I'm the treasure in the box
September 2, 2015 5:29 PM Subscribe
The annoying boxes puzzle: There are two boxes on a table, one red and one green. One contains a treasure. The red box is labelled "exactly one of the labels is true". The green box is labelled "the treasure is in this box."
Can you figure out which box contains the treasure?
Solution.
Solution.
Open the boxes. See which one contains treasure, if any. Profit.
posted by I-baLL at 5:32 PM on September 2, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by I-baLL at 5:32 PM on September 2, 2015 [11 favorites]
Kidnap the person who thought of this and have...a chat with them.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:37 PM on September 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:37 PM on September 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
Muddied further if you happen to treasure emptiness.
posted by davebush at 5:38 PM on September 2, 2015 [44 favorites]
posted by davebush at 5:38 PM on September 2, 2015 [44 favorites]
If the green box is warm to the touch, flip the second switch
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:39 PM on September 2, 2015 [27 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:39 PM on September 2, 2015 [27 favorites]
Not enough information is provided by the puzzle to determine which box. Can we ask the boxes questions?
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:40 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:40 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Both of the labels are lies and there is no treasure. Ya burnt.
posted by sallybrown at 5:49 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 5:49 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you had a logical argument why the treasure had to be in the red box, your argument was fallacious, and you should pause and try to figure out what was wrong with it.
(Notice that the question was not “Where is the treasure?” but “Can you figure out…?”)
In life, despite enjoying puzzles, I feel I am very much becoming done with people who carry on like this.
But why is this so surprising?
I don't know.
I know: because you kind of built the game to exploit people's tendency to commit the fallacy of false alternatives.
For a fair puzzle, I am required to tell the truth about the puzzle conditions. Otherwise I'm just being a jerk
Yep, I think we nailed it.
posted by Miko at 5:50 PM on September 2, 2015 [35 favorites]
(Notice that the question was not “Where is the treasure?” but “Can you figure out…?”)
In life, despite enjoying puzzles, I feel I am very much becoming done with people who carry on like this.
But why is this so surprising?
I don't know.
I know: because you kind of built the game to exploit people's tendency to commit the fallacy of false alternatives.
For a fair puzzle, I am required to tell the truth about the puzzle conditions. Otherwise I'm just being a jerk
Yep, I think we nailed it.
posted by Miko at 5:50 PM on September 2, 2015 [35 favorites]
Well, since, according to the terms of the question, there's no limit on how many boxes I open, I open both. Pretty easy to tell at that point.
posted by SansPoint at 5:50 PM on September 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 5:50 PM on September 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
the puzzle itself is actually a good one I could see myself using to teach middle schoolers to examine puzzle premises, but it's a tone thing.
posted by Miko at 5:51 PM on September 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Miko at 5:51 PM on September 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
My tendency to produce quick wrong answers with half parsed logic that doesn't hold up to rigorous examination has been proven to me in far more elegant presentations.
posted by nanojath at 5:52 PM on September 2, 2015 [20 favorites]
posted by nanojath at 5:52 PM on September 2, 2015 [20 favorites]
For a fair puzzle, I am required to tell the truth about the puzzle conditions. Otherwise I'm just being a jerk
Yep, I think we nailed it.
Ford Prefect: Your God person puts an apple tree in the middle of a garden and says, do what you like guys, oh, but don't eat the apple. Surprise surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting 'Gotcha.' It wouldn't have made any difference if they hadn't eaten it.
Arthur Dent: Why not?
Ford Prefect: Because if you're dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they won't give up. They'll get you in the end.
posted by stevis23 at 5:52 PM on September 2, 2015 [48 favorites]
Yep, I think we nailed it.
Ford Prefect: Your God person puts an apple tree in the middle of a garden and says, do what you like guys, oh, but don't eat the apple. Surprise surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting 'Gotcha.' It wouldn't have made any difference if they hadn't eaten it.
Arthur Dent: Why not?
Ford Prefect: Because if you're dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they won't give up. They'll get you in the end.
posted by stevis23 at 5:52 PM on September 2, 2015 [48 favorites]
(Honestly, this guy has too much time on his hands and the treasure is also not so treasure-esque.)
posted by sallybrown at 5:53 PM on September 2, 2015
posted by sallybrown at 5:53 PM on September 2, 2015
It's interesting how I am going in a logical circle in my mind trying to decide whether this is a good logic puzzle or a bad one.
Puzzles like the light switch one are irritating, because while they seem intended to be abstract puzzles you have to import some "everyday" knowledge about how lightbulbs work that lets you escape the constraint of the puzzle.
Puzzles like the "100 people all with hats" puzzle are irritating because never ever have 100 people all correctly figured out that logic for themselves on the first try. (in fact, if you had a group of 100 such people I am pretty sure you could use them as a method to efficiently solve problems in NP because you could restate problems about factoring as problems about hat distributions, and the people in the puzzle always have to come to the correct conclusion about their own hattedness in O(1) time for a satisfaction problem of arbitrary size.)
To solve *this* puzzle, you have to figure out what rule or meta-rule of "normal" logic puzzles you have imported without reflecting on it adequately. Once you remove this rule from consideration, you can pretty well determine the correct option.
So I think it's a good puzzle.
brb, factoring RSA moduli by putting hats on wizards
posted by jepler at 5:54 PM on September 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Puzzles like the light switch one are irritating, because while they seem intended to be abstract puzzles you have to import some "everyday" knowledge about how lightbulbs work that lets you escape the constraint of the puzzle.
Puzzles like the "100 people all with hats" puzzle are irritating because never ever have 100 people all correctly figured out that logic for themselves on the first try. (in fact, if you had a group of 100 such people I am pretty sure you could use them as a method to efficiently solve problems in NP because you could restate problems about factoring as problems about hat distributions, and the people in the puzzle always have to come to the correct conclusion about their own hattedness in O(1) time for a satisfaction problem of arbitrary size.)
