Never said that it was. It is a new presumption. Your next presumption was âif he is thinking blue, thenâŚâ.
Ummm⌠no. The only way something is a âgivenâ is if it is GIVEN. If there is a âbecause we know thatâŚ.â, then it was obviously not a given, but rather a deduction/assumption.
That is why you failed to solve it. They had many deducible things other than the one you presumed them to start with (ref: âIf he is thinking blue, thenâŚâ). They MUST immediately deduce anything deducible and there really are many things deducible (I showed some at the time).
And that was merely a fallacy of the puzzle. The intent was that they could not deduce until the guru spoke, but that was not the reality of how it was setup (similar to the master saying âit is solvableâ when it actually is not).
But they did not rule everything out. They merely attempted to. They didnât rule out that the âperfect logiciansâ already knew that puzzle and thus already knew how to deduce far ahead of the timing. Obviously if you were there today as that scenario began, you would know when most of the people would be leaving long before your proposed turn. And so would they. The only thing that the guru provided was a moment to begin, and I am not sure that they necessarily needed that.
I donât think it said anything about an âinfinite timeâ, but like I said, there was a solution already there. Perfect logicians would have already figured it out before the guru spoke. The puzzle wasnât stated properly for what they wanted. And I donât know that it could have been.
And similar to above, I never said that it was. The way that is worded is begging the question of whether you meant âknown by everyoneâ or merely âknown by the othersâ. The word âknownâ infers an erroneous premise.
Yes, but that is kind of irrelevant unless you were intended to use it in an erroneous way. As you said, it is tautologically true if you meant it that way, so why even bring it up.
This tells me that you donât understand the logic of the problem. The Guruâs statement does not âonly [âŚ] provide a moment to beginâ, it provides crucial information that makes a logical deduction possible that was impossible before (in the proof by mathematical induction, her statement provides the base case).
Again, take the situation of 2 islanders who donât know their eye color, but are familiar with this problem. Without the guru telling them that she sees at least one islander with some eye color, neither islander can deduce his eye color. Unless when you say they âalready knew the puzzleâ you really mean they âalready possessed the information that the Guru providesâ.
EDIT: alternatively, replace the Guruâs statement with, âBegin deducing your eye color now!â If the Guru had said that, no one could deduce their eye color.
Donât reintroduce your blindness on that one too. Again, it is irrelevant that the syllogism part of your proposal works. Other syllogisms work even better.
James, it looks like your position is based on the possibility that someone can logically deduce the color of their eyes based solely on the color of the eyes of the people around them. Is that right?
OK, James. Not like itâs been half of the discussion for 10+ pages now or anything. Not like youâve provided a whole lot of awfully confident objections in your last few posts to an argument you âdonât rememberâ and arenât interested in discussing. Not like your interest faded when you were backed into acknowledging that your best argument is that it might be possible for a person to deduce their eye color by looking at a group of other people with eyes.
And âitâs OKâ that we both know that you arenât going to change your story one iota regardless of anything said. It isnât like we havenât been through that story for 20 pages before. It isnât like this new puzzle is going down a different path. And it isnât like you would ever be able to actually prove what it requires you to prove.
Nor do I need to prove that, since thatâs not my claim (unlike how your claim is actually that just looking at a group of people will give someone sufficient information to deduce their own eye color). In both cases, itâs the situation and the additional premises provided by the Guru/Master that make the deduction possible.
I tried to get James to discuss the Blue Eye problem privately way back, but he stopped replying. Which is just to say, Iâm to blame for this disruption.
Iâm having fun. Maybe if you developed a strong opinion about the Blue Eye problem or the Master Logician problem, youâd have fun too!
Shove it up your ass, wuss. You hide then try to jump in to make big of yourself. Then jump away again, never facing reality. Get over your insecurity and get off your pretentious high horse. Be man enough to just be part of the fun and you wonât trigger so much lack of it.