well, /sci/?

c3

move both levers to the middle position between on and off

>>8612239
B3

The answer is that the image is lying. It was created by Cheryl, as a way to get you to kill 20 people for her.

File: 08PCLqB.png (132KB, 312x312px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 312x312px

>>8612239
Albert: "I don't know which is the correct pad, but I know that you don't know either" implies that the letter is Not A and Not B. Because if it were A and the number was 6, Bernard would know the pad. And if it were B and the number were 5, then Bernard would also know the pad.

Bernard: "At first I didn't know which was the correct pad, but now I do" implies Bernard did not have 5 or 6; Albert's first statement means that the pad lies either in C or D. Path 1 is still unknown because there are pads on both C and D. So this means the pad must lie on either 2, 3, or 4, because these have only one pad in the C/D rail.

Albert: Albert now knows that the path is on either 2, 3, or 4, and also he knows it must be on C and D. There are two on D, and one on C, so it cannot be D since he knows which pad it is. Therefore it must be C.

So the answer is C3.

Out of the first line of the conversation, we know that Albert isn't sure which is the right pad. We can definitely say out of all the possible letters, he knows only the options which have multiple pads, him being unsure what the pad is. Ergo, at this point, his options are all four letters, ABCD. But then he says he knows Albert doesn't know either. This means his letter indicates a line where it doesn't intersect 5 or 6, the only lines which Albert would know for certain what the pad is. C or D are Albert's options at this point.

On the other hand, Bernard knows for sure what the option to choose is after hearing this admission from Albert. What this conveys to him is exactly what I've just said, if he's smart enough, so his options are the tracks which have only one pad on C or D combined. 2,3, and 4 are his options.

Finally, after Albert conveys this information, Bernard says he now knows for sure as well, indicating the fact that he knows Albert has 2, 3, or 4 and so will choose the line which has only one pad on it between C-D and 2-4, C.

C is the answer.

>>8612491
>>8612493
But are you ethically obliged to pull the lever to C3?

C3.

wtf I feel smart af

Before Albert speaks, he knows Bernard knows the number but not the pad so that rules out the single pads on lines 5 & 6. Which leaves a lone pad on line B. If it were this line Albert would know it then, but he doesn't, so it isn't line B.

Albert communicates this to Bernard.

So Bernard, knowing the above, is looking at four possible numbered lines, 1-4, three of which from his perspective have two possible pads (1, 2, 3) and one of which has one (4). He now says that he knows the correct pad, and the only way he can know the pad is if it is the newly-single pad at D4. If his line was 1, 2, or 3 he would have a choice of two pads on each line so he would not know.

So, D4.

>>8612487
underrated post

How does Albert learn the proper number and the correct path?

Just fucking mind reads it?

>>8612573
don't worry brainlet it's not your fault

kill cheryl

>>8612578
oh ok nevermind i figured it out

File: Cheryl puzzle 1.png (326KB, 927x416px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 927x416px

>>8612553

>>8612594
>>8612553
nono
Albert only knows the LETTER
So for him to say "I know you don't know the correct pad" It has to be C or D
Since A or B could have a line with a single pad.

Bernard knows the number, and is told that it is letters C or D, says he now knows the correct pad, meaning it isn't line 1

Albert says he now knows what the pad is, meaning it is line C, since line D could have 2 options

>>8612606
Yes, we know Albert only knows the letter, my working out is based on that.
Generally, to the rest of what you said, no. Look at the drawing, it's quite simple.

>>8612644
?
ur drawing doesn't make any sense
How can albert know what pad it is if its D4?
D has 2 valid options for Albert if that was his line

>>8612606
>Since A or B could have a line with a single pad.
No, line B can't have a single pad otherwise Albert would know it was the one as soon as he realised it was sole because lines 5 was off the menu. So it isn't line B.

The only way Bernard can know, is if he is looking at a single pad on one of his numbered lines, hence D4.

>>8612664
Because Bernard figured it out, therefore Albert was able to figure it out because he could see at that point Bernard only had one possible option. Look through my description, and look at the drawing. The keys are what they knew initially, and what they communicate to each other.

>>8612684
Meant to add, if Bernard didn't know at that point because his line had two pads on it, then Albert wouldn't have been able to figure it out either.

>>8612676
>>8612684
>>8612688
?
You are wrong
Albert tells Bernard its C or D
Bernard tells Albert that he knows it now, aka its line 2-3-4
Albert says he knows it, which means it must be C3, since line D would still have 2 options left.

How can it be D4?

