|
Typical, you wait 14 updates for a murder and then six come along at once.
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
E: no point to this post any more.
Zandar fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
EagerSleeper posted:Thank you, you explained it much clearer than my attempt. I think this is how this locked room could bedone, and there's no witchcraft required. Rosa pointed out that the door could be locked from inside without a key; she (and the servants) also apparently believed that it wouldn't be trivial to leave the door in a locked state while being outside. These two things are not mutually exclusive. There are doors which can't be closed while locked, for example, especially older ones - if they don't have a tapered latch, it'll just bang on the doorframe. No contradiction necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
CottonWolf posted:It's important to remember that the Hempel's raven logic only works when two statements are genuinely mutually exclusive and the premises are true. Beato's all humans are foolish example while logically valid can be defeated by attacking the premises. I bet that's going to come up a lot. It's not actually logically valid - if it were, one person being wise (the only premise) really would mean that everyone else was foolish. The original statement was "All humans except me are foolish" - that is, "If a human is not me, they are foolish." Let's abbreviate that to "A => B". The contrapositive of that statement is, "If a human is not foolish, they are me," or "(not B) => (not A)". Beatrice's second statement, though, was, "I am wise." This equates to, "If a human is me, they are not foolish," or "(not A) => (not B)", which is actually the converse of the original statement - not logically equivalent at all! This is actually a pretty common fallacy, so I assume it's just another instance of Beatrice trolling Battler. Seems like he's incompetent in multiple fields! EDIT: Actually, her initial explanation of Hempel's Raven is flawed in the same way, which probably contributes to the confusion. Examining all non-ravens tells you nothing about the colour of ravens; what you actually have to do is examine all birds which are not black, and see that none of them are ravens. It then stands to reason that all ravens must be in the remaining group, birds which are black. Zandar fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
The ultimate deterrent, Mutually Assured Disproof.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 17:57
|
|