Timeline for Are there eighteen or twenty bars in my castle?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 13, 2020 at 14:15 | comment | added | Christopher Theodore | @MarcoBonelli Crystal clear. Thanks for suffering my obtuseness.. apologies to all. :-D | |
| Mar 13, 2020 at 14:05 | history | edited | Christopher Theodore | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added a Note about this being a Flawed Answer atm
|
| Mar 13, 2020 at 13:51 | comment | added | Marco Bonelli | @ChristopherTheodore "If you see 25 bars you will think I must see 5 or 10, but you wont think I see 15." - exactly. IF I see 25 bars, but you don't know how many I see. Of course in reality from an external point of view there are only two valid options, but neither of us can come to that conclusion without additional information. I hope it's clear now. | |
| Mar 13, 2020 at 13:30 | comment | added | Christopher Theodore | @MarcoBonelli If I see 10 bars. That means you must see 20 or 25 Bars. If you see 20 bars you will think I must see 10 or 15, but you won't think I see 5. If you see 25 bars you will think I must see 5 or 10, but you wont think I see 15. My question is still: How many bars does Marco see? 20 or 25? Your question will be the same: How many bars does Chris see? There will still only be 2 options, not 3. However, I see the flaw with my logic now, and yield. | |
| Mar 13, 2020 at 12:27 | comment | added | Marco Bonelli | @ChristopherTheodore well answer my last comment then. | |
| Mar 13, 2020 at 12:20 | comment | added | Christopher Theodore | @MarcoBonelli look, both of them came to the solid conclusion that the other one can only see 10 or 12 & 6 or 8 <-- Both can now come to the next conclusion that both came to this conclusion as well. It doesn't require any outside information. It is a logical step in reasoning. Why would either one think the other would fail to come to the first conclusion? They wouldn't. Since they both know the other came to this first conclusion, and they both know that both can come to the next conclusion: There are ONLY 2 POSSIBLE ANSWERS from each pov: Rose sees 6 or 8 bars & Mark see 10 or 12 bars | |
| Mar 13, 2020 at 11:44 | comment | added | Marco Bonelli | @ChristopherTheodore let me ask you this: we are in the same situation, you can see 10 bars in your cell. The Evil Logician asks you if there are a total of 30 or 35 bars. Now tell me how many bars you think that I think you are seeing. | |
| Mar 13, 2020 at 11:40 | comment | added | Marco Bonelli | @ChristopherTheodore I'm sorry but what you're saying just doesn't add up. There's no logical way Mark would think that Rose thinks he sees 10 and 12 only. You are still adding external information. "Because Mark can come to the conclusion that Rose only sees 6 or 8, he KNOWS she can cone to the conclusion he can only see 10 or 12" - again, no, that's just wrong. Mark doesn't have enough information to exclude the possibiliry that Rose thinks he sees 14. You are adding external information to Mark's and Rose's knowledge. | |
| Mar 13, 2020 at 6:13 | comment | added | Christopher Theodore | @MarcoBonelli are you still in agreement with GlenO after my rebuttal (the 3 comments after your last comment)? I updated my Answer and added the additional reasoning in Element 2 of the Main Line of Logic. | |
| Mar 13, 2020 at 5:54 | history | edited | Christopher Theodore | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 214 characters in body
|
| Mar 13, 2020 at 5:44 | history | edited | Christopher Theodore | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 214 characters in body
|
| Mar 13, 2020 at 5:36 | history | edited | Christopher Theodore | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added the "Reason" to element 3 in the Main Line of Logical Reasoning
|
| Mar 13, 2020 at 5:30 | history | edited | Christopher Theodore | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added the "Reason" to element 3 in the Main Line of Logical Reasoning
|
| Mar 13, 2020 at 5:02 | history | edited | Christopher Theodore | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed typos
|
| Mar 13, 2020 at 4:52 | history | edited | Christopher Theodore | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added 2 elements to what Mark & Rose know conclusivly due to a question of how they eliminate the 14 and 10 possibility.
