Silly logic game

**Malac Reborn** · 01-09-2011 08:10 AM

The goal is simple: construct a set of statements to which someone may derive a conclusion from. It's preferable that the statements are true. (My true intent is to watch others miserably fail at using simple logic) I will start:

All men are animals. No animal, however, is a rock. There are rocks that weigh less than 5 pounds. Anything that weigh less than 5 pounds, weighs less than 10 pounds.

Therefore: solve

Edit: To which one may derive a conclusion from, in particular, has not been listed, and an overall conclusion may be ambiguous to some as to whether it be a multitude of conclusions from which may be derived, or a single conclusion, derived to include all elements of each premise for a single answer. It is the latter for which is intended in this game.

To make this game slightly more enjoyable for a broader audience, I shall alter it in the a form of a mystery game, to which one may deduce the clues that lie at present, for the purpose of solving its problem.
(Unless I have something better to do.)

**Maria92** · 01-09-2011 08:30 AM

All men are still animals, animals aren't rocks, some rocks weigh less than 5 pounds, and 5 pounds of anything weighs less than 10 pounds of anything else.

I can has cookie?

**tmac1992** · 01-09-2011 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Somii

All men are animals. No animal, however, is a rock. There are rocks that weigh less than 5 pounds. Anything that weigh less than 5 pounds, weighs less than 10 pounds.

Therefore: solve

Men are the only beings that have a significant "weight" in existence.

**Fernanvic** · 01-09-2011 12:25 PM

All men are animals. No animal, however, is a rock. There are rocks that weigh less than 5 pounds. Anything that weigh less than 5 pounds, weighs less than 10000 pounds. All men weight less than 10000 pounds. Hitler was a man.
Therefore: Hitler was an animal. SOLVED FOREVER

Makes you think about philosophy and stuff...

**Malac Reborn** · 01-09-2011 03:56 PM

No, no, and no.

**Xei** · 01-09-2011 04:06 PM

Errrrp. No man is a rock and... there are rocks that weigh less than 10 pounds? Now what?

**Malac Reborn** · 01-09-2011 04:10 PM

Yes and no. Derive an overall conclusion using every premise. The aforementioned rule wasn't specified in the instructions, so I'll hand this one out: Somethings that weigh less than 10 pounds are not men.

I'll come up with another soon. OP EDITED.

**NoctemConArtist** · 01-09-2011 06:32 PM

All men are animals. If something is an animal, it is not a rock. Therefore if something is a rock, it is not an animal. There are some rocks that weigh less than 5 pounds. Anything that weighs less than 5 pounds, weighs less than 10 pounds. Therefore some rocks weigh less than 10 pounds. Others may weigh more than 10 pounds. None of those rocks are animals regardless of how much they weigh. In conclusion, animals can weigh however much they want, and so can men.

cookie pl0x

**Maria92** · 01-09-2011 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by Somii

Yes and no. Derive an overall conclusion using every premise. The aforementioned rule wasn't specified in the instructions, so I'll hand this one out: [I]Somethings that weigh less than 10 pounds are not men.

Define "men," cuz there are definitely babies who are born at under 10 pounds, and there's also this bro: Nepali teen bids for crown of world's smallest man ever - Times Online

**Malac Reborn** · 01-09-2011 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by Mario92

Define "men," cuz there are definitely babies who are born at under 10 pounds, and there's also this bro: Nepali teen bids for crown of world's smallest man ever - Times Online

Human; Homosapien

What is this tidbit of data of yours supposed to support?

**Xei** · 01-10-2011 12:46 AM

You're right, most people don't have a handle on basic logic.

**Maria92** · 01-10-2011 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by Somii

Human; Homosapien

What is this tidbit of data of yours supposed to support?

1. the man weighs under 10 pounds
2. babies, classed as men under your definition, also weigh less than 10 pounds.

Did I break the game?

**Malac Reborn** · 01-10-2011 01:01 AM

No.

**nerve** · 01-10-2011 01:13 AM

QUIT NITPICKING Mario it was fun til you started getting all technical and digging up oddball exceptions :[

post more POST MORE

**Malac Reborn** · 01-10-2011 01:17 AM

There were no exceptions brought up by him. There was just a display of his confusion.

**nerve** · 01-10-2011 04:59 AM

you're saying the guy mentioned in the article isn't real? or, when you said "somethings" did you mean "some things"?

...now I'm thoroughly confused.

**DuB** · 01-10-2011 05:09 AM

Heh. I was thinking it was obvious that "somethings" means "some things," not "all things." But I guess I understand the mix up. In any case, whether or not the propositions are actually true has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the argument and what conclusions can be drawn from it. This is even touched on in the OP ("It's preferable that the statements are true"). The amusing irony in all this is that the failure to recognize this fact exposes one's lack of facility with basic logic, thereby supporting the thesis in the OP.

**Malac Reborn** · 01-10-2011 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by DuB

Heh. I was thinking it was obvious that "somethings" means "some things," not "all things." But I guess I understand the mix up. In any case, whether or not the propositions are actually true has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the argument and what conclusions can be drawn from it. This is even touched on in the OP ("It's preferable that the statements are true"). The amusing irony in all this is that the failure to recognize this fact exposes one's lack of facility with basic logic, thereby supporting the thesis in the OP.

In its context, this statement was meant to instruct those that would have participated, in also creating their own premises for another person to deduce from, to use, preferably, true premises. It wasn't meant to be taken as whether the conclusion should be preferably true. Thus, it is the contrary of what you said, about whether or not the propositions actually being true, to not have any bearing on what conclusions that could be drawn from them. However, this fault is mine for not making this so clear. These things tend to happen when one hastily does something while tired.

**nerve** · 01-10-2011 10:32 AM

I never claimed I understood logic! duly embarrassed. I read the statements about 10 times and only got more confused. I think I will try to resist asking anymore silly questions and just read from here on. maybe check out some books. hff, and my answer was going to be "rocks are people too."

...please, proceed with your stomping, Somii.

**tommo** · 01-11-2011 12:50 PM

Who's posting the next one?

**mindwanderer** · 01-11-2011 03:25 PM

Edit: This is too easy, so I removed some statements to try and make it harder. Also, great idea for a thread!

Reality is a result of perception. Perception can be subjective and objective. No two individuals are the same.

Solve.

**Maria92** · 01-12-2011 04:37 AM

No two individuals are the same is an objective perception of our reality. But if perception is subjective, and reality is a result of perception, then reality can be subjective or objective, and therefore, two individuals can be the same or different.

**Malac Reborn** · 01-12-2011 05:29 AM

Originally Posted by Mario92

No two individuals are the same is an objective perception of our reality. But if perception is subjective, and reality is a result of perception, then reality can be subjective or objective, and therefore, two individuals can be the same or different.

No.

Originally Posted by mindwanderer

Edit: This is too easy, so I removed some statements to try and make it harder. Also, great idea for a thread!

Reality is a result of perception. Perception can be subjective and objective. ~~No two individuals are the same.~~

Solve.

Therefore, reality can be subjective and objective.

**Maria92** · 01-12-2011 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by Somii

No.

Therefore, reality can be subjective and objective.

Originally Posted by Mario92

No two individuals are the same is an objective perception of our reality. But if perception is subjective, and reality is a result of perception, then reality can be subjective or objective, and therefore, two individuals can be the same or different.

wtf?