To solve *this* puzzle, you have to figure out what rule or meta-rule of "normal" logic puzzles you have imported without reflecting on it adequately. Once you remove this rule from consideration, you can pretty well determine the correct option.
So I think it's a good puzzle.
brb, factoring RSA moduli by putting hats on wizards
posted by jepler at 5:54 PM on September 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
I miss the days when half of the Internet was like this, nerds making logic jokes and being way too impressed with the depth of their own half-baked Wittgenstein-meets-Martin Gardner impressions.
posted by RogerB at 5:55 PM on September 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by RogerB at 5:55 PM on September 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
jepler No, it's an absurd puzzle, because there's no restrictions on method. It's not like the Two Guardsmen puzzle, where one always tells the truth, one always lies, and the wrong door leads to death. There's no stakes, because there's no rules. The solution is right there in your face: OPEN BOTH BOXES. Who will stop you?
posted by SansPoint at 5:56 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by SansPoint at 5:56 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I did get the supposedly right answer on the first try, but I think the answer here (maybe, if I could shake or look inside the boxes) is actually more correct.
There isn't even any claim that there is only one treasure, or that there's any meaning to the signs at all. But even then, the answer is still, "Maybe, if I can look in the boxes."
posted by ernielundquist at 5:57 PM on September 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
There isn't even any claim that there is only one treasure, or that there's any meaning to the signs at all. But even then, the answer is still, "Maybe, if I can look in the boxes."
posted by ernielundquist at 5:57 PM on September 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
1: If one of the boxes is telling the truth, then the other one must be lying.
2: Lying is NAUGHTY.
3: NAUGHTY boxes must be PUNISHED.
4: You're going to tell me which box has the treasure, or my NaughtiestBox fic will proceed to step 5.
posted by mikurski at 5:57 PM on September 2, 2015 [14 favorites]
2: Lying is NAUGHTY.
3: NAUGHTY boxes must be PUNISHED.
4: You're going to tell me which box has the treasure, or my NaughtiestBox fic will proceed to step 5.
posted by mikurski at 5:57 PM on September 2, 2015 [14 favorites]
So the answer is "this isn't actually a puzzle"? Or "I wrote a shitty puzzle"?
This is why I became an engineer and not a mathematician.
posted by muddgirl at 5:58 PM on September 2, 2015 [14 favorites]
This is why I became an engineer and not a mathematician.
posted by muddgirl at 5:58 PM on September 2, 2015 [14 favorites]
I mean it's not really a puzzle then if the labels are irrelevant.
"The labels are red herrings; the provide no information."
Soooo it could have been in any box and it's not really a puzzle?
posted by Carillon at 5:59 PM on September 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
"The labels are red herrings; the provide no information."
Soooo it could have been in any box and it's not really a puzzle?
posted by Carillon at 5:59 PM on September 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
Maybe it's not even in a box. It just says "one contains a treasure" - maybe "one" refers to the table, not the boxes.
posted by muddgirl at 6:00 PM on September 2, 2015
posted by muddgirl at 6:00 PM on September 2, 2015
The treasure was inside you, all along!
posted by mikurski at 6:02 PM on September 2, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by mikurski at 6:02 PM on September 2, 2015 [16 favorites]
The treasure is calling from INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!!
posted by parki at 6:03 PM on September 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by parki at 6:03 PM on September 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Logician violates the Gricean maxims, film at 11.
Seriously, the assumption that the labels on the boxes have definite truth values and that one can deduce the answer to the question posed from then is so deeply a convention of this particular genre that it literally goes without saying. Just like if you ask me "May I borrow your copy of Higher-Order Perl?" and I reply, "It's on the shelf in my office," I didn't literally say that you have my permission to to go to my office and borrow it, but it's implied from the context of what I did say. So here. The reader is ordinarily entitled to assume that it is this sort of puzzle from the setup, and it's conversationally incumbent on the writer to say so if those conditions don't apply. False advertising law would call his setup of the puzzle "literally true but misleading"; he has good reason to expect that people will misinterpret his words and does nothing to correct the misimpression.
posted by grimmelm at 6:04 PM on September 2, 2015 [48 favorites]
Seriously, the assumption that the labels on the boxes have definite truth values and that one can deduce the answer to the question posed from then is so deeply a convention of this particular genre that it literally goes without saying. Just like if you ask me "May I borrow your copy of Higher-Order Perl?" and I reply, "It's on the shelf in my office," I didn't literally say that you have my permission to to go to my office and borrow it, but it's implied from the context of what I did say. So here. The reader is ordinarily entitled to assume that it is this sort of puzzle from the setup, and it's conversationally incumbent on the writer to say so if those conditions don't apply. False advertising law would call his setup of the puzzle "literally true but misleading"; he has good reason to expect that people will misinterpret his words and does nothing to correct the misimpression.
posted by grimmelm at 6:04 PM on September 2, 2015 [48 favorites]
It's interesting how I am going in a logical circle in my mind trying to decide whether this is a good logic puzzle or a bad one.
The "exactly one of the labels is true" is kind of a liar paradox thing, isn't it? The first label doesn't have anything it's referring to to be true or not, except the truthfulness of the other label. If the other label is true, then it's only true if it's false. But if it's false, and the other label is true, then it's true. Which makes it false, which...
posted by Jon Mitchell at 6:06 PM on September 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
The "exactly one of the labels is true" is kind of a liar paradox thing, isn't it? The first label doesn't have anything it's referring to to be true or not, except the truthfulness of the other label. If the other label is true, then it's only true if it's false. But if it's false, and the other label is true, then it's true. Which makes it false, which...
posted by Jon Mitchell at 6:06 PM on September 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
OK, I still don't get it. Is the idea that the red label can't self-reference and still have a valid true/false value?
