Are you smart enough to solve this?

>>733160161
2 cards: D and 7

0. Don't turn any cards just walk around them to see the other side.

>>733160161
2 ?

>>733160247
This is stupid and I'll fucking murder OP if this is the answer, because that's a pile of shit and frankly I'm starting to think you're a pile of shit

Only the D seems pretty obvious

>>733160310
That won't work because piles of shit are stationary you need perspective.

>>733160337
moron

D and 3

>>733160420
You're a pile of shit

>>733160161
D and 3

>>733160161
This is a shitty version of the EK47 logic test. Way to suck.

>>733160337
exactly.

>>733160549
>>733160500
it has only been stated that a d has to have a 3, not that a 3 can't have a different letter

>>733160161
D and 7, come on this isn't even hard.. unless it's one of those threads where you're supposed to ironically give a stupid answer to an easy question, in which case I am an idiot.

>>733160161
You have to turn 3 cards, if not then just 3 and 7.

>>733160337
Agreed.Let me put it this way:
It says that every D has a 3 on the back. But no where does it say that every 3 has a D on the back. So therefore, just turn over the D.

>>733160692
>>733160500
>>733160549
>>733160742

Are people really this stupid?

>>733160742
No, you retard. You need to turn over D to see if it complies by the rule and also 7 to see if it has D on the other side.

>>733160742
I know, that's what I thought. But it seemed too easy.

>>733160742

If there is a D on the back of that 7, then it violates the rule

D and 7 need to be turned

>>733160620
if D has 3 on one side, then 3 must have D on the other side. The way to completely validate the claim for the problem is to flip both over.

>>733160161
D and 7. Obviously you have to check to see if the D has a 3 on the back of it. But to really confirm if the claim is true, you must also flip over the 7 and make sure that it DOESN'T have a D behind it.

>>733160990
in that case, wouldnt you also have to flip over f?

>>733161085
No because the logical statement only applies to D. If D, then 3, and that's it. So the F doesn't matter at all, and nor does the 3. The 3 could have anything on the back of it and would neither support nor refute the claim. But if 7 has a D on the back of it, then the claim is false.

Technically only one but you would have to be lucky. You can turn over the F And if there's a 3 on the back the claim is false. Turn over the 7 and there's a D on the back the claim is false. So one card but you have to be lucky

>>733160161
D and 7 its obvious

>>733161085
No, because it has to have a number on the other side.

t. chem eng

>>733161178
it does not talk about front and back of the cards. if it did and there was some distinguishing factor, then you would be correct, however it says on the other side. if d = 3 then therefore 3 = d.

>>733161206
The F having a 3 on the back doesn't make the claim false. The claim only applies to the D card. But you're right about turning over the 7.

>>733160161
3 cards

>>733160975
no
The claims states that a D must have a on the other side
It says nothing about only Ds having 3s on the other side, that's in fact the catch, that's where most people would fail this test, to think they have to validate the 3 as well

>>733161223
that makes no sense, you claim makes no sense and your reasoning makes no sense. youre an idiot

Only D. If a card has a D on one side, and a 3 on the other, that doesn't mean that every card that has a 3 needs to have a D. Basically there can be a 3 with a B on one side, or C, or anything, but there can only be a D that has a 3.

>>733161254
You're missing a key component of logical statements. If D=3, then 3 doesn't have to equal D. 3 could have anything on the back of it and the statement would still hold up. Because the statement wasn't If 3, then D...

Does that make sense? Logic doesn't work in both ways like the way you are claiming it does. The statement is everything, and it ONLY applies to the letter D.

>>733160692
This is actually the answer, the 7 is a must because if it has a D then the statement is false.

If 3 doesn't have a D then it's false too, if it does you'd have to turn over the D too.

>>733161405
You must be a special kind of retard
X=3 is the same as 3=X you dumbfuck.

>>733161254
No, it says that any D card has to have a 3. Doesn't say that any 3 card has to have a D, therefore a 3 could have any letter on it but a D could only ever have a 3 on it.