|
| Mar 13, 2020 at 4:24 | comment | added | Christopher Theodore | @GlenO "Mark sees 12 bars. He therefore reasons that Rose can see either 6 or 8 bars, because the sum must be 18 or 20. Now, in his knowledge, either Rose sees 6, or Rose sees 8." NEXT STEP: He also KNOWS she can come to a similar conclusion that he just did from her point of view (<--this is the part you exclude in your line of reasoning and why you make this error: If Rose sees 8, then she thinks Mark sees 10 or 12. If Rose sees 6, then she thinks Mark sees 12 or 14). Mark can be SURE that Rose thinks that he think she thinks he sees 10 or 12 bars, and only 10 or 12 bars (not 14). | |
| Mar 13, 2020 at 3:47 | comment | added | Christopher Theodore | Because Mark can come to the conclusion that Rose only sees 6 or 8, he KNOWS she can come to the conclusion he can only see 10 or 12. Because Rose can come to the Conclusion that Mark only sees 10 or 12, she KNOWS he can come to the conclusion she can only see 6 or 8. | |
| Mar 13, 2020 at 3:32 | comment | added | Christopher Theodore | @GlenO You aren't taking the previous conclusions into the next level of depth. By not including this, you are missing why Mark eliminates why Rose will eliminate 14, and why Rose will eliminate why Mark would eliminate 10. Mark knows that Rose knows that Mark knows he can only see 10 or 12... so he won't wonder if Rose is thinking he might see 14, and vise versa. | |
| Mar 13, 2020 at 2:55 | comment | added | Marco Bonelli | It's true that Mark knows Rose can only have 6 or 8. It's true that Rose knows Mark can only have 10 or 12. It is not true that Mark knows that Rose thinks Mark has 10 or 12 (this implies knowing Rose's number). It is not true that Rose knows that Mark thinks Rose has 6 or 8 (this implies knowing Mark's number). | |
| Mar 13, 2020 at 2:52 | comment | added | Marco Bonelli | I have to agree with @GlenO here, "That Rose knows I can only see 10 or 12 bars because Rose can only see 6 or 8 bars.". By saying this you are giving Mark the knowledge that Rose has 8 bars. If Mark doesn't know how many bars Rose has, then he can only come to the conclusion that Rose either knows (a) Mark has 10 or 12 (if she has 8) or (b) Mark has 12 or 14 (if she has 6). Therefore, in Mark's mind, Rose could think either 10, 12 or 14. If you exclude the 14, you are implicitly giving Mark the knowledge about Rose's number of bars. | |
| Mar 13, 2020 at 2:31 | comment | added | Glen O | In short, you are applying external knowledge to the problem - that is, when you decide what Mark thinks Rose is thinking, you are applying the knowledge that Rose sees 8. But Mark doesn't know that. | |
| Mar 13, 2020 at 2:29 | comment | added | Glen O | That's simply not true. Mark sees 12 bars. He therefore reasons that Rose can see either 6 or 8 bars, because the sum must be 18 or 20. Now, in his knowledge, either Rose sees 6, or Rose sees 8. If Rose sees 8, then she thinks Mark sees 10 or 12. If Rose sees 6, then she thinks Mark sees 12 or 14. Thus, Mark can only be sure that Rose thinks he sees 10, 12, or 14. | |
| Mar 13, 2020 at 2:25 | comment | added | Christopher Theodore | @GlenO 14 is not a possible answer when you include the only 2 Answers they can give. Rose KNOWS she sees 8... and if the only possible answers are 18 or 20, then Mark can only see 10 or 12, not 14. The inverse is true for Mark as well. Mark KNOWS he sees 12, and so there are only 6 or 8 bars that Rose could see. | |
| Mar 13, 2020 at 2:22 | comment | added | Glen O | "That Rose knows I can only see 10 or 12 bars because Rose can only see 6 or 8 bars." - this is faulty (as is the equivalent statement around Mark's knowledge). If Mark knows that Rose sees either 6 or 8 bars, then all Mark can be sure of regarding what Rose knows is that Mark sees 10, 12, or 14. This is because, if Rose sees 6, then Mark could have 12 or 14. | |
| Mar 13, 2020 at 1:59 | history | edited | Christopher Theodore | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
I cleaned up the verbage so it read clearer and the formating so that the 'spoilers' are hidden now.
|
| Mar 12, 2020 at 3:27 | history | edited | Christopher Theodore | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Mar 12, 2020 at 3:14 | history | edited | Christopher Theodore | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2229 characters in body
|
| Mar 11, 2020 at 23:57 | history | edited | Christopher Theodore | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 124 characters in body
|
| Mar 11, 2020 at 23:30 | review | Late answers | |||
| Mar 11, 2020 at 23:49 | |||||
| Mar 11, 2020 at 23:28 | history | edited | Christopher Theodore | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 124 characters in body
|
| Mar 11, 2020 at 23:12 | history | answered | Christopher Theodore | CC BY-SA 4.0 |