I spin 720 degrees and walk away

>>8612705
>Albert tells Bernard its C or D

No he doesn't. By telling Bernard that he knows Bernard doesn't know, he is only inferring that it can't be line 5 or 6, which removes pads A6 and B5. And he tells Bernard that he Albert doesn't know. So because B5 has been removed, leaving B4 the sole possible on line B, if it were line B *Albert would know it*. But at this point he doesn't. So we can remove Line B and hence B4 as a possible. Hearing this, Bernard now says that he knows. The ONLY POSSIBLE WAY Bernard can know is if he is looking at a SOLE PAD on the line he knows is the correct line. Line 1 2 3 still have two possible pads on them. Line 4 has only the pad on D.

>>8612729
>No he doesn't.
Yes he literally does..
Albert doesn't know what number it is, he only knows what letter it is.
By saying Bernard doesn't know it either, he's telling him that it isn't A or B, since line A and B have single pads.

>which removes pads A6 and B5
?
It removes the whole lines.... Albert has no knowledge other than what letter it is, this isn't knowledge being magic'd into his head, this is simple deduction.
If it were Line A or B, then Bernard would have the possibility of already knowing the pad.
Since Albert says he doesn't, we can deduce it isn't line A or B

File: Cheryl's Trolley Solution.png (30KB, 497x1194px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 497x1194px

Grid logic solution.

>>8612751
You're not getting it, are you. I can't do any more, read what I've said and try to follow it. Just once. Forget how you are explaining it to yourself and read what I wrote with a fresh eye.

>>8612787
How could Bernard know if it were on A? Every other letter track has pads.

This is wrong.

>>8612787
very nice anon.

Remove the pads Bernard knows aren't right, A6, B5.
Remove the sole pad Albert knows isn't right, B4.(Because at this point he says he still doesn't know)

Bernard then knows which pad it is. Therefore he must be looking at a sole pad. The only sole pad left is D4.

>>8612810
are you non-white

>>8612787
wait, shouldn't the first sentence eliminate only 5 and 6 because Bernard would know the pad if it were A6 And B5, how does it eliminate the letter too?

>>8613011
pl0x help

>>8613011
Because he's ALBERT
Albert knows already what letter it is
He sees that it's (c), though he doesn't tell us
So he makes this statement that he KNOWS Bernard doesn't know what it is

aka
It isn't A or B. Because if it was A or B he couldn't know that.

It's not eliminating 5 or 6, it's eliminating A or B

>>8612729
>>8612751
when you say that albert would know the answer if it were B4, you're falsely double counting albert's assumptions on his limited knowledge. Albert cannot know it's not B4 and also assert bernard doesn't know in the same (first) sentence.

>>8613011
It has to eliminate A and B because albert could not say with certainty that bernard doesn't know it. If it WERE lines A or B, he could only say that he (albert) doesn't know but bernard MIGHT know (if the numbers were 5 or 6)

C3 is the answer.

>>8612239
Nothing, I side with Cheryl

REEEE
sometimes I hate myself, I was doing this problem without ever realizing there was a 6th column

>>8612803
No, it's right. Both a and b have pads on them that are unique to their number-therefore, if it were track a or b there would be a chance that bernard would know it. Since Albert says Bernard cannot know it based just on the number, that climates tracks a and b.
>>8612806
Thanks anon, that actually means a lot to me. Anonymous praise is the sincerest.

>>8612239
Blood on my hands or blood on hers. I will let the trollies not hit. Thou shalt not kill.

>>8613481
>Both a and b have pads on them that are unique to their number
Why do you keep saying this? It doesn't make sense. All numbered lines have two pads on, after removing 5 & 6. I cannot see that you are making a logical point with this statement. Can you be more precise?

> Albert cannot know it's not B4 and also assert bernard doesn't know in the same (first) sentence.
THATS EXACTLY WRONG, THIS IS WHERE YOU ARE GOING WRONG. The initial condition is Albert knows Bernard doesn't know; it's a given. At this point, before the communication, Albert knows it's not line B (we don't know this initially, it becomes clear in the next step.) Then it's the timing of the communications. When B4 is left as the only pad on line B Albert THEN tells Bernard he still doesn't know the answer, because he (Albert) knows it's not line B. THEN Bernard replies that he now does know. Because Bernard is now aware that Albert still doesn't know, so Albert must know it isn't the sole pad B4 and Bernard sees this. Bernard now knows the answer because there is now only one lone pad, D4.

