I don’t believe that one for an instant. You never go to the trouble of looking down that other logic road/option. People who care that they are really right, not merely appearing to be right, go to that trouble. You obstinately avoid it. Either you are hard-hypnotized into being hard-blind to specific concerns, or you simply care more about something else enough to not bother checking out the other option.
Well, at least you know the words … a shame that you don’t care.
Be honest. I pointed to specific reasons why your deduction is irrelevant, not fallacious.
Blued puzzled: “If everyone is thinking this …”
But what IF they weren’t?
Master Logician Puzzle: “If we assume that only the colors we see apply, then…”
But what if something else is assumed?
You consistently jump to an easy assumption and go from there, never looking back to verify that your assumption is provable. You just get to an answer and then, apparently in glee, ignore that your starting point was presumptuous. In a courtroom with a jury, that tactic probably would allow an attorney to get away with a great many injustices, as is normal throughout the USA at least. But in a court of logicians, that tactic simply doesn’t fly. Logicians don’t easily forget that your premise assertion was never proven to be necessarily true.
Logicians are not merely jurors.
Bullshit. I had more math in college than you … and then proceeded into engineering, using it.
This is just more of your rhetoric. Great for attorneys in a court of law, not a court of justice.
Silly question. I had to use them in order to ask if that is what he meant. He is saying something that others are not hearing to mean what he really means to say.
[tab]If e = 34, the received euros, and
c = 56, the received cents then
the proper change (“entitlement”) was said to be
x = c.e => 56.34 => 100c + e, in cents (5634 cents)
x = (100c + e) / 100, in euros x = c + e/100, in euros
Premise: 2 times the proper change was received plus 5 cents more:
2x + 5, in cents was received.
The received euros is “e” and the received cents is “c”, so:
2x + 5 = e + c, wherein each e = 100 cents and each c = 1 cent
So: 2x + 5 = 100e + c, in cents, or 2x + .05 = e + c/100, in euros
and x = 100c + e, in cents
x = c + e/100, in euros
thus using merely cents,
2(100c + e) + 5 = 100e + c, in cents
100c + e + 2.5 = 50e + c/2
100c - c/2 = 50e - e - 2.5
c(100 -1/2) = e(50-1) - 2.5
99.5c = 49e - 2.5
c = 49e/99.5 - 2.5/99.5, in cents (thus e must be at least 6)
And then another equation is required to finish it and find x.[/tab]
…edited my booboo.
Actually you turned it around in your answer (marked in red). I had defined the e and c in terms of received, not owed (and underlined it several times).
You turned it around by multiplying by 100 in one equation and dividing by 100 in the other. If you define it in terms of cents then both equations would have multiplications by 100.
It was only a matter of defining “e” as what was received versus what was owed.
I defined it as what was received.
You ignored that and redefined as what was due.
That is the only difference (other than me leaving out a later division operation).
I mentioned the exact mistakes that I made. He denied the ones that he made (possibly still unaware).
Neither of us are claiming to be perfect.
Get your shit straight if you are going to get into the middle.
NOTE!: Phyllo made a mistake in his original complaint because he didn’t realize the definition of “e” that was being discussed. He intruded, unaware of the details. End of that story. He later provided the answer … fine. I have no disagreement with his answer. I provided just short of that answer (trying to not give it all away). In doing that, I made one division error that I pointed out and corrected.
This is NOT an issue of either one of us being egotistical. It is an issue of phyllo not seeing that he had overstepped into an already established discussion (thus redefining the terms). After that point, there was no right and wrong, merely two rights that were different in their nature (due to differently defined terms; specifically “e” and “c”). And then you stepping in, completely blind and making an … of yourself.
Just put your answers in reverse, into the equation that I provided. You will get the same result. I merely had e and c defined (before you intruded) to be the opposite of what you chose … no big deal. It works either way.