>>733161446
Alright, that made me laugh. You're either baiting me or you don't have any experience/schooling in basic logic. It's not the same as math, dude.

>>733161405
your logic has holes in it. if D=3, then 3 HAS to equal 3. its basic math. as i said before, you are only correct if the question distinguishes front and back sides in some way, however it only says 'other side'

It's not an equation, it's a logical condition. Think of it in terms of programming. You can test for D having a 3 without ever considering the alternative conditions where 3 has another letter. Given the set of data, you'd only need to test the D and the 7 card to validate or invalidate the claim.

File: 41Prxh8Wg2L._SX315_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (29KB, 317x499px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 317x499px

>>733161549
To prove that something is false you need to find out that it doesn't hold at least once.

Imagine you turn over the D and it's not a 3, but you turn over the 3 and it's a D, then the statement is false, that's why i said>>733160692
Is correct.

please help yourself and read this book.

>>733161601
Alright, you're a fucking moron. Read the statement again...it says IF the card has a D on one side, it must have a 3 on the other. From that alone you can immediately remove the F card (because F doesn't matter) and also the 3 (because the statement was If D, then 3, not if 3, then D). The 3 can have anything on the back of it and it doesn't matter, even a Z, and it wouldn't dispute the claim. The claim never said anything about any letter except for D.

But you've gotta turn over the 7, as well, to make sure that there isn't a D on the back of it.

Seriously you're telling me my logic is flawed? You can't solve a logic problem that is taught in virtually every introductory logic course.

>>733161322
The claim is, that a card that has d on one side, has 3 on the other.

1. card has a D on one side and you check if it has 3 on the other side.
>first turn
2. card has an F on one side, so it cant have a D (fact), so its irrelevant to the claim.
3. card has a 3 on one side, so if the other side is a D, then the claim is true. Otherwise its irrelevant to the claim. So you dont have to turn.
4. card has a 7 on one side so if the other side is D, then the claim is false, so you have to check it.
>second turn

I hope its clear now

>>733161380
Person who wrote this comment here, I'm a retard I get it now

EVERYBODY.

It's D and 7.

We have to flip D over, if there's no 3 then the claim is false.

We don't have to flip the F over, because there's no way there is a D on the other side. If there was a 3, the claim is still true because a 3 doesn't have to be with a D, it can be with any letter. A D HAS to be with a 3 but not vice versa.

We don't have to flip the 3 over, because, as I said, a D HAS to be with a 3 but not vice versa.

We have to flip the 7 over, because there could be a D on the other side. And because D has to have a 3 on the other side (note it isn't vice versa), if there is a D on the other side of a 7 the claim is false.

There you go.

>>733161766
>>733161798
>>733161799
>We don't have to flip the 3 over, because, as I said, a D HAS to be with a 3 but not vice versa.

That's where you people are wrong.

>>733161799
There we go. Dubs = TRUTH

>>733161798
this makes sense, apologies for not seeing it otherwise

>>733161799
this is correct except for
>a D HAS to be with a 3 but not vice versa.

>>733161712
Well if you turn over the D and it's not a 3 then you're lucky and you disputed the claim on the first card. But if you turn over the D and it is a 3, then you must also turn over the 7 to make sure that it isn't a D.

>>733160161
Claim: If D then backside is 3
If you want to verify this claim you need to turn around every single card

>>733161941
>>733161972
You need to turn over 3 cards if you're not lucky, if you are you only need to turn over the 3 and 7.

>>733161838
You are hysterically ignorant of logical statements. What's even funnier is that you are unwilling to admit when you're wrong.

>>733161838
The claim is:

"If a card has a D on one side, then it has a 3 on the other side."

The claim isn't:

"If the card has a D on one side, then it has a 3 on the other side, and every card that has a 3 on one side has a D on the other side."

A 3 can have any letter behind it. A D can't, unless the claim is false.