>>8613853
Why are you removing 5 & 6
Albert CANNOT know it isn't 5 & 6, all he can know is the letter

>>8613862
Albert knows it is C, he can eliminate any number that doesn't have a pad on C

>>8612787
I don't get how either of them can know anything besides what character and number they both have. How can they gain any knowledge besides that?

>>8613873
he doesn't TELL us that
He only tells us that he KNOWS Bernard doesn't either, which means it can't be A or B because those lines have a possibility that Bernard WOULD know

this is some retarded shit
it can be ANY PAD but you retards still go
>since he said this unrelated phrase it eliminates every pad except c3, ergo it's c3
they dont tell each other the letter/number and they are not fucking psychics

>>8613926
>this is some retarded shit
Hello, some retarded shit.

You don't have to introduce yourself when posting, BTW.

>>8612239
>Cheryl(Carol?) killing people with trains.
>Albert and Bernard
>not Ray and Randy
You had one job.

>>8613862
BERNARD knows it isn't 5 or 6 because he knows the line but doesn't know the answer; only one pad on 5 & 6 so it's not them.

>>8613874
FFS are you trolling or do you not read previous posts? It's here:
>>8612553 and here
>>8612684 and here
>>8612810 and here
>>8612594

>>8613977
are you ?

>>8613984
Funny, my sides are in orbit.

>>8613977
>BERNARD knows it isn't 5 or 6 because he knows the line but doesn't know the answer; only one pad on 5 & 6 so it's not them.

And Albert infers this when Bernard tells him he doesn't know.

>>8612553
>>8612594
That's actually a pretty nice troll.

>>8613994
Waiting for your criticism then.

>>8613992
Albert KNOWS it from the beginning because he knows its line c

>>8614010
Explain? Step by step, from the initial conditions?

>>8614002
That's not criticism, i think it's clever how you managed to get a different answer using flawed logic and still making it sound reasonable. The mistake is quite subtle.

>>8614013
??
he's told the letter
he knows it

Then he says that he also knows Bernard doesn't know it, meaning that the letter cannot be A or B, as those letters both have a possibility of Bernard knowing it

>Albert: "I don't know which is the correct pad, but I know that you don't know either"
>Bernard: "I still don't know which is the correct pad."
>Albert: "I now know."
>Bernard: "So do I."

>>8614026
>meaning that the letter cannot be A or B, as those letters both have a possibility of Bernard knowing it
How? Spell it out, please.

>>8613947
nice adhom faggot
now refute my arguments

>>8614067
Here you go
>>8612553

>>8614062
Let's say Albert was told it's on line A (or B). Can he say for certain that Bernard doesn't know the exact pad?

No, because if the number was 6 (or 5), Bernard would know the answer, because there's only one pad on those lines.

Therefore, since Albert says he knows Bernard doesn't know, Bernard can infer that it can't be on line A or B. And he already knows it can only be on either line A or C, so he now knows the answer.

>>8614076
>Let's say Albert was told it's on line A (or B). Can he say for certain that Bernard doesn't know the exact pad? No, because if the number was 6 (or 5), Bernard would know the answer, because there's only one pad on those lines.

Bernard would know it's not line 5 or 6, but could not make any further assumptions about line A or B initially. Agreed?

>>8614098
Albert could not be sure that Bernard couldn't know the pad, if it was A or B

It cannot be A or B
It's not a pad or number thing, its a letter thing
Albert knows the letter and makes a statement based on the letter

>female
>scientist

>>8614098
>Can he say for certain that Bernard doesn't know the exact pad?
Yes. This is one of the initial conditions given.

>>8614098
Bernard knows it is on line 3. He therefore know it is either on line A or C, because they are the only lines with pads on line 3.

If it was on line A, Albert couldn't say he knows for certain Bernard doesn't know.

So Bernard knows after Albert tells him.

>>8614105
Look here!
>>8614109
Albert knows that Bernard doesn't know. It's one of the initial givens. You're basing your thinking on a flawed assumption.

>>8614111
See? This is where your reasoning falls apart because Albert initially can say for certain that Bernard doesn't know BECAUSE IT IS AN INITIAL GIVEN CONDITION.

>>8614109
No it's not. We only know that Albert was told a letter and Bernard was told a number. No indication is given whether that was sufficient or insufficient information for either person to deduce the pad, until Albert's statement, which is based solely on the information he was given.

>>8614120
True. Sorry, I was wrong. This is known after Albert's first statement.

Add me to the c3 group

i like these types of puzzles where you actually need to think without it trying to trick you with semantic bullshit or where you need to know some obscure trivia.

>>8614142
Add me to the c3 group

Why, explain please?

