Any good, recent puzzle games to recommend, /v/? Played Talos

>>386264767
If vowel, then even number
So only A needs to be turned around

>>386265091
A and 7, there could be a vowel under the 7.

File: 1447162544770.jpg (45KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x500px

>>386265205
Yeah I realized after posting

>>386264767
You'd have to turn over all of them. There could be a vowel hidden behind any of them.

Antichamber is great, btw.

>>386265320
WAIT SHIT, I mean except the 2 card. Turn over all but that one.

>>386265424
It doesn't say that there can't be an even number on one side if there's a consonant on the other side, it doesn't matter what's behind K or 2.

>>386265650
If there's a vowel on the other side of K, the rule hasn't been followed.

>>386265707
No, it only says vowels must have an even number on the other side. Consonants can be even or odd. It doesn't say ONLY vowels can have an even number.

>>386265806
If there's a vowel on the other side of K, then that means that that vowel doesn't have an even number on the other side, because it has a K instead.

>>386265707
That would be true if the rule was "if and only if a card has a vowel on one side, it must have an even number on the other side".
But there's nothing saying that there can't be a smug anime girl on one side and a consonant on the other.

>>386265806

If there's an 'O' behind the K, the rule hasn't been followed. The O is a vowel, but the other side of the O has a consonant, not an even number.

>>386265896
Shit, you got me.

>>386265320
Thanks ill try it out, got it a while ago in a bundle and had no idea if it was any goood

so the answers are A, K, and 7 then?
you don't need to turn over 2 because it really doesn't matter what's on the opposite side

File: Billy.webm (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

Can we all agree for future cases where we use this image we should replace the 2 with the number 4?

>>386264767
None, the K has a vowel and and even number on it's sides, the 7 is inconsequential to the layout.

>>386264767

A, 2, and 7 assuming all cards have a letter and a number on opposite sides. Without that assumption you have to flip them all.

Vowels must have even numbers on the back; but it doesn't say that the inverse is true so a consonant having an even number on the back wouldn't break the rule thus the reverse side of K is irrelevant. On the other hand you do need to flip 7 because if there was a vowel on the back of an odd number that would violate the rule.

>>386264767
Antichamber, the turing test.

Try them out.

>>386266490
Why would you need to flip 2?

>>386266490
There's nothing to say that K can't have another letter on its back, like a vowel for an instance.

>>386264767

Comon guys, simple logic puzzle. The rule is very explicit; "*IF* a card has a vowel on one side, it *must* have an even number on the other side." It does *not* say, if the card has an even number on one side, it MUST have a vowel on the other side. Ergo, only the A needs to be flipped to check the *rule.*

Think of it like this: if it is raining, the ground must be wet, however, just because the ground is wet, doesn't mean it is raining.

If the rule said, "If a card has a vowel on one side, it must have an even number on the other side *AND* if it has an even number on one side, it MUST have a vowel on another" You'd have to flip the two to confirm as well as the A, but it doesn't, it only explicitly dictates one direction and that is vowel to even.

>>386266957
You don't know that the K and 7 don't have vowels on the otherside, so they need to be flipped to check if they are violating the rule.

>>386266957
How do you know that K doesn't have a vowel on the other side? How do you know that 7 doesn't have a vowel on the other side? The rule doesn't say which side the vowel has to be on, just that its on one side, so it could be on the top or bottom.

>>386266957

cont'

The rule can be solidly established from a single sample, as such, only the A would need to be checked. If the A being flipped confirms the rule, then the rule is confirmed and is true, if the A being flipped DISPROVES the rule, then the rule is not established. Given that the prompt states *always* as a constraint, should even a single card not follow the rule, the rule is not establish and is false. Thus, given the wording of the rule, vowel to even, and that the rule requires *every* case to follow suit, only 1 card needs to be checked, A.

>>386267283
Ok, but what if A checks out but 7 doesn't? Then you have egg on your face because you declared the rule to be followed only for it to turn out to not be the case.

>>386267061
>>386267147

Because the rule doesn't work both ways. Think about it. The rule states an order, "If [blank] therefore [blank]" This is a core logic statement. They are not reversible.

For example like I said, if it's raining, the ground is wet, that's the rule. However, logically you know, just because the ground is wet, doesn't mean that it's raining. It's not reversible.

All squares are rectangles. That's the rule. But not all rectangles are squares. All circles are ellipses, but not all ellipses are circles.

The rule here is IF a vowel is present, an even number MUST *always* be on the opposite side. Thus, you need only look at a single card with a vowel present. If it does have an even number on the other side, the rule is true, if it lacks an even number, the rule is false. You don't need to check any other card because the rule specifies it *must* as in always have an even number on the reverse of a vowel, thus you don't need to check more than one, if even one set does not adhere to the rule, the rule is false.

>>386267283
That only works if A disproves the rule. If A has an even number on the other side, that doesn't mean K and 7 aren't breaking the rules.

>>386267621

Then the rule is still true. If A checks, then the rule is established as it only goes in 1 direction. Not all rectangles are squres. Comon people I know logic isn

>>386267757
Where does the rule specify that the vowel must start on the top for it to need an even number on the other side?

>>386265205
turning over 7 wouldn't prove the rule. It could have a consonant and you'd learn nothing. For all you know the consonant could have an even or an odd number behind it.

>>386267910
Turning over 7 could DISPROVE the rule, however.

