Anonymous user
Talk:Twelve statements: Difference between revisions
→Twelve statements?
(Near miss?) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 9:
If you added an extra statement you could similarly assign some method of how to treat these extra 'null' statements and under that scheme work out other extended solutions to the puzzle. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 04:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
: It seems pretty obvious what "there are 12 statements" or its opposite should mean, what's not obvious is in fact your rule on missing statements. If anything, it's unpythonic. Suppose statements are in a list <code>stmt[]</code> with zero-based index, #10 can be expressed as <code>all(stmt[10:12])</code>, or <code>all(stmt[10:11] + stmt[11:12])</code>, and what would Python say if <code>stmt</code> is only 11 long? (Ok, it's not really "unpythonic", it's just arbitrary.)
::Maybe we could incorporate a three-state logic of true/false/indeterminate? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 17:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
: You could choose to make nonexistent statement default to true or false, either would make a consistent rule, neither would be all that more interesting than the other. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 08:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I did enjoy this task and I do like the way Haskel encodes the statements. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 04:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The match when there are only eleven statements might better be thought of as a near miss as the task starts "Given the twelve statements ..." and we are already off-by-one because we are considering having other than twelve? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 04:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
==Logical consequence==
It is arguable that the problem is not well-defined since to solve the problem you must use the technical "material implication" interpretation of statements 4 and 8, rather than the everyday "entailment" interpretation. To understand the difference, consider the false statement "If Jupiter is the largest planet, then ladybugs have spots". The consequent does not follow from the antecedent though both are true. To make (common)sense, the problem should replace the "if A then B" statements by "B or not A" ones. You might say this is nit-picking, but logic is all about being precise in what you say. [[User:TobyK|TobyK]] 13:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
| |||