>>8614142
Try >>8614059

>>8614136
But it doesn't change the main point here that Albert did know that Bernard didn't know.

>>8614156
By virtue of the fact that he knows it is on line C, and therefore can't be on lines 5 and 6.

>>8614151
In this instance, that would be B4. The only single pad left after lines 5 and 6 are ruled out. It's easier to see this one, because Albert immediately knows so it must be the only lone pad.

>>8614164
Why? You still haven't said why he knows it's on line C, you've given no reasoning except >>8614076
which doesn't make sense, I questioned earlier and you haven't replied to in any way that makes sense.

>>8614168
>first statement is identical to the OP, which allows you to eliminate lines A and B

>It's B4

Try again

these trolley problems are really getting out of control

>>8614176
Albert is told it's on line C at the start by Cheryl.

>>8614177
No, doesn't make sense. I didn't say eliminate A & B, I said 5 & 6.

>>8614189
So explain it, lay it out for me in simple phrases, step by step, like I'm an idiot. Don't just say "he was told C" because we don't know it from the start. Start at the beginning.

>>8614196
This is you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ypaXNVPkSg

>>8612239
I've eliminated 5, 6 and B but that's as far as I got.

>>8614212
So that leaves D4 as the only pad on its own. Bernard then says he knows the answer so it must be the only sole pad, D4.

>>8614202
Explain why or STFU, asshole.

>>8614274
It's been explained multiple times already.

It's alright anon, not everyone gets it. It's okay.

This took me too long to understand.
I kept eliminating numbers first...
"I know you don't know either"

>>8614270
So why are so many people saying C3?

File: 1484775080155.jpg (268KB, 960x842px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 960x842px

>>8612239
That was a hard one, OP.

File: 1392907139640.jpg (72KB, 531x642px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 531x642px

>>8614270
you are retarded

>>8614274
>>8614275
It's dumb as fuck
sure c3 is the answer to this riddle, but it wouldn't work IRL
>y
"at first I didn't know but now I do"
that means that since we have excluded A and B
the only left possible choices are D 2 , D 4 and C 3 (cuz there are 2 plates on lane 1 and therefore number guy Bernard can't know on his own)
Now letter guy Albert know the correct pad. Logically that leaves C because he has 2 pands on D and therefore he wouldn't know. We take his words as a fact (because OP has written them there) and thus solve the riddle.But in actuallity he doesn't know shit, Only Bernard knows because he has only one pad on each number.
Albert can't know for sure and we can't know for sure too.

>>8614321
Because the answer D4 is based on a flaw already explained ITT

>>8614333
Just noticed it in comment with grid logic. Wanted to solve it myself though.

C3 then it is.

I understand how it can't be 5 or 6, but don't get why it can't be A or B.

>>8614346
It's been explained a gorillion times already.

Albert can only be sure that Bernard doesn't know if he's told a track letter different than A or B, therefore it cannot be A or B. If he were told A or B, he could not be as certain as he is.

>>8614346
Albert only knows what letter it is on, yet HE knows it's not on 5 or 6. The only way he can know that is if he knows it's not on A or B

>>8614346
Albert knows a letter. Nothing else. And this letter allows him to know that it's not 5 or 6. Thus his letter is either C or D

File: 482514_232167786956084_1962869377_n.jpg (9KB, 247x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 247x200px

>>8614361
>>8614362
Sure we can remove B, but there are still 2 possible pads on A, so why are we excluding A also?

>>8614356
But there's still two pads on track A, so why would he be less certain?

>>8614364
If Albert was given letter A, he wouldn't be able to say "i know that Bernard doesn't know"

I was also thinking
>1. Cheryl
>2. Albert
>3. Bernard

>4. Dude - is missing
It's D4

Christians:1 Atheists:0

>Albert: "Umm, do you already know?"
>Bernard: "No, but I do now."
>Albert: "Me too!"

File: 1400098523369.gif (30KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 633x758px

>>8614384
NO, NO WAIT
I was wondering why noone pointed this out
I imagined that he said that because if the pad was on 5 or 6 (only one pad on these lines) then it would be retarded to even involve Albert in the first place. He would be irrelevant.

>>8614364
>>8614365
This is what I asked this guy several times already, and he won't answer. He's a troll just feeding misinformation. He won't explain how he got to this, and won't give clear answers when it's pointed out. Don't feed him anymore.

>>8614059
Cannot happen. It's either C1 or D1, Albert knows but Bernard cannot know.