Whatever the case, the statement that "the author on that webpage is shit at explaining himself" is true.
posted by IAmBroom at 6:07 PM on September 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
Whatever the case, the statement that "the author on that webpage is shit at explaining himself" is true.
posted by IAmBroom at 6:07 PM on September 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
Therre are exactly three errors iin this sentence.
posted by carsonb at 6:09 PM on September 2, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by carsonb at 6:09 PM on September 2, 2015 [13 favorites]
OK, I still don't get it. Is the idea that the red label can't self-reference and still have a valid true/false value?
I think the point is that the puzzle does not define the parameter that either label refers to the boxes they are attached to, so they don't provide any "true" information at all.
posted by muddgirl at 6:10 PM on September 2, 2015
I think the point is that the puzzle does not define the parameter that either label refers to the boxes they are attached to, so they don't provide any "true" information at all.
posted by muddgirl at 6:10 PM on September 2, 2015
I'm not sure what else I expected from a person with a blog entitled "The Universe of Discourse" tbh
posted by en forme de poire at 6:12 PM on September 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 6:12 PM on September 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
Wow, it's rare when my impulse to say "pfft, no way am I figuring this out with this weirdo pulling the strings" is actually kinda the point of the puzzle.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 6:12 PM on September 2, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Matt Oneiros at 6:12 PM on September 2, 2015 [8 favorites]
I do think "The parameters of the puzzle are not necessarily governed by the presentation of the puzzle" is a good lesson but this is a very irritating way to teach it.
posted by solarion at 6:13 PM on September 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by solarion at 6:13 PM on September 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
I was right that it was in the green box, so I was right that I could figure it out, so he's wrong that there's no way to figure it out. I figured it out by assuming it was a misleading puzzle authored in more or less bad faith.
posted by Nomiconic at 6:14 PM on September 2, 2015 [17 favorites]
posted by Nomiconic at 6:14 PM on September 2, 2015 [17 favorites]
I came in to joke that MeFi threads about logic puzzles always end up being 90% people explaining that the puzzle is unfair and/or that the answer they came up with is actually better, because reasons. Most of the rest agree that it's silly and doesn't mean anything, but nevertheless casually mention that they got the right answer. (See also: every online conversation ever about IQ testing and/or Mensa, in which no "I don't care about IQ" comment is complete without an offhand mention of the author's improbably high score)
Delighted to see that we're right on course.
posted by metaBugs at 6:14 PM on September 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Delighted to see that we're right on course.
posted by metaBugs at 6:14 PM on September 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Clearly, the portrait must be in the silver casket! There, I solved the puzzle from the linked page. Don't know what all that other crap was about.
posted by Pistache at 6:17 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Pistache at 6:17 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I feel like there are a dozen Oglaf comics that are applicable here. For instance:
trap master
posted by Balna Watya at 6:19 PM on September 2, 2015 [9 favorites]
trap master
posted by Balna Watya at 6:19 PM on September 2, 2015 [9 favorites]
And of course, no thread on logic puzzles would be complete without some condescending, sweeping criticism of everyone participating.
posted by en forme de poire at 6:20 PM on September 2, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 6:20 PM on September 2, 2015 [16 favorites]
> I think the point is that the puzzle does not define the parameter that either label refers to the boxes they are attached to, so they don't provide any "true" information at all.
Ah, gotcha.
It's a shit puzzle.
posted by IAmBroom at 6:22 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ah, gotcha.
It's a shit puzzle.
posted by IAmBroom at 6:22 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
So, it's a variation on, "Zat is not my dog."
There are two tribes in this area of the jungle: the Liars and the Truthtellers. The liars always lie; the Truthtellers never lie.
You meet two men in the jungle, and can ask them any one question, but it doesn't matter what fucking question you ask, because one of the men is a visitor from a faraway tribe that isn't part of the game.
I win.
posted by IAmBroom at 6:24 PM on September 2, 2015 [13 favorites]
There are two tribes in this area of the jungle: the Liars and the Truthtellers. The liars always lie; the Truthtellers never lie.
You meet two men in the jungle, and can ask them any one question, but it doesn't matter what fucking question you ask, because one of the men is a visitor from a faraway tribe that isn't part of the game.
I win.
posted by IAmBroom at 6:24 PM on September 2, 2015 [13 favorites]
Delighted to see that we're right on course.
And of course, no thread on logic puzzles would be complete without some condescending, sweeping criticism of everyone participating.
And a gentle note to the criticizer that not one of their sneering indictments makes the other participants wrong.
posted by Miko at 6:29 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
And of course, no thread on logic puzzles would be complete without some condescending, sweeping criticism of everyone participating.
And a gentle note to the criticizer that not one of their sneering indictments makes the other participants wrong.
posted by Miko at 6:29 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
If naughty box stories are wrong, I'm not sure I want to be right.
posted by mikurski at 6:32 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by mikurski at 6:32 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
My apologies if that reads as more assholish than I thought it did; tone is hard in comments, and I probably screwed that up. It is a strikingly consistent pattern, though, and I genuinely find it strange and funny that we ("we" because I know I've done it too) have such an immediate defensive reaction to consequence-free word games on the internet. Possibly something to do with a lifetime of taking tests and exams, and value judgements being attached to our performance in them and/or perceived cleverness?
(FWIW, I think it's a perfectly fine puzzle, and a fun take on the usual form. There's no deceit in it, just a challenge to be careful with our assumptions about the setup.)
posted by metaBugs at 6:36 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
(FWIW, I think it's a perfectly fine puzzle, and a fun take on the usual form. There's no deceit in it, just a challenge to be careful with our assumptions about the setup.)
posted by metaBugs at 6:36 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
The treasure is a green herring, right? It's the same as the statement
(E) "This statement is not true"
which seems to present an inescapable paradox, because even if you say "statements like that don't have truth values" you find yourself drawn to saying "But that makes it true."
People deal with this in different ways, and I'm no expert, but I think the point he makes is a good one; that if you are trying to figure out the answer to a question ("where is the treasure?") the answer is "it must be in the red box because for it to be in the green box would activate an assertion of type (E)" is not such a great one, because it's not like the sentence (E) wouldn't exist otherwise! You just have to bite the bullet: (E) is a kind of thing people can say, it's unpleasant to deal with, such is life.