>>386267876

Do you not know what an 'if' statement is? It's not an arbitrary word. This is a logic puzzle and thus, the 'rules' of logic puzzles apply. 'If' statements require an order, think like in programming. A 'reverse' if statement doesn't exist. You have to expressly create the 'reverse' if with a new if. So in programing terms to establish the rule the way *you* think it works, I need the following two if statements:

1. If a card has a vowel, the other side must have an even number.

2. If a card has an even number, the other side must have a vowel.

But the puzzle lacks the second if statement, ergo, is not part of the problem.

I know logic classes are not normally part of education guys but common, this is a classic square/rectangle problem.

>>386268168

No it doesn't, because the rule only dictates one direction.

By the same token, every time the ground is wet it *must* have rained right? Or every ellipse is a circle? They go in 1 direction, not the other. Basic logic. This is like 4nd grade logic stuff.

>If a card has a vowel on one side

We don't know what is on the other side of the 7 or K cards, thus we can't rule out that there is a vowel on their other sides. If they do have a vowel on their other side, then then their other side (which would be the 7/K side) would need to be checked for a vowel to ensure it is not breaking the rule.

Example cases:

The '7' facing card ends up having an arbitrary vowel, say 'E', on the other side. Since this card has a vowel on one side (an 'E'), then the other side would need to have a vowel on it to follow the rule.

The '7' facing card ends up having an arbitraty non-vowel, say 'T', on the other side. Since this card has no vowel on a side, it inherently follows the rule.

Specifically since you don't know whether the other side of the card has a vowel or not, you need to turn this '7' card over to determine whether the rule has been followed.

>>386268214
>2. If a card has an even number, the other side must have a vowel.

You keep bringing this up, but no one is arguing that this is a rule.

>>386268309
If there's a goddamn E behind that 7, that disproves the rule, because there wouldn't be an even number behind that vowel.

>>386267667
Logically you are forgetting that the inverse nehative must also be true.

If the ground is not wet, then it must not be raining. If 7 had a vowel on the other side that would absolutely violate the rule since it would be raining witb the ground being dry.

>>386268471

It isn't a rule, that's my point. That's why you don't need to check the other three cards. The rule works in 1 DIRECTION, that's it. So any card (input) not displaying the desired variable (vowel) is discarded. As only 1 card displayed the desired input, a vowel, only it needs to be checked to establish the rule.

Seriously, none of you know what a Liskov substitution principle is and how your assertion(s) violate it?

>>386268543

No it doesn't. You're saying that if the ground is wet, it must be raining. STOP AND THINK ABOUT IT.

Replace the word 'vowel' with 'rain'. And the words 'even number' with 'wet ground.' Now try the reversible statement you are trying to push and see if it still works.

I'm convinced we're being trolled

>>386268740
1. If a card has a vowel then it must have an even number.

Therefore, if a card does not have an even number than it can not have a vowel.

This means that any card without an even number must be checked since they could violate the rule after being flipped.

>>386268731
>Logically you are forgetting that the inverse nehative must also be true.

Liskov substitution principle. Know it. Own it. Inverses are never to be held as true implicitly in logic. All squares are rectangles, which is true, but the inverse statement, all rectangles are squares, is decidedly false. You cannot imply with *1* rule, that the inverse must be true as well.

>>386268740
>So any card (input) not displaying the desired variable (vowel) is discarded.
It doesn't matter what side of the card is being displayed, if the card has a vowel on either side then you need to check if it follows the rule.

>>386268931
Naw nigga, I'm saying K and 7 are dry ground, and you have to check and make sure it ain't raining because if it is then you've got yourself some strange ass weather patterns.
>>386269029
It's sure as fuck working.

>>386269072
The inverse isn't true but the contrapositive is you fucking double iq degenerate.

If p then q. True
If q then p. Not true
If not q then p. TRUE

If you flip the seven and it shows a vowel explain how the rule is not violated. "A vowel must have an even number." That card would have a vowel and an odd number.

Here is an example of what are on the cards can be. I'll use syntax X/Y to indicate that a card has one side with X and one side with Y.

1: A/2
2: C/K
3: P/2
4: E/7

If you only check the other side of the A/2 card, then you might think that the rule is followed. However, the rule is not followed, since card 4 doesn't follow the rule "If a card has a vowel on one side, it must have an even number on the other side."

>>386269419
>>386269072
Also the Liskov substitution principle has fucking nothing to do with this. That's about how in code, abstractions that make sense in real life don't work. It states that all rectangles should be programmed to be extensions of squares, since that makes more sense in terms of programming. It is NOT the principle that disallows simple inverses IE the idea that a rectangle != a square.

Honestly you should probably just drop out of CS and take up flipping burgers since your simple logic skills are terrible and you should never be allowed to make software of any importance.

A, K, and 7.
It is never specified that if there's a letter on one side then there's a number on the other, so all could hide a rule violating combo such as A/2, K/A, or 7/E.

>>386270116
>A/2
Hold on I'm retarded. A/3.

File: 1371847754626.png (187KB, 334x393px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 334x393px

>>386267910
>if something can't be used to prove a rule
>then it follows that it can't be used to disprove a rule
everyone look at this retard and laugh

>>386264767
all of them

File: drinking.jpg (138KB, 745x323px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 745x323px

Here's the same thing except with something people understand easier.

You can stop arguing now.

>>386265903
But it could be a vowel and you wouldn't know unless you turned it over. If it's a vowel, the rule isn't being followed.

>>386272904
It's not exactly the same, because the OP doesn't specify that each card is necessarily a letter-number pairing, while this explicitly has only drink-age pairings.