>>8614059
>It is on D or C
>It is on 1
>Albert knows both the letter and the number and thus knows the pad. This gives no info to Bernard
Bernard still only knows the number- how is he able to know the letter?

>>8614393
No, it's a fair point, but mistaken.

>>8614392
what
This is a logic puzzle, we're not making any assumptions beyond what is being told to us. Albert knows the letter, Bernard knows the number. They are making deduction from this knowledge only. Whether the whole situation is plausible is irrelevant

>>8614364
I think i understand now.

If Albert was told it is track A then he wouldn't be certain Bernard doesn't know the pad (because if Bernard is told track 6 he would know the pad for certain as there is only one pad on track 6)

If Albert was told it is track B then he wouldn't be certain Bernard doesn't know the pad (because if Bernard is told track 5 he would know the pad for certain as there is only one pad on track 5)

However, were told that Albert KNOWS that Bernard doesn't know. This removes track A and B because those are the only two tracks where Bernard MAY know for certain the right pad (as there is only one pad on track A6 and B5).

>>8614411
Hurray !

>>8614411
This is correct.

>>8614397
>>8614402
I thought I had a way Bernard could eliminate C based on what Albert had said, but I've either forgotten it or was wrong. Most likely both.

>>8614411
Wow.

>>8614331
>Albert can't know for sure and we can't know for sure too.
????
Yes we can know
because ALBERT knows the letter
And by saying he knows it now, we can deduce what letter it has to be for him to be sure

>>8614411
Wrong, there are other options for Bernard on A and B.

>>8614407
And it it fucking logical to argue that, nothing beyond it.

>>8614411
read
>>8614392

>>8614443
No you can't you fuckface we are way past that already.

>>8614444
not for B because only B4 would be left, then Albert would know since it would be only pad left on B

How does that even make sense? Cheryl wants to kill 50 people, but for some reason crashing two trolleys together will stop her. Huh? What? I guess she must be in one of those trolleys and the crash will kill her.

>>8614444
The whole point behind this part is that Albert KNOWS 100000000% DEFINITELY FOR SURE that Bernard doesn't know the pad. If there is a chance that he is told 5 or 6 then then he would know the pad if it was A or B. This raises doubt in Albert mind for the whole line of A and B (1/3 chance of Bernard knowing the pad for both lines). But because Albert know for sure, it has to either be C or D, the only letters with multiple pads where the lines cross.

>>8613853
>>Both a and b have pads on them that are unique to their number
>Why do you keep saying this? It doesn't make sense. All numbered lines have two pads on, after removing 5 & 6. I cannot see that you are making a logical point with this statement. Can you be more precise?

Sure. So Albert knows the letter, correct? And Albert, based on knowing only the letter, knows that Bernard cannot know the correct intersection. Tracks A and B both have intersections that are unique to their numbered tracks--A6 and B5. Thus, if the track were A or B, there would be a chance that Bernard could know the intersection based solely on the number--therefore, it cannot be track A or B.

Does that help?

>>8614514
No, that doesn't help. It's completely illogical in terms of Bernard being able to figure anything else out from it at that point in time. Because, remove lines 5 and 6 and Bernard still has two pads on each of his lines 1-4. Saying there is 'a chance' he could work it out doesn't lead to any further reasoning for him.

File: image.jpg (49KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 600x600px

But /sci/ what would happen if you put the trolleys on a conveyor belt?

>>8614489
>This raises doubt in Albert mind for the whole line of A and B (1/3 chance of Bernard knowing the pad for both lines). But because Albert know for sure, it has to either be C or D,
This is completely erroneous thinking. "Doubt"? "1/3 chance"? It's nonsensical. This isn't about chance, it's about simple certainties which lead to logical deductions.

>>8614595
>No, that doesn't help. It's completely illogical in terms of Bernard being able to figure anything else out from it at that point in time. Because, remove lines 5 and 6 and Bernard still has two pads on each of his lines 1-4. Saying there is 'a chance' he could work it out doesn't lead to any further reasoning for him.

Albert, knowing the track letter, knows that Bernard cannot know the answer based solely on the track number. If the track were track A, then there's a chance that Bernard could know the intersection based on just the track number (A6). Likewise if it were track B, there is a chance that Bernard would know, just by knowing that it's track 5, that it's intersection B5. Therefore it cannot be either track A or B.

Any better?

>>8614595
Not that guy. I'll try to explain it.

Imagine A6 is the correct intersection. Then Bernard, who knows the number ("6"), would know that A6 is the correct intersection, because A6 is the only intersection with a 6 on it. Similarly, if B5 were the correct intersection, then Bernard would know. If any other intersection were the correct one, then Bernard would NOT know the correct intersection, for lanes 1/2/3/4 all have multiple possible intersections.