So I think it's a good puzzle.
posted by escabeche at 6:38 PM on September 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
(E) "This statement is not true"
which seems to present an inescapable paradox, because even if you say "statements like that don't have truth values" you find yourself drawn to saying "But that makes it true."
People deal with this in different ways, and I'm no expert, but I think the point he makes is a good one; that if you are trying to figure out the answer to a question ("where is the treasure?") the answer is "it must be in the red box because for it to be in the green box would activate an assertion of type (E)" is not such a great one, because it's not like the sentence (E) wouldn't exist otherwise! You just have to bite the bullet: (E) is a kind of thing people can say, it's unpleasant to deal with, such is life.
So I think it's a good puzzle.
posted by escabeche at 6:38 PM on September 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Possibly something to do with a lifetime of taking tests and exams, and value judgements being attached to our performance in them and/or perceived cleverness?
I question your labeling of this as "defensive." Puzzles are fairly irresistible since time immemorial, and people enjoy them and enjoy being good at them. They also feel frustration when they fail at them or feel they've been misled. They are also easy to talk about because they are a shared experience. These are normal things, not some pathological pattern caused by negative operant conditioning or something.
There's no deceit in it, just a challenge to be careful with our assumptions about the setup.
it's a purposefully deceitful omission built to exploit a very common fallacy, and targeted especially to people who think of themselves as good at puzzles. If he thought everyone would get it right immediately he would not have constructed the puzzle or written so much about it.
posted by Miko at 6:39 PM on September 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
I question your labeling of this as "defensive." Puzzles are fairly irresistible since time immemorial, and people enjoy them and enjoy being good at them. They also feel frustration when they fail at them or feel they've been misled. They are also easy to talk about because they are a shared experience. These are normal things, not some pathological pattern caused by negative operant conditioning or something.
There's no deceit in it, just a challenge to be careful with our assumptions about the setup.
it's a purposefully deceitful omission built to exploit a very common fallacy, and targeted especially to people who think of themselves as good at puzzles. If he thought everyone would get it right immediately he would not have constructed the puzzle or written so much about it.
posted by Miko at 6:39 PM on September 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
The puzzle as presented by its author violates some of the implicit conventions associated with logic puzzles by presenting an unsolvable apparently-puzzle-like situation, but is still a fair one because "the situation is unsolvable" is one of the explicitly presented answers. The puzzle as presented in this post is substantially less fair, because the final prompt "Can you figure out which box contains the treasure?" by itself, without "No" among a list of explicitly presented possible answers, far more strongly implies the situation is solvable. I conjecture that people who are mad at the puzzle may be mad at the abridged version presented here, not the original.
posted by RogerB at 6:41 PM on September 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by RogerB at 6:41 PM on September 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
By the way, to put my "this is a good puzzle" in context, I am one of those people who hates puzzles. Maybe it's a good puzzle for people who don't like puzzles.
posted by escabeche at 6:45 PM on September 2, 2015
posted by escabeche at 6:45 PM on September 2, 2015
Sorry, under Pitt's law all logic puzzles involving boxes implicitly ask "WHAT'S IN THE BOX??"
posted by Huffy Puffy at 6:52 PM on September 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 6:52 PM on September 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
It's a good puzzle, or rather, it makes a good point. But the FPP is framed poorly because it makes it seem like there are only two answers (red or green box). I sat there setting up a little true/false matrix for a few minutes and was like "there's no right answer." Then I clicked through to the actual link (I hadn't clicked on it bc I didn't want to spoil the answer) and I see that "not enough information" is an answer.
The superficial 'right' answer is that the puzzle giver doesn't tell you anything about the truth of the labels. In this case obviously anyone can label any box anything and put anything in either one of them (or none or both). The truthfulness of the labels is not established by the puzzle giver. Of course here you can complain that "it's a convention" or whatever. It's a superficial answer.
The more interesting meta answer is, suppose the red box is true and the green box is false. What does that even MEAN?! Can a self-referential label be true or false? How can a statement with no falsifiable information in it be falsified or proven true? Its truth value is undefined.
posted by pravit at 6:53 PM on September 2, 2015
The superficial 'right' answer is that the puzzle giver doesn't tell you anything about the truth of the labels. In this case obviously anyone can label any box anything and put anything in either one of them (or none or both). The truthfulness of the labels is not established by the puzzle giver. Of course here you can complain that "it's a convention" or whatever. It's a superficial answer.
The more interesting meta answer is, suppose the red box is true and the green box is false. What does that even MEAN?! Can a self-referential label be true or false? How can a statement with no falsifiable information in it be falsified or proven true? Its truth value is undefined.
posted by pravit at 6:53 PM on September 2, 2015
I got this right and I still think it's dumb as hell.
posted by edheil at 6:53 PM on September 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by edheil at 6:53 PM on September 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
spoiler alert: the real national treasure was riley poole all along
posted by poffin boffin at 6:55 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by poffin boffin at 6:55 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
it's a purposefully deceitful omission built to exploit a very common fallacy, and targeted especially to people who think of themselves as good at puzzles.
Perhaps instead of deceit, I should've written "no lies". I tend to assume that people writing puzzles are very careful with the information they give you (not saying that e.g. the labels were put there by a pathologically honest monk who has looked inside the boxes), and the way they phrase their questions (in this case, one that a pedant would insist on answering as yes/no). Telling deliberate lies is out, but capitalising on common assumptions or other modes of thought that people find difficult is all part of the game. Just like watching a conjurer on TV: you trust that it's not all just CGI and stooges, but all other bets are off. Of course, it's possible that I've just somehow become inured to puzzles posed by jerks.
posted by metaBugs at 6:58 PM on September 2, 2015
Perhaps instead of deceit, I should've written "no lies". I tend to assume that people writing puzzles are very careful with the information they give you (not saying that e.g. the labels were put there by a pathologically honest monk who has looked inside the boxes), and the way they phrase their questions (in this case, one that a pedant would insist on answering as yes/no). Telling deliberate lies is out, but capitalising on common assumptions or other modes of thought that people find difficult is all part of the game. Just like watching a conjurer on TV: you trust that it's not all just CGI and stooges, but all other bets are off. Of course, it's possible that I've just somehow become inured to puzzles posed by jerks.
posted by metaBugs at 6:58 PM on September 2, 2015
I got it right, it was a stupid puzzle.