You are wrong it is either 2 or 4

>>733162056
>>733162018

>>733161972
no, because it doesnt say that any other number or letter cant be d or 3

>>733162026
>If a card has a D on ONE SIDE

If you turn over the 3 and it has a D you want to tell me the claim is true?

>>733161932
I think I misworded it.

A D has to have a 3 on the other side, but not vice versa (meaning 'A 3 has to have a D on the other side')

>>733162018
The 3 doesn't matter, though. The statement was IF D, then 3. Not the other way around. That 3 could have anything on the back of it and it wouldn't dispute the claim, so there is no need to turn it over. Flipping the D and the 7 both would prove or disprove the statement. The 3 card baits people who don't understand the basic premise of If..then... statements.

>>733162112
youre correct if youre saying a 3 has to have a d on the other side and a d has to have a 3 on the other side

>>733162094
Misworded by me again.

"If a card has a D on the facing side...."

>>733162187
Where does it say on the facing side ? it's says on one side, no matter which side.

That's why your logic is flawed.

>>733162162
No.
If the claim is false, you are right but if the claim is true, then a facing side with a 3 doesn't have to have a D. A facing side with a D HAS to have a 3

>>733162118
how to theoretically turn a sphere inside out?
are you smart enough to realize what the content of this video means?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKqt6e7EcCs

>>733162162
The 3 doesn't have to have a D on the other side for the claim to be true. The letter D is restricted to the number 3 in the claim. But N, C, Z, J, or any other letter could also have a 3 on the back and it wouldn't change the statement whatsoever.

>>733162279
sorry. i looked at it again and i realised my mistake

>>733161838

Not sure if trolling or just stupid...

>>733162262
I thought you guys were retarded.

Turns out I am.

Good job.

>>733162298
i know, i know, i know, i looked at it and saw that i had a misunderstanding with the wording

>>733162378
Sorry man, I don't even know to whom I'm responding at this point.

>>733162372
>>733162262
Wait no I'm not, I'm right. Read the claim again. I never misworded it

>>733162372
Sarcasm ?

>>733162118

55

>>733162423
i think theres only 4 people still in the thread, but you replied to the right argument we've been having for a while. i saw i had a misunderstanding in the wording a while ago

File: 546324566.jpg (62KB, 1218x704px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1218x704px

One side has age, the other has drink. If you are under 21 you are not allowed to have alcohol. Which card or cards do you have to turn over to make sure no underage person is drinking alcohol?

There, that should be easier for you retards.

>>733162284
i know that video.

>>733162524
vodka and 16

>>733162484
nope

>>733162466
I thought they were retarded then I thought I was retarded now I think I'm retarded for thinking I was retarded because I'm not retarded.

>>733162677
rub those 2 brain cells together anon, you can figure it out

>>733161380
Person who started this thread of replies, I'm leaving now, kbai

>>733162677
It all depends on how you interpret this i guess, i say it's no matter which side, you think it's only the facing side, guess we never know.

>>733162524
16 is in the wrong slot though, kids are still gonna be confused

>>733160233
This.

>>733162284
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrU9YDoXE88

>>733162524
you need to turn all cards obviously

>>733162894
I know that, Vsauce is the best youtuber.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaL_Cb42WyY

>>733162284
i can follow the steps but when i think about the imagination needed to figure this out ...

2, leftmost, rightmost

Explanation:
Cards from left to right:
D => ?
F => ?
? => 3
? => 7

Goal:
Show that for each card, D => 3 holds.
(Fact 1) Implication is correct if truth implies truth, or false implies anything.

Reasoning:
Card 1:
We know it's D on one side, hence implier is truth. For our goal to hold, according to Fact 1, we need to verify if the implies is also true.
Hence we need to invert card 1, since the number on the other side of card 1 is vital for our goal.
We turn card 1.

Card 2:
We know it's F on one side, so it's not D. Therefore implier is false. Due to Fact 1, anything may be implied from a falsehood.
Therefore we do not need to know the number on the other side of card 2.
We do not turn card 2.