Albert knows this hypothetical situation. That is to say, Albert knows that IF A6 or B5 is the correct intersection, then Bernard knows the correct intersection; and IF one if the 1/2/3/4 intersections is the correct one, then Bernard does NOT know the exact intersection.

Albert, who knows the correct letter, knows that Bernard doesn't know the correct intersection. Albert also knows (see above) that Bernard would know the correct intersection if it were A6 or B5. Yet he knows somehow that Bernard doesn't know. Therefore, he must know that it's NOT A6 or B5.

How can Albert know that neither A6 nor B5 could be the correct intersection? By knowing that either C or D is the correct lane, that's how. If Albert knew A to be the correct lane, then he could not rule out the possibility that A6 were the correct intersection, and therefore could not rule out the possibility that Bernard knows it.

But he CAN rule that out, according to Albert's first statement. Thus, Albert must know that A6 and B5 are ruled out. Thus, Albert must know it's either the C or the D lane.

>>8612487
skepticism is the sign of a sharp mind.
I like you there friendo

>>8614606
The reason behind the fact that A and B are removed is that there is no doubt in Albert's mind that Bernard doesn't know where the pad is. If Albert was told A or B, then he would not be certain that Bernard doesn't know (as one of the three in A, or one of the two in B numbered rails would lead to a single pad). The 1/3 is just there to try and and explain it in a different way. Nothing erroneous about it.

>>8612239
Fuck I feel smart

>>8614633
I'm "that guy"--nicely done, anon

>>8612239
Any more of this stuff?

>>8614331
if you're taking this into actuality, then neither of them would ever know, because anyone can lie.

>>8614699
second this, this is some quality fun, a real rarity to find among tard-drizzle threads.

File: muh hat.gif (18KB, 425x425px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 425x425px

>>8614699
try this one

>>8614721
C, cause D would have said that he had a black hat if he saw 2 whites hats in front of him.

File: utilitarian nightmare.png (98KB, 1042x804px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1042x804px

>>8614699
Warning: not for brainlets

>>8614699
No-one's done this one yet >>8614389

Pretty easy.

>>8614724
>>8614721
Yep, I got the same answer.

>>8614721
any more?

File: blackpilled.png (54KB, 480x279px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 480x279px

>>8614826
Trying to remember riddles I've heard. Here's one

>>8614661
>(as one of the three in A, or one of the two in B numbered rails would lead to a single pad

This is a sideways step in logic. It is not relevant, and it's not precise. Initially Albert knows Bernard doesn't know the answer so he Albert can immediately infer that it isn't B5 or A6. This leaves all the pads on A-D 1-4 as possibles for Bernard.

>>8614858
Break them in half and be sure to only take half of each one.

>>8614872
>Initially Albert knows Bernard doesn't know the answer so he Albert can immediately infer that it isn't B5 or A6.
No, that is not known initially. The only thing Albert knows prior to the conversation is the letter he is given.
This means Albert deduces that Bernard doesn't know based on the letter he is given, hence the letter he is given must be C or D

>>8614858
this picture is too suggestive

>>8614826
>At the Secret Convention of Logicians, the Master Logician placed a band on each attendee's head, such that everyone else could see it but the person themselves could not. There were many different colours of band. The Logicians all sat in a circle, and the Master instructed them that a bell was to be rung in the forest at regular intervals: at the moment when a Logician knew the colour on his own forehead, he was to leave at the next bell. They were instructed not to speak, nor to use a mirror or camera or otherwise avoid using logic to determine their band colour. In case any impostors had infiltrated the convention, anyone failing to leave on time would be gruffly removed at the correct time. Similarly, anyone trying to leave early would be gruffly held in place and removed at the correct time. The Master reassured the group by stating that the puzzle would not be impossible for any True Logician present. How did they do it?

This one's a bit more difficult

>>8614899
>>Initially Albert knows Bernard doesn't know the answer
>No, that is not known initially.

Yes it is. In the first statement from Albert he tells Bernard he knows that he doesn't know. So Albert knew this at some point previously. Exactly when is not relevant, he knows Bernard doesn't know, and Bernard knows he doesn't know, (from the 2nd statement) so both Albert and Bernard have already ruled out A6 and B5 before they even speak.

>>8614059
>Albert: "If I pull this lever, will you die?"
>Bernard: "It would be extremely painful"
>Albert: "You're a big guy"
>Bernard: "So are you"

>>8614951
I don't get what is the objective here? They just sit and wait till they are removed.