But, it IS the silver casket right? Tell meeeeeee.
posted by Hazelsmrf at 6:58 PM on September 2, 2015
But, it IS the silver casket right? Tell meeeeeee.
posted by Hazelsmrf at 6:58 PM on September 2, 2015
Telling deliberate lies is out, but capitalising on common assumptions or other modes of thought that people find difficult is all part of the game.
In the sense of the surgeon puzzle ("the surgeon is his mother"), yes. The common assumption that all surgeons are male is challenged by the correct answer that there was never any reason to assume the gender of the surgeon. That all happens within the consistent world of the puzzle. In this kind of puzzle, no. It's not usually part of the game of a puzzle of the genre this one appears to belong to to gull participants by giving premises without an affadavit - implied or stated - that the conditions given are basically truthful. It exploits assumptions about puzzles and particularly about truth puzzles. It's like taking the surgeon puzzle and saying "there was never any father or any boy in an accident anyway, there was no reason to believe me when I said that. Now, what gender is the surgeon? We don't know." It's part of a sort of meta-game about puzzles, but it's not hard to see why people object to the author's holding a card behind his back here.
posted by Miko at 7:07 PM on September 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
In the sense of the surgeon puzzle ("the surgeon is his mother"), yes. The common assumption that all surgeons are male is challenged by the correct answer that there was never any reason to assume the gender of the surgeon. That all happens within the consistent world of the puzzle. In this kind of puzzle, no. It's not usually part of the game of a puzzle of the genre this one appears to belong to to gull participants by giving premises without an affadavit - implied or stated - that the conditions given are basically truthful. It exploits assumptions about puzzles and particularly about truth puzzles. It's like taking the surgeon puzzle and saying "there was never any father or any boy in an accident anyway, there was no reason to believe me when I said that. Now, what gender is the surgeon? We don't know." It's part of a sort of meta-game about puzzles, but it's not hard to see why people object to the author's holding a card behind his back here.
posted by Miko at 7:07 PM on September 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
Talk about burying the lede... the author finds that Raymond Smullyan included a near-identical puzzle in his book. And Raymond Smullyan is the king of logic puzzles. Or so they say on the island where half the people always tell the truth and half always lie; I'm not sure which tribe my informant came from.
posted by zompist at 7:08 PM on September 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by zompist at 7:08 PM on September 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
can we talk about the fact that he actually crafted up two boxes and put some treasure in one
posted by Solon and Thanks at 7:14 PM on September 2, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by Solon and Thanks at 7:14 PM on September 2, 2015 [13 favorites]
He's not wrong, he's just, well you know
posted by Doleful Creature at 7:18 PM on September 2, 2015
posted by Doleful Creature at 7:18 PM on September 2, 2015
AN ASSHOLE
posted by Doleful Creature at 7:18 PM on September 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Doleful Creature at 7:18 PM on September 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
He could have put the jewelry in the red box and his logic would still hold, and at least us Super Smarties would feel a bit better about ourselves. But I do come from the Participation Trophy generation.
posted by muddgirl at 7:19 PM on September 2, 2015
posted by muddgirl at 7:19 PM on September 2, 2015
He should have put soup in one of the boxes.
posted by Kabanos at 7:21 PM on September 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Kabanos at 7:21 PM on September 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, it is hilarious that he actually made boxes. Though I admit I drew two boxes in order to think about it. But really, if your point is that the labels are useless, the boxes are pretty superfluous.
posted by Miko at 7:40 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Miko at 7:40 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes, it's the silver casket. If it's the gold, then the labels on the gold and silver caskets are true. If it's the lead, then the labels on the silver and lead caskets are true. So it is the silver, and none of the labels are true (which is allowable).
posted by Pistache at 7:49 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Pistache at 7:49 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oops, the inscription on the lead casket will be true. Still the silver.
posted by Pistache at 7:51 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Pistache at 7:51 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is the first time I've gotten one of these FPP logic puzzles right and of course it had to be the one where the answer is basically LOL PSYCH
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:00 PM on September 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:00 PM on September 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's a bad puzzle because he doesn't stipulate that you can't open/touch the boxes. It's one thing to expose a common assumption re: the labels, but it's poor form if your "correct" answer relies on another such assumption.
posted by juv3nal at 8:07 PM on September 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by juv3nal at 8:07 PM on September 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
Meh. So if it said "a magic being tells you that the labels are correctly applied" or something, then it would be better? What warrants belief in the correctness of the magic being's statement? It seems like if you accept this kind of quibble about puzzle conditions, that anything you're told in the setup could be false, then no level of protestation to accuracy or exhaustive disjunction of conditions is going to be enough to let you get started. Which, okay fine, anything anybody says might be false, but what have we learned from this exercise?
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:14 PM on September 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:14 PM on September 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
My view on that: It's okay to accept the assertions because what you're looking for in an argument is one that is constructed to yield valid inferences, rather than true facts. So if the puzzle says an all-knowing, perfectly honest wizard tells you the signs are true, then you should accept that not because it's true, but because it's a premise from which you're supposed to draw inferences. The inferences aren't themselves true, but they would be true if the premises were true as well.
