply to the reasoning used in the Blue Eye problem or the MI portion of the Master Logician problem).
And the point supports my SR argument: the fact that there are an infinite number of equations that fit any given set of points means that there is no certain argument that generalizes from a set of data points to find a non-given data point. In other words, if that were what the logician were expected to do, the problem would be impossible. And since it is a given that the problem is not impossible…
Your still not getting it. You first choose a theory concerning the puzzle. Then you find that the theory fits the puzzle. Then you declare that the theory is the answer merely because it fit the puzzle. What I have been telling you is that many theories might fit the puzzle. You have to prove that yours is the ONLY one, else yours might not be the one that the master is using. The video was expressing that just because something fits within given certain limited knowledge, doesn’t mean that it is the true answer. The puzzle requires that you prove your theory to be the only option.
Another effort to clarify/verify something on that puzzle:
[tab]if the proper entitlement is x,
e is the received euros, and
c is the received cents, then
2x + 5 = e+c
And if the received euros and received cents were confused then the proper entitlement is,
x = e/100 + c*100
That seems to be the stated situation. But is that the intent?[/tab]
Good luck!
Or should I give the whole solution?
Arminius,
[tab]
No. Just answer my question.
I was not asking about the solution. I was asking if the equations that I gave (in blue) represent the situation that you are trying to express. If not, why not?[/tab]
We’ve had this portion of the conversation before. The last time you made this point, I brought up the example of the Pythagorean Theorem, which has many proofs, none of which depend on or are threatened by the existence of any other.
If the solution is by way of a deductive proof, then you don’t have to prove that your solution is the only option. If it is deductively provable that, e.g., the blue-eyed islanders will know their eye color on day N and no sooner, then no other solution needs to be considered. Even if other syllogisms exist, they will arrive at the same conclusion.
I can’t believe that you are still saying that. I told you why your example is nonsense. It does NOT APPLY to what we are talking about. We know that the deduction works. That is merely the theory that you picked (“MY theory works!! My theory works!! My theory works!!!”). NOW you have to prove that the master is using THAT SAME ONE!!! But apparently that is beyond your grasp, so I’ll once again leave it alone. You are still incorrect for the exact same reason as before, merely completely blind to it, it seems.
I wish you success!
[tab]I think your next post will contain the right solution, James. 
[/tab]
Here’s my point, James. If the deduction works, then we don’t need to prove that everyone’s using it. That’s how deductions work.
So your argument here is at best question begging: If it’s a deduction, if it’s sound, then there’s nothing else to prove. Your argument here goes something like, “it isn’t a sound deduction, so you need to prove that everyone uses the theorem, so the deduction is flawed, so it isn’t a sound deduction.” That’s not a proper argument.
At worst, you’re just calling a syllogism a “theory” and then refusing to credit it with everything that follows from a valid logical deduction. That’s not a proper argument either.
That was a misquote of me. And you are wrong either way. You have at least two people who have to be “in sync” with the bells. If they are not using the same theory (making a different enabling assumption), they will possibly not be in sync.
The issue, as from the beginning, is that the premise assumption must be the same for everyone, else it is like saying because Pythagorean theorem works, it doesn’t matter how many sides the shape has.
Your THEORY is that your syllogism applies (not whether your syllogism is valid in itself). The master might have a better theory using a different enabling assumption and syllogism. You have to prove that the master cannot be doing that, because he controls who leaves on which bell.
[tab]No because those equations do not work out to sensible values for e and c. You end up with fractions of cents and also that;
Received back = e + c = 2.55102040816327
which obviously cannot be right And that is what has been holding us both up.[/tab]
Those equations you mentioned work, but note: they are merely abstract examples and not the solution for my concrete example. I hope you know that. You asked me to answer your question, then I answered your question. Now I hope you do not confuse my answer with the complete solution of the said task. Note: I merely answered your question.
[tab]As i said several times: You need to have both “e” and “c” on both sides of the equation, and then you have to find out which number (amount) the only correct one for the example is. Please note: You have both euros and cents, and your basis should be cents (just for the sake of convenience, because if you used euros as basis, then you would have to change the number “5” in your equation). Your equations work. You do not have the right numbers, James. In my concrete example are merely two whole numbers for “e” and “c” possible.[/tab]
Good luck!