>>8614951
Don't follow; does a particular colour relate to a particular bell? It doesn't sound like it initially, but what's the 'leaving on time' bit about?

>>8614980
>>8614987
The bells purpose is to remove those who cannot figure out their color on time, or let those who did leave.
Hint: The bell can ring more than once, and there may still be logicians left in the circle.

>>8614951
What can you know if you're in the circle; whether there any repeating colours or not.

Except, yours might be the only repeating colour.

So, you wait for someone to leave. If they have correctly determined their band colour because there are no repeating colours, yours is a colour which you can't see on anyone else.

But if they are brought back, they were under the impression there were no repeating colours and had guessed theirs incorrectly. Theirs will be the same as yours, because its the only colour you can't see repeated, i.e. yours and the first leaver are the only repeating colours.

Best I could come up with so far.

>>8614998
bell's*

also
>>8614987
>does a particular colour relate to a particular bell?
In a way

>>8614978
genuine kek

>>8615000
>>>8614987 (You)
>>does a particular colour relate to a particular bell?
>In a way
Appreciate the hint but I think I'm missing something... any comments on >>8614999?

>>8614951
I don't know exchange bands?
or
Just sit there infinitely, cause if no one knows the colour, they don't need to leave.

>>8615036
>>8614999
It's wrong, but in the right alley.

The reason why it's wrong lies in the sentence
>The Master reassured the group by stating that the puzzle would not be impossible for any True Logician present.

>>8614142

https://www.mycoted.com/Four_Men_in_Hats

>>8612505
How exactly will 50 people die if only two people total are in the trolley cars?

>>8614976
>You know that Cheryl told her henchman Albert the correct letter only.
Which means Albert only knows the letter prior to the conversation, and nothing else. Therefore, Albert making the statement
>I know that you don't know either.
is not an implied initial condition, but rather Albert figuring out that Bernard doesn't know based on Albert's letter

>>8615071
That could be true, and from what we know it is likely. Whether it is or not, (and we don't know for sure because it's not explicitely stated), doesn't change the 'when' of them both knowing they didn't know, i.e. before they spoke.

>>8615046
>The reason why it's wrong lies in the sentence
>>The Master reassured the group by stating that the puzzle would not be impossible for any True Logician present.

True logic would imply listening to the effing instructions (note to self). The Master doesn't say that the leaver has to tell anyone what their colour is. In fact they are instructed not to speak. The instruction is 'when they know the colour', but if there is no need to communicate this in order to leave, logic dictates the colour is irrelevant. Therefore as soon as I realise my colour is 'irrelevant' I can leave at the next bell.

you fags need a trip to /lit/ asap because you're english is on the same level as niggers.

>>8615159
>you fags need a trip to /lit/ asap because you're english is on the same level as niggers.
LOL. Noice M8 Irony much?

>>8614951
I don't see a way for the color to be determined--so is the answer that the true logicians would recognize what they could not know, and not leave at any of the bells? Or is there a way that I'm missing for them to determine the color?

>>8614951
You yell "AM I BEING DETAINED" and "I KNOW MY RIGHTS" and "COCKSUCKER PIG FUCK YOU"

then leave

>>8614951
Alright, the answer is as follows:
- Every colour must appear at least twice around the circle. This is because the Master stated that it would not be impossible for any Logician to solve the puzzle. If any colour existed only once around the circle, the Logician who bore it would have no way of knowing that the colour even existed in the problem, and it would be impossible for them to answer.
- Each of the Logicians can look around the circle and count the number of times they see each colour. Suppose that you are one of the Logicians and you see another colour only once. Since you know each colour must exist at least twice around the circle, the only explanation for a singleton colour is that it is the colour of your own band. For the same reason, there can only be one such singleton colour, and so you would leave on the first bell.
- Likewise any Logicians who see another colour only once should be able to determine their own colour, and will either leave with dignity or be thrown out as an infiltrator. Equivalently, any colour for which there are only two bands of that colour will be eliminated after the first bell has rung. Thereafter there must be at least three bands of any remaining colour.
- Suppose you do not see any colour once, but you do see a colour twice. If these were the only bands of this colour, then these two Logicians ought to have left at the first bell. Since they did not, that can only be because your own band is the same colour, so you can leave at the second bell.
- Therefore, every logician would watch until a group of a given colour that they expected to leave failed to leave. Then they would know that they had that colour, and would leave on the next bell.
When only one colour remained, that colour would all leave on the next bell, because they would know that they could not have any other colour (since then it would be impossible for them to know their colour).