Anyway, I thought this was silly, but it's one of the few of these puzzles I was able to figure out, but that's because I'm always rejecting these puzzles as having insufficiently defined their terms.
posted by skewed at 8:19 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Anyway, I thought this was silly, but it's one of the few of these puzzles I was able to figure out, but that's because I'm always rejecting these puzzles as having insufficiently defined their terms.
posted by skewed at 8:19 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Fucking cheating ass Bagginses.
posted by nom de poop at 8:25 PM on September 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by nom de poop at 8:25 PM on September 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
What would one (conventionally) add to the puzzle statement to make the labels relevant?
posted by dougfelt at 8:28 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by dougfelt at 8:28 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I pick up the box and shake it and hope the treasure isn't a nice kitten.
posted by turbid dahlia at 8:50 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by turbid dahlia at 8:50 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
After three hundred days you're still not sure if each prisoner has visited the room with the light switch but it turns out it doesn't matter because the whole thing was some bonkers Zimbardo ruse and the entire premise was false! Did the lack of an arrest and trial not tip you off? That's crazy, go try and get your job back, you just spent pretty much a whole year in fake riddle jail.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:09 PM on September 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by jason_steakums at 9:09 PM on September 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
The solution is right there in your face: OPEN BOTH BOXES. Who will stop you?
This really needs to be shouted from horseback over the roar of a horde of barbarians moments from battle.
posted by No-sword at 9:36 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
This really needs to be shouted from horseback over the roar of a horde of barbarians moments from battle.
posted by No-sword at 9:36 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Logician violates the Gricean maxims, film at 11.
Seriously, the assumption that the labels on the boxes have definite truth values and that one can deduce the answer to the question posed from then is so deeply a convention of this particular genre that it literally goes without saying. Just like if you ask me "May I borrow your copy of Higher-Order Perl?" and I reply, "It's on the shelf in my office," I didn't literally say that you have my permission to to go to my office and borrow it, but it's implied from the context of what I did say. So here. The reader is ordinarily entitled to assume that it is this sort of puzzle from the setup, and it's conversationally incumbent on the writer to say so if those conditions don't apply. False advertising law would call his setup of the puzzle "literally true but misleading"; he has good reason to expect that people will misinterpret his words and does nothing to correct the misimpression.
Well put, but it's even worse than that. The author has thrown away the right to assert that answers that challenge other assumptions that are usual to make in this sort of puzzle are out of bounds.
The intended correct answer was "There is not enough information to determine the answer" but the author intends us to assume when selecting this answer that we can't utilize information outside what is given. But he can't just pick and choose; the author shows that he intended to violate Grice intentionally so none of our assumptions should be trusted-that is in fact the point of the puzzle from the perspective of the author.
So answers along the lines of 'I open the boxes and looked at the contents' or 'I asked you, the person who put the treasure in the box, and you told me' are correct.
One need not even make up a just-so story; the question asks, 'Can you figure out which box contains the treasure?' and the answer to that surely is simply a write-in vote for 'Yes'.
It is a deeply stupid puzzle. I hesitate to even call it a puzzle.
posted by Kwine at 9:41 PM on September 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
Seriously, the assumption that the labels on the boxes have definite truth values and that one can deduce the answer to the question posed from then is so deeply a convention of this particular genre that it literally goes without saying. Just like if you ask me "May I borrow your copy of Higher-Order Perl?" and I reply, "It's on the shelf in my office," I didn't literally say that you have my permission to to go to my office and borrow it, but it's implied from the context of what I did say. So here. The reader is ordinarily entitled to assume that it is this sort of puzzle from the setup, and it's conversationally incumbent on the writer to say so if those conditions don't apply. False advertising law would call his setup of the puzzle "literally true but misleading"; he has good reason to expect that people will misinterpret his words and does nothing to correct the misimpression.
Well put, but it's even worse than that. The author has thrown away the right to assert that answers that challenge other assumptions that are usual to make in this sort of puzzle are out of bounds.
The intended correct answer was "There is not enough information to determine the answer" but the author intends us to assume when selecting this answer that we can't utilize information outside what is given. But he can't just pick and choose; the author shows that he intended to violate Grice intentionally so none of our assumptions should be trusted-that is in fact the point of the puzzle from the perspective of the author.
So answers along the lines of 'I open the boxes and looked at the contents' or 'I asked you, the person who put the treasure in the box, and you told me' are correct.
One need not even make up a just-so story; the question asks, 'Can you figure out which box contains the treasure?' and the answer to that surely is simply a write-in vote for 'Yes'.
It is a deeply stupid puzzle. I hesitate to even call it a puzzle.
posted by Kwine at 9:41 PM on September 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
> One need not even make up a just-so story; the question asks, 'Can you figure out which box contains the treasure?' and the answer to that surely is simply a write-in vote for 'Yes'.
I prefer to interpret it as "Will you figure out which box contains the treasure?", to which my answer is "Fuck you and your treasure."
posted by cardioid at 9:46 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I prefer to interpret it as "Will you figure out which box contains the treasure?", to which my answer is "Fuck you and your treasure."
posted by cardioid at 9:46 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
but don't you see?
the real treasure is the friends we made along the way
posted by ShawnStruck at 9:51 PM on September 2, 2015 [15 favorites]
the real treasure is the friends we made along the way
posted by ShawnStruck at 9:51 PM on September 2, 2015 [15 favorites]
Delighted to see that we're right on course.
And of course, no thread on logic puzzles would be complete without some condescending, sweeping criticism of everyone participating.
And a gentle note to the criticizer that not one of their sneering indictments makes the other participants wrong.
And then a mention of how going meta is entirely appropriate here.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 9:52 PM on September 2, 2015
And of course, no thread on logic puzzles would be complete without some condescending, sweeping criticism of everyone participating.
And a gentle note to the criticizer that not one of their sneering indictments makes the other participants wrong.
