This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
Kueh wrote on 2011-02-24 16:54
Sorry, sorry!
Chemistry is really kicking my ass.
Will put up the next riddle sometime this afternoon. I didn't send out a notification for those of you who didn't answer yet, so you'd better be sure you sent something.
-
Wing wrote on 2011-02-24 16:55
Oh xD~
-
Kueh wrote on 2011-02-24 17:19
By afternoon, I really meant 10:19. lol
A big congrats to teams 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 20 for getting the correct answer!
Unfortunately, we reached the 3rd round mark, which means teams are now able to be disqualified. Sorry teams 11, 12, 17, and 18, but you've been lost in the twists and turns of Avon. Don't worry though. You still get a reward for participating.
(If you are on that list and feel like I made a mistake, let me know and I'll try to sort things out.)
Solution to riddle 3:
The first gentleman is called tragic by the second, which he then admits to happening later. Because it really happened, you know he's comedic, and that can lead you to knowing that the second gentleman is tragic.
So players should head Eastish.
-
Time wrote on 2011-02-24 17:21
Quote from Lyre;349147:
By afternoon, I really meant 10:19. lol
A big congrats to teams 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 20 for getting the correct answer!
Unfortunately, we reached the 3rd round mark, which means teams are now able to be disqualified. Sorry teams 11, 12, 17, and 18, but you've been lost in the twists and turns of Avon. Don't worry though. You still get a reward for participating.
(If you are on that list and feel like I made a mistake, let me know and I'll try to sort things out.)
Solution to riddle 3:
The first gentleman is called tragic by the second, which he then admits to happening later. Because it really happened, you know he's comedic, and that can lead you to knowing that the second gentleman is tragic.
So players should head Eastish.
Oh yay Lol.
-
Kueh wrote on 2011-02-24 17:24
Round 4 is up~!
Good luck!
-
Hal9666 wrote on 2011-02-25 00:22
Your solution to the third riddle is flawed; how it is flawed I will explain below.
Quote from Lyre;349147:
The first gentleman is called tragic by the second, which he then admits to happening later.
Wrong, he
asks
Quote from First gentleman:
He thinks I'm tragic?
A question can not be true or false; true and false are concepts that only apply to statements. You may argue that it was a rhetorical question, but that does not change the question to a statement. If somebody mentions Bill Murray and I asked "Do you mean Bill Murray, the queen of England?", the fact that there has never been a queen of England named Bill Murray, and the fact that I am well aware of this, does not mean that the question is false, because a question can not be false.
Quote from Lyre;349147:
Because it really happened, you know he's comedic, and that can lead you to knowing that the second gentleman is tragic..
My above point renders this line of reasoning moot. Furthermore the second gentleman can not be tragic because he made a true statement.
Quote from Second gentleman:
I suppose it's possible.
You may argue that he is making a normative statement and it is entirely possible that he holds the opinion that a random traveler searching for Shakespeare is beyond the realm of possibility. An assumption that must be made for such a riddle to work is that a person that can only lie or only tell the truth has the knowledge and intelligence necessary to determine what is true and false. Without such an assumption being true, the truth value of anything such a person says would become arbitrary. If, for example, I said "Chuck Norris is the president of the United States." that statement would be false, but it would not be a lie if I honestly held that belief
-
Kueh wrote on 2011-02-25 00:31
Quote from Hal9666;349742:
Wrong, he asks
Read the last sentence of the first gentleman. You'll see he does, indeed, confirm it.
Quote from Hal9666;349742:
My above point renders this line of reasoning moot. Furthermore the second gentleman can not be tragic because he made a true statement.
We already know that the second gentleman's opinions are rather unorthodox. He, in fact, does not believe that the traveler looks odd, despite being from another world entirely. It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that he doesn't think anyone could be looking for Shakespeare. (We've already got a taste from the second riddle that people know more about Shakespeare's disappearance than they're letting on. And that's all I'll say about that subject.)
-
Hal9666 wrote on 2011-02-25 02:17
Quote from Lyre;349759:
Read the last sentence of the first gentleman. You'll see he does, indeed, confirm it.
I noticed that one as well and kind of took a stab in the dark as to which sentence you were referring to. That sentence also does not work.
Quote from First gentleman:
Some nerve of him, calling me tragic.
There are two ways you can evaluate the truth value of that statement. The first is to say that the statement means "He has some nerve because he called me tragic.", this would make his claim "He has some nerve" and "he called me tragic" would be evidence supporting that claim. The first interpretation is irrelevant. The second interpretation would be "He has some nerve, and he called me tragic". For the second interpretation, both statements within the sentence would have to be true, but the first statement can not be evaluated, so the entire sentence can not be assigned a truth value.