>>8615325
Elegant. Thanks anon, I was stumped.

>>8614604
I'm so confused after looking at this picture. Please help me /sci/, would the plane just hover in mid-air?

>>8614721
After one minute, C. The three gnomes are facing the brick wall. If this is the case, and both B and C had the same hat color, then D would certainly know his hat color, but he doesn't say anything. Ergo, B and C have 1x black and 1x white between them. C sees the white hat and knows his is black.

>>8615325
very nice
it sounded too similarly to the blue eyed islander problem and got tripped up by the fact that you have an undefined # of colors

>There's an indeterminate number of lions on an island.
>The lions are very hungry, and will eat meat whenever they are able to
>However, once they eat meat they instantly fall asleep
>Any sleeping lion will be killed and eaten by another hungry lion if one exists
>The lions are logical and are capable of reasoning (but not communication, obviously)
>The lions lions are bound to survive, they will not make "truces"
>The lions are hungry but not starving- they will not eat if it means they will get eaten

A man washes up on shore, only to realize he's a free meal- or is he?
Does the man get eaten? Does the man ALWAYS get eaten- are there conditions where the man is sometimes eaten and sometimes not eaten? Or, does the man just chill with the lions and not get eaten?

>>8612491
How would Bernard know it was A or B solely on the chance his number was 6 or 5. I don't understand the logic here.

>>8615665
Albert knows with 100% certainty that Bertrand doesn't know either. If A and B were possible, Albert wouldn't have the 100% certainty as there would be a chance of it being 5/6 and thus Bertrand knowing the answer. Hence A and B are not possible.

>>8614721
After 1 minute, Carlos yelled "But please mister Trump..." and they got shot.

>>8615654
the man is safe if the number of lions is even, cat food if odd

>>8614858
He crushes all the pills into powder and mixes them thoroughly. He then takes exactly one half of the powder and hopes that Lady Statistics is on his side.

>>8612239
C3. That was fun, where can I find more like this?

>>8614937
This. Wouldn't have guessed it without the picture

>>8615665
You're right to question this, it is flawed as I've pointed out above in several posts.
>>8615719
This talk of 'certainty' and 'chance' is way off the mark.
This is the answer >>8612553
laid out on the diagram in three steps here >>8612594

>>>8615719 (You)
>This talk of 'certainty' and 'chance' is way off the mark.

How so? When Albert says that he knows, that implies 100% correct knowledge, no?

>>8616458
Yes you are right. But in the context of what the other poster was meaning it was misleading. He was talking about "not having 100% certainty" which is a red herring based on flawed thinking, and "doubt" does not feature in the working out of the question.

>>8615654
Will the lions share meat? In that case, the man will always get eaten, since every lion will fall asleep after eating their piece. That is, if there are lions at all.

Am I dumb if I couldn't figure this out?

File: D5mcdhM.jpg (471KB, 4128x816px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 4128x816px

here's a good one

>>8616636
>>8616636
i'm not doing ur homework

>>8616491
So the answer is indeed c3, right?

>>8614604
No because it wouldn't generate lift

>>8616207
No, dude. It's okay if you're a brainlet, but quit trying to drag him down with you.

>>8612487
This is the only correct answer.

>>8612472
brainlet

>>8612239
When A says he knows B doesn't know, he's revealing that it's not A or B (and therefore, it's not 5 or 6). So he might see C or D.

When B says he now knows, he's revealing that it's not 1, because only 1 has two possibilities remaining after A and B were eliminated. If his answer were 1, he would remain uncertain.

When A says now HE knows, he reveals it must be C3, because D had two remaining possibilities after eliminating 1, 5, 6, A, and B. If his starting information were D, he would remain uncertain.

Therefore I keep my hands off the controls and call the police with this information, because messing with the controls would make me actively responsible for 20 innocent deaths, and I might be charged with murder, whereas I know I can't be charged with any serious crime for just notifying the authorities.

>>8615760
this.
basically, if there are n lions, if a lion chooses to eat the man it just calls the scenario with (n-1) lions...with the sleeping lion taking the place of the man.
for n=1, the lion eats the man because he knows there are no other lions to eat him.
for n=2, the lion doesn't eat the man because he knows that he will be eaten (since the man is eaten for n=1)
for n=3, the lion eats the man because he knows that the man (or sleeping lion) is safe for n=2
for n=4, the lion doesn't eat the man because he knows that the man gets eaten for n=3

continues on for all n ϵ N