[tomspoumn]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Well let us say if he never ate at KFC that week, he would have had $10.
If he had, he wouldn't have had $10 that week. But we don't have one piece of information to infer the other. Therefore none of them are correct. You see? For my conclusion I don't have to infer that at all, you're on the wrong track.
Read my posts again, I don't say "If he doesn't eat at KFC, he has more than $10". or anything similar.

I say, "If he has more than 10$ and eats at KFC, he doesn't contradict his statement." and "If he has more than 10$ and does not eat at KFC, he contradicts his statement." and "If he has less than $10, he can do what he wants because he never claimed anything about such a case."

[Abraham]

Be careful. It says 'has $10'. Now that could mean that he wouldn't buy a KFC if he has more or less than $10, or it could mean he has to have at least $10. But it doesn't say that much so you can't make that inference about this argument - you have to stay within the context of the original definition.

[brurdefdoro]

Oh, and I invented even a better hypothetical case, taking into account also the intention part:

The guy has 10$ each day, and he really goes to KFC each day. But the statement is a lie because he only did so because he didn't find a $5 whore all week long. If he had found one, he would not have kept his promise.

[RLRWai4B]

Truth-value? Wern, it's a logic puzzle, not a Freudian assessment!

[Kayakeenemeds]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Truth-value? Wern, it's a logic puzzle, not a Freudian assessment! Truth-value: TRUE or FALSE.
Whatever the correct term for my word "truth-value" may be, that's what I mean. Excuse my bad English.

[Mjyzpzph]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Sorry but you repeat yourself. Yes, we don't know, that's why those values are variables. Luckily, they can have only 2 possible values (eat/not eat; 10$, not 10$), so we can simply check. One state is dependent on the other. We cannot know one without the other. Hence the statements are crap.

[Promotiona]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


So you say the statement can be false even if he never reaches $10 because he wouldn't have gone to KFC even if he had had more.

Please ask God or the Great Inquisitor, I can't look into people's souls.
We have no good parameters for guessing intentions, we can only judge the action. Except that in this case, no ACTION has occured yet, so we have to judge not what they have done but what they would do.

[Mr_White]

Originally posted by Gibsie


Except that in this case, no ACTION has occured yet, so we have to judge not what they have done but what they would do. But without knowing how much money he is going to have and what the relationship between money and his action is, we can't say a thing!

[nilliraq]

Well, we do judge on behaviour, and IF he were to have $10 and then not go to KFC that would be a violation. If if if. The statement isn't ever proved false so we can only go by what he would do, which means we must consider what he would do in the future. And if he would break the "rule" then it falsifies the statement even if he never gets a chance to do it.

[Deseassaugs]

Originally posted by Gibsie
Consider the following statement: "Every day this week, if I have $10 in my pocket, then I will eat lunch at KFC."
If this statement is false, then which of the following statements must be true?

a. I will never eat lunch at KFC this week.
b. I will never have $10 in my pocket this week.
c. There is a day this week when I will have lunch at KFC.
d. There is a day this week when I will not have lunch at KFC.
e. None of the above This poll is invalid

[Qncvqpgfg]

SlowwHand is correct.

edit: wait: I'm in doubt...

[lierro]

Yes, D, actually.

[Clesylafabada]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Yes, D, actually. Thank you.

[Nwxffgke]

It's been a long time since I last did that, but here's the solution IIRC. BTW, those problems are really easy when you formalize them - the hard part is to disregard real-world common sense.

P: Everyday this week I have $10 in my pocket
Q: I eat lunch at KFC [everyday this week]
(I think it's the most reasonable way to interpret the proposition.)

P then Q = F
P ^ ¬Q
Q is disproven by D

edit: to phrase it more properly, D is the only necessary and sufficient condition for ¬Q

[Vipvlad]

Yeah, you're right.

[SpecialOFFER]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
It's a sh*t question admittedly, pretty ambiguous. No, it wasn't.

My ranking of you was obviously justified.

[Zdfjpbth]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No, it wasn't.

My ranking of you was obviously justified. What I want to know is, who the f**k do you think you are?