An old challenge

[Zaevod]

Re: An old challenge

Let the statement be ??

Where ?? means you implied, which it perfectly understands, This computer says the good door is the first door gives a response of true, this computer says the good door is the second door gives a response of false, and not a statement otherwise. The implication is a solution to this problem which exists so even though you don't necessarily know what it is, since the computer can perfectly tell what you mean, it gives you the solution anyway. And since I used the either not inverted or doubly inverted "this computer says" clause, it must tell the truth.

The computer can't tell what you mean if you don't know what you mean XD (how can you mean something without knowing it???)

But that was actually pretty cool.

There must be an actual statement. It's just that the computer will always interpret whatever words you used correctly, in the context you meant him to understand them.

You've got the main issues figured out, now just make a statement that includes everything XD

[Dynam0]

Re: An old challenge

You're giving an order to the computer again Doug...you can't do that.

Let "True" mean yes.
Let "False" mean that the bug has occurred so the answer is actually true, and thus yes.

The awesome door is the one in the middle.

Answer: It doesn't matter since the computer will agree with this statement either way. Any door will be the awesome door then!!!!

I'm going to bed xD

[Doug31]

Re: An old challenge

Then use the computer says door 1 is the good door, and if not, then I didn't mean this as a statement. Either you get a yes or a no response, and then repeat for each door.

[One Winged Angel]

Re: An old challenge

I'm heavily leaning towards 'or' being a necessary conjunction in my statement but I'm having trouble coming up with the exact statement I need.

Quick question, if I ask something along the lines of 'You will answer 'true' in response to this question and A leads to the awesome place or you will answer 'no' in response to this question and B leads to the awesome place', is it possible to receive no response from the computer? (I know this isn't the correct statement, just as an example)

I have a feeling I'm somewhere in the right ball park but I'm tired right now and can't figure out how to isolate the door without a third response from compy (no response works)

[xThai]

Re: An old challenge

ill attempt this tomorrow morning since im tired. i gotta look over my logic textbook. i have something in mind but i forgot some of the predicate logic i learned.

[top]

Re: An old challenge

in rule 4 it says that you can't ask a question, you have to say a statement

stop asking if you can ask it stuff

[One Winged Angel]

Re: An old challenge

Ask was a typo on my end, what I typed was a statement anyways.

It's some sort of weird combination like 'You are not bugged, your response to this will be correct, and door A leads to the awesome place or you are bugged, your response to this will be incorrect, and door B leads to the awesome place'. Something like that. I'm far too tired to work out the exact combination of positive/negative statements that receives false as an answer for both bugged/non-bugged versions of the same door solution, true for both bugged/non-bugged versions of another door solution, and what I'm assuming to be no answer in response to a paradox to showcase the third possible solution.

If the comp responds no matter what (i.e. every statement will deliver a true or false response 100% of the time), I'm fucking baffled.

[benguino]

Re: An old challenge

I'm thinking of a way to incorporate some "...you will respond to this statement..." type of clause in there, that might be worth thinking about.

EDIT: If the computer responds 100% of the time, another thing I was thinking about was having something like "..you will respond to this statement x number of seconds after I am finished saying this statement..." kind of thing so that way you can theoretically consider more outputs (i.e. true and less than one second to respond, true and more than one second to respond, false and less than one second to respond, false and more than one second to respond)

[Doug31]

Re: An old challenge

I thought about that, too. If you just say A or some ridiculously long B, and it has concatenation so that it need not check B if A is true, then you could tell based on time which of A or B is the one that was true, which would make this very easy, but I don't think we can do that.

How about this. You know that problem where there are 2 people, a door to heaven with a guard that always tells the truth, and a door to hell with a guard that always lies? Well, the solution is to ask the guy what the other guy would say is behind the door. Then this problem is simply that but a composition of 2 of it where you must get past a first pair of guards correctly to get to the right second pair of guards. And the solution to it can still be made into one statement.

Call the guards A, B, C, and D, and you start with A and B. Use:
Would A say B would say door A is correct?Would C say D would say door C is correct?Door Coor Door B. Where Doors A, B, and C correspond to the 3 doors and Door A isn't really an option since it's just the door to C and D. And ? and : are the pieces of a ternary operator.

[The_Toymaker]

Re: An old challenge

'the left door is the door the leads to an awesome place?' - if it's true, it's not a question, it's a statement. proceed to input the same about the other doors if it's not answered.

[Zaevod]

Re: An old challenge

Hi again. It looks like I didn't make it clear enough (it was meant to be implied from the beginning), but if the computer can't attribute true or false to something, it simply cannot answer.

I haven't truly woken up yet, but I'll come back later to clarify more things if necessary.

[benguino]

Re: An old challenge

@Doug: Your approach seems interesting, I was thinking about that too and the idea works flawlessly for two doors. However, I don't where you're going at with your last paragraph (especially with the accidental smileys). I still get the notion that the computer would either respond true or false from that and two possible answers is not enough since we have 3 doors to choose between.

[YoshL]

Re: An old challenge

this problem seems to be about assigning variables, and binary (duanary now? ) logic

Thinking of solution still

[YoshL]

Re: An old challenge

doors x, y, z from left to right.
assign different ways of saying true and false.
If the answer involves door X, then use "A" for true, and "B" for false.
If the answer involves door Y, then use "C" for true, and "D" for false.
If the answer involves door Z, then use "E" for true, and "F" for false.

Append all characters for door involvement (if statement has X, and Y, then answer will be either AC or BD)

Stop parsing the statement if any assumption in the statement is false. Treat the assumptions up to that point as the full statement. (including the false statement)

If door X leads to a boring place, and Y leads to a boring place, then Z is the awesome door.

-----

6 cases

no error
X is awesome - will return B, because first statement was false
Y is awesome - will return BD, because second statement is false
Z is awesome - will return ACE, because whole statement is true

error
X is awesome - will return B, flipped to A
Y is awesome - will return BD, flipped to AC
Z is awesome - will return ACE, flipped to BDF

That way, I don't even need to know whether the answer is flipped, all possible answers will be in front of me

[benguino]

Re: An old challenge

I think this method can be used to negate the bugginess if needed of any statement. Don't know if this helps.

[statement here] xor you are bugged (where xor is not exclusive or)

Let's examine how bugginess affects the answer without the "you are bugged" statement:
Not bugged:
T->T
F->F
Bugged:
T->F
F->T

Now let's examine how bugginess affects the answer with the addition of the "you are bugged" clause:
Not bugged:
T xor you are bugged -> T xor F -> T
F xor you are bugged -> F xor F -> F
Bugged:
T xor you are bugged -> T xor T -> F -> T
F xor you are bugged -> F xor T -> T -> F

So we see that the result with the extra clause is the same as the truth of the left hand side of the xor statement.

EDIT: ninja'd by yoshl's post, reading now.
It seems like you are giving the computer orders in your instructions since you are asking it to return the truth value of sub-statements in your statement before the statement is even fully parsed.