As for the second part...
Quote from Lyre;349759:
We already know that the second gentleman's opinions are rather unorthodox. He, in fact, does not believe that the traveler looks odd, despite being from another world entirely. It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that he doesn't think anyone could be looking for Shakespeare. (We've already got a taste from the second riddle that people know more about Shakespeare's disappearance than they're letting on. And that's all I'll say about that subject.)
While from a purely logical stand point there is nothing wrong with it; as I said in my last post, allowing the characters to have gaps in their knowledge that effect the truth of their statements makes the truth value of the vast majority of statements completely arbitrary. If we can't assume that they know enough information to realize the truth value of any statement they make then the only time we can actually catch a character in a lie is in the case of a clear cut contradiction with their own previous statement. Knowledge of past events is also something a character could be lacking, for example perhaps the first gentleman had no short term memory at all and completely forgot that the second gentleman called him tragic. I hope you can see the slippery slope that you are on by allowing gaps in the knowledge of the characters. It's very hard to draw a line as to how little you allow a character to know.
-
Kueh wrote on 2011-02-25 05:33
Quote from Hal9666;349924:
I noticed that one as well and kind of took a stab in the dark as to which sentence you were referring to. That sentence also does not work.
There are two ways you can evaluate the truth value of that statement. The first is to say that the statement means "He has some nerve because he called me tragic.", this would make his claim "He has some nerve" and "he called me tragic" would be evidence supporting that claim. The first interpretation is irrelevant. The second interpretation would be "He has some nerve, and he called me tragic". For the second interpretation, both statements within the sentence would have to be true, but the first statement can not be evaluated, so the entire sentence can not be assigned a truth value.
Sure it can. The first clause is an opinion, "I think he has a certain amount of nerve." As you yourself said, whether or not the second really does have any nerve at all, that statement is true because the first gentleman genuinely believes that the second gentleman has some nerve.
The second clause can be evaluated as true, when weighed against the actual state of the world.
Quote from Hal9666;349924:
As for the second part...
While from a purely logical stand point there is nothing wrong with it; as I said in my last post, allowing the characters to have gaps in their knowledge that effect the truth of their statements makes the truth value of the vast majority of statements completely arbitrary. If we can't assume that they know enough information to realize the truth value of any statement they make then the only time we can actually catch a character in a lie is in the case of a clear cut contradiction with their own previous statement. Knowledge of past events is also something a character could be lacking, for example perhaps the first gentleman had no short term memory at all and completely forgot that the second gentleman called him tragic. I hope you can see the slippery slope that you are on by allowing gaps in the knowledge of the characters. It's very hard to draw a line as to how little you allow a character to know.
As I've already said, there isn't a gap in anyone's knowledge. Some characters know exactly what happened to Shakespeare; something travelers have already gotten a taste of. At the risk of ruining the story, I can't elaborate any further.
-
Hal9666 wrote on 2011-02-25 23:27
Quote from Lyre;350299:
Sure it can. The first clause is an opinion, "I think he has a certain amount of nerve." As you yourself said, whether or not the second really does have any nerve at all, that statement is true because the first gentleman genuinely believes that the second gentleman has some nerve.
The second clause can be evaluated as true, when weighed against the actual state of the world.
I guess I'll have to concede that point, but I think it was poor wording.
Quote from Lyre;350299:
As I've already said, there isn't a gap in anyone's knowledge. Some characters know exactly what happened to Shakespeare; something travelers have already gotten a taste of. At the risk of ruining the story, I can't elaborate any further.
The gap in knowledge I was referring to is the fact that the second gentleman didn't know I was searching for Shakespeare or, for his statement to be a lie, even know it was a possibility.
P.S. I sent my answer, I still find this interesting despite my problems with the third riddle.
-
Wing wrote on 2011-02-28 21:28
This one is a bit odd & confused @_@.
-
Kueh wrote on 2011-02-28 22:17
Quote from Wing;354014:
This one is a bit odd & confused @_@.
This one = You?
Sorry, I think I used too much story in this one, and I think it's getting in the way of things.
Why don't you write down everything the two characters say in bullet form.
-
Wing wrote on 2011-02-28 22:21
I'm going to discuss this when my partner once he gets on :3.~
-
woohoohelloppl wrote on 2011-02-28 23:24
When are answers due for this one? I don't want to miss it like I did with the last one. XD
Finals week sucks.
-
Kueh wrote on 2011-02-28 23:46
I usually wait till I have 3/4ths the answers, then send a message to those who haven't submitted yet, then put the next round the next day.