And then a mention of how going meta is entirely appropriate here.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 9:52 PM on September 2, 2015
That said, there are a ton of other interesting things going on in this blog and I recommend digging into it. Thanks for the link, Wolfdog.
posted by Kwine at 10:00 PM on September 2, 2015
posted by Kwine at 10:00 PM on September 2, 2015
I'm terrible at these kinds of logic puzzles but I got this one pretty quick. Jealous much?
posted by zardoz at 10:01 PM on September 2, 2015
posted by zardoz at 10:01 PM on September 2, 2015
I don't spend eight hours a day slaving away at the Complicated Real World Box Mystery-Solving factory just to come home and deal with box-solving mysteries with worthless labels and not enough information for fun.
posted by aaronetc at 10:01 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by aaronetc at 10:01 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
My meh aside, I agree with Kwine that it's a fun blog. And I salute this guy for starting his blog post in 2007 and finishing it in 2015 -- that's procrastination I can respect.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:10 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:10 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
the puzzle is meaningless because neither of the labels really mean anything because nothing really means anything because you and everyone you love will be dead someday anyway
posted by webmutant at 10:12 PM on September 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by webmutant at 10:12 PM on September 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
Honestly, I'm kind of pleased that "this puzzle is bullshit" is the correct answer, as that's almost always my first answer to logic puzzles
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:23 PM on September 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:23 PM on September 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
Why should we believe his photographs that the treasure was in the green box? You all have just assumed that because he presents a photograph of a treasure in a green box it must be the solution to the presented puzzle. It's never stated anywhere that he will give the correct answer to the puzzle without lying. In fact, the treasure was in a third, yellow box: he says that there are "two boxes on the table" but not that there are only two boxes.
posted by Pyry at 10:56 PM on September 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Pyry at 10:56 PM on September 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
/sets fire to box.
posted by Artw at 10:59 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 10:59 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Wait, I know. The label on the red box is a Banksy and inside the green box is capitalism.
posted by ODiV at 11:31 PM on September 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by ODiV at 11:31 PM on September 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
How is the answer not that the treasure is in the red box? Clearly, if the treasure is in the green box, we have a paradox, so we can say that the treasure is not in the green box. If the treasure is in the red box, we don't have a paradox, we just have a single self-referential statement, which is meaningless. So, by process of elimination, we determine the treasure is in the red box. I don't understand why we should believe otherwise.
To put it slightly more formally, we ask have the premise that one of two boxes contains a treasure.
So let's assume the treasure is in the green box. Can it be true that "The treasure is in this [green] box" AND "exactly one of these labels is true"? Nope, that's a clear paradox, so our assumption is false. The treasure is not in the green box.
Ok, let's assume the treasure is in the red box. Clearly the green box label "The treasure is in this box" is false. Is "exactly one of these labels is true" a true or false statement? Well, it could be true or false. You can call that a meaningless statement or a undecidable statement or whatever you like. So there is no reason to think the treasure isn't in the red box. All we know is that the red box is labelled with an undecidable statement.
If we know there are two boxes, one contains a treasure, and it isn't in the green box, then surely the treasure is in the red box.
So, it seems that this guy is claiming to create a logic game, but is really just lying. That's not much fun for anyone and it certainly doesn't teach you anything other than that people can be wrong, which is not exactly new information.
posted by ssg at 12:40 AM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
To put it slightly more formally, we ask have the premise that one of two boxes contains a treasure.
So let's assume the treasure is in the green box. Can it be true that "The treasure is in this [green] box" AND "exactly one of these labels is true"? Nope, that's a clear paradox, so our assumption is false. The treasure is not in the green box.
Ok, let's assume the treasure is in the red box. Clearly the green box label "The treasure is in this box" is false. Is "exactly one of these labels is true" a true or false statement? Well, it could be true or false. You can call that a meaningless statement or a undecidable statement or whatever you like. So there is no reason to think the treasure isn't in the red box. All we know is that the red box is labelled with an undecidable statement.
If we know there are two boxes, one contains a treasure, and it isn't in the green box, then surely the treasure is in the red box.
So, it seems that this guy is claiming to create a logic game, but is really just lying. That's not much fun for anyone and it certainly doesn't teach you anything other than that people can be wrong, which is not exactly new information.
posted by ssg at 12:40 AM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Here's what I thought, in order of the thinking:
it must be the green box, since the most seemingly logical answer is the red box (which would fulfill the apparent conditions), and why even post this if it's the red box
the description says "One contains a treasure"; this would be a true statement even if both contained a treasure... is this the trick?
Let's see... to avoid the conundrum posed by the red box label in any instance other than red = treasure, green = empty, let me examine only the conditions as they apply to the green box, and entirely ignore the labeling of the red box, keeping in mind that the possibility exists that there might be treasure in both boxes, in which case:
Now, turning to the red box label, "exactly one of the labels is true": what if this is untrue, and exactly none of the labels are true? Then the green box label is untrue, and I should choose the red box. if the green box label is untrue there is no treasure in it.
What if "exactly one of the labels is true" is untrue, and both of the labels are true? The green box has treasure in it, and I should choose the green box, even if it makes the red label untrue, and I'll just have to live with that paradox. If the green box label is true, then there is treasure in it.
What if "exactly one of the labels is true" is true? Then the red box label is true, which means the green box label can't be true, so the green box is empty and I should choose the red box.
Considering the three possibilities of truth or falsity for the red box label, my chances would be better than 50-50 if I choose the red box.
Yet, return to step one, it must be the green box, since the most seemingly logical answer is the red box (which would fulfill the apparent conditions), and why even post this if it's the red box. So I choose the green box.
And thus, I lose the puzzle*, but get the treasure. Ha! Take that tricky puzzle guy. *dons jewels*
* I think I lose the puzzle. I didn't actually commit an answer. only one of these sentences is true.
posted by taz at 12:51 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
it must be the green box, since the most seemingly logical answer is the red box (which would fulfill the apparent conditions), and why even post this if it's the red box
the description says "One contains a treasure"; this would be a true statement even if both contained a treasure... is this the trick?
Let's see... to avoid the conundrum posed by the red box label in any instance other than red = treasure, green = empty, let me examine only the conditions as they apply to the green box, and entirely ignore the labeling of the red box, keeping in mind that the possibility exists that there might be treasure in both boxes, in which case:
Both statements are false means there is no treasure in the green box = Choose Redhm. 50-50 no matter what, using this system. I guess I'm missing the tricky trick or better logical system.