Card 3:
We know it's 3 on one side, so the implied is true. Let's invoke Fact 1 again, our situation for this card is like this: ? => true.
Observe, that regardless of whether ? is D (true => true) or is not D (false => true), the implication remains true (Fact 1 again).
As such, there is no need to turn card 3, because the letter on its other side does not influence our goal statement.
We do not turn card 3.

Card 4:
We know it's 7 on one side, so the implies is false. This statement is of the form ? => false.
Using Fact 1, our implication holds only if false => false, so we must check whether the letter on this card is D, because if it's not, then our claim doesn't hold.
We turn card 4.

Result:
We turn cards 1 and 4 as what's on the other side can influence claim's truthfulness (reverse of cards 2 and 3 can't).

Short:
D => ?
F => ?
? => 3
? => 7

true => ? | cases: true => true (truth of claim) true => false (fallacy), claim depends on unknown
false => ? | cases: false => false (truth of claim) false => true (truth), card needn't be turned
? => true | cases: true => true (truth of claim) false => true (truth), card needn't be turned
? => false | cases: false => false (truth of claim) true => false (fallacy), claim depends on unknown

>>733162118
40

>>733163029
yeah ? well you're a cocksucker

>>733160161
one.
you dont have to flip the 3 because it has nothing to do with the claim.
the claim relates to what is on the back of the D card, not what is on the back of every 3 card.
the 3 may have a Z on it, it still wouldn't invalidate the claim

2 cards. D and 7

>>733160161
all of them. and then it is still noch a verification to the claim

>>733163048
no. again to much.

>>733160161
4 cards

>>733162118
18

>>733163131
Exactly. You'd have to know all the possible card combinations you can get before being able to proof anything. If the 7 doesn't have D on it's back, it only increases the chance of the claim to be true.

>>733162976
nice. :D

>>733163438
nah.

>>733162118
im thinking really hard here
2D is layer*n (n=layer/layer)
3D is layer*n (n=layer/2+0.5)
4D is layer*n (n=?)

>>733160161
One.
If you turn the D and get anything other than 3 then the claim is false.

>>733162118
How do the spheres represent anything meaningful at all though?

3 because you have to verify that the other numbered cards do not have D on them as well as the D having a 3.

>>733163919
have you considered the 1D case?

>>733164206
they are adding the idea of space, generating gemetric conditions.

>>733164723
2 knows that he and 3 have different colors or else 1 would have said something.

>>733164915
correct

The answer is 2, D and 7. Anyone that thinks otherwise is retarded.

>>733164723
but can they still see 4. card?

i guess it has something to do with everyone turning around and let 4 say which cards there are

>>733164915
>>733165017
okay so communication is allowed?
what are the exact rules

File: df37.jpg (37KB, 481x514px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 481x514px

>>733160161
>Are you smart enough to solve this?

Hasta lasagna, don't get any on ya

>>733161411

Claim says that D has a 3 on the other side, not that 3 is only found opposite D.

>>733163919
total # spheres in the pyramid(from left to right layers) = # in a layer in (Dimension-1):
0D: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
1D: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
2D: 1, 3, 6, 10,15, 21
3D: 1, 4, 10, 20,35, 56
4D: 1, 5, 15, 35,70,126

>>733160161
Only D and 7 need to be turned

>D should have 3 on the other side
>7 needs to be turned to make sure it's not D on the other side

F isn't of interest
3 isn't of interes because it wasn't claimed that every card with a 3 on one side, has to be a D on the other

>>733167245
also pascals triangle

>>733166422
>quoting a guy who dies literally in the first 10 minutes of a movie because he's stupid as fuck

File: emilioisvatu.gif (93KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 480x270px

>>733167843
flip D and not a three that is the ansa... #UntrueStoriesOfHollywood
Charlie Sheen died in 2011. Emilio Estevez, has been playing the role of Sheen ever since, WINNING!

>>733168428
still has aids like a faggot though.