1
$\begingroup$

This might be a bit broad, but still, I am wondering:

Imagine a game of logical deduction, involving a typical "cracking the code" scenario.

We have three numbers and a statement:

245 two numbers are correct but in the wrong place.

My question is; does the statement logically (and/or game wise) need to contain all the information there is to say about the number for the statement to be considered true?

For example, will the above statement exclude the following options:

245 two numbers are correct but in the wrong place and 1 is correct and in place.

or

245 three numbers are correct but in the wrong place.

My guess would be that missing information would not make the statement false. But still, it feels wrong to say 2 numbers are correct and not in the right place if they all 3 were.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is more a question about pedantry, in most cases. It's like when you ask someone, "How are you?" and if they say, "I'm alright," you say, "I didn't know you were called 'Alright'!" $\endgroup$ – boboquack Apr 6 '17 at 22:01
  • $\begingroup$ "two numbers are correct but in the wrong place" = two correct numbers, both are in the wrong place "two numbers are correct but in the wrong place and 1 is correct and in place" = all numbers are correct but only one of them is in the correct place "three numbers are correct but in the wrong place" = all numbers are correct, all of them are in the wrong place. The first answer should, by logic, exclude the other options, because it implies only two numbers are correct, but the other two answers state that all three numbers are correct. Like Gareth said, its misleading if 2 was to mean 3. $\endgroup$ – Piotr Pytlik Apr 7 '17 at 9:32
1
$\begingroup$

If the rules of the game say the statement has to say as much as possible, then it has to say as much as possible.

Otherwise, it's not false but it might be misleading. Whether that's good or bad will depend on context :-).

(Sometimes things like "this statement says as much as it could have done" are called implicatures; googling that will probably turn up a bunch of linguistic and philosophical stuff about the phenomenon. In ordinary conversation, a ton of information is conveyed by implicature rather than by what's actually said.)

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.