Both statements are true means there is treasure in the green box (and maybe the red) = Choose Green
Red false, Green true means there is treasure in the green box (and maybe the red) = Choose Green
Red true, Green false means there is no treasure in the green box = Choose Red
Now, turning to the red box label, "exactly one of the labels is true": what if this is untrue, and exactly none of the labels are true? Then the green box label is untrue, and I should choose the red box. if the green box label is untrue there is no treasure in it.
What if "exactly one of the labels is true" is untrue, and both of the labels are true? The green box has treasure in it, and I should choose the green box, even if it makes the red label untrue, and I'll just have to live with that paradox. If the green box label is true, then there is treasure in it.
What if "exactly one of the labels is true" is true? Then the red box label is true, which means the green box label can't be true, so the green box is empty and I should choose the red box.
Considering the three possibilities of truth or falsity for the red box label, my chances would be better than 50-50 if I choose the red box.
Yet, return to step one, it must be the green box, since the most seemingly logical answer is the red box (which would fulfill the apparent conditions), and why even post this if it's the red box. So I choose the green box.
And thus, I lose the puzzle*, but get the treasure. Ha! Take that tricky puzzle guy. *dons jewels*
* I think I lose the puzzle. I didn't actually commit an answer. only one of these sentences is true.
posted by taz at 12:51 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
The treasure is in the red box because detachment from material possessions is the only lasting reward.
posted by scruss at 1:16 AM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by scruss at 1:16 AM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm going to have to back down from my previous argument. On further reflection, there is no particular reason to believe that one should favour the falsehood of either one of the labels over the other, so my conclusion is false.
That said, I think it is quite fair to say the puzzle is inconsistent. He claims in response: They certainly are not. Inconsistent systems do not have models, and in particular cannot exist in the real world. The photographs above demonstrate a real-world model that satisfies every condition posed by the puzzle, and so proves that it is consistent.
That's only true if we accept that the labels in a logic puzzle can be deceptive, which if it applies to this logic puzzle, certainly applies to every logic puzzle, in which case the correct answer to any logic puzzle phrased this way is that there isn't enough information, which is clearly ridiculous. Or, put another way, this guy has certainly produced a real-world model of two boxes with labels, but he has not produced a real-world model of a logic puzzle, which is an entirely different thing. He has mapped a few sentences of language onto some physical objects in a way that doesn't really make sense and then is claiming that the physical objects prove something about the language.
posted by ssg at 1:24 AM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
That said, I think it is quite fair to say the puzzle is inconsistent. He claims in response: They certainly are not. Inconsistent systems do not have models, and in particular cannot exist in the real world. The photographs above demonstrate a real-world model that satisfies every condition posed by the puzzle, and so proves that it is consistent.
That's only true if we accept that the labels in a logic puzzle can be deceptive, which if it applies to this logic puzzle, certainly applies to every logic puzzle, in which case the correct answer to any logic puzzle phrased this way is that there isn't enough information, which is clearly ridiculous. Or, put another way, this guy has certainly produced a real-world model of two boxes with labels, but he has not produced a real-world model of a logic puzzle, which is an entirely different thing. He has mapped a few sentences of language onto some physical objects in a way that doesn't really make sense and then is claiming that the physical objects prove something about the language.
posted by ssg at 1:24 AM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
If you think the puzzle is unfair or something, well, you probably haven't seen enough logic puzzles. Messing with your head is definitely part of the genre. A famous puzzle with this sort of questioning of assumptions is the Unexpected Hanging.
I'd also point out that including "don't know" in the list of alternatives is a pretty strong clue that the solver should carefully consider that answer. As is the precise wording "Can you figure out which box contains the treasure?"
posted by zompist at 1:33 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'd also point out that including "don't know" in the list of alternatives is a pretty strong clue that the solver should carefully consider that answer. As is the precise wording "Can you figure out which box contains the treasure?"
posted by zompist at 1:33 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
I can, in fact, figure out which box contains the treasure.
I directed my web browser to http://blog.plover.com/math/logic/annoying-boxes-solution.html and lo, the treasure is in the green box.
posted by Fongotskilernie at 2:13 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
I directed my web browser to http://blog.plover.com/math/logic/annoying-boxes-solution.html and lo, the treasure is in the green box.
posted by Fongotskilernie at 2:13 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
I went back and read the original version of the puzzle in Smullyan's book, and it's amazing how differently it reads when the subtext is "here is a subtle and instructive aspect of logical truth-value that's worth considering" rather than "you, the reader, are a moron if you got this wrong, and I am very smart".
posted by rollick at 2:36 AM on September 3, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by rollick at 2:36 AM on September 3, 2015 [9 favorites]
I remember this puzzle from Smullyan's book. It might be irritating for most people as grown-ups, but reading it as a kid I was sure to have found the solution and it took me a long time to understand why writing things on boxes could not force realityone way or the other. Good times.
posted by anzen-dai-ichi at 2:56 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by anzen-dai-ichi at 2:56 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
The question asked is "Can you figure out which box contains the treasure?". To which the answer has to be either "yes" or "no", and not "red" or "green". Picking a box is highly tempting, but it doesn't answer the question that's asked. However, there's also nothing that states that the answers "yes" or "no" refer in any way to the information content or otherwise of the labels. The answers "no because it's a stupid puzzle" or "yes I probably could but I'm not going to bother" are also equally valid. The actual location of the treasure itself seems somewhat irrelevant.
posted by talitha_kumi at 3:00 AM on September 3, 2015
posted by talitha_kumi at 3:00 AM on September 3, 2015
Metafilter: there are a dozen Oglaf comics that are applicable here
posted by chavenet at 3:05 AM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 3:05 AM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Is this what being sealioned feels like? I need a shower.
posted by Metroid Baby at 3:36 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Metroid Baby at 3:36 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Wait, will a barometer be helpful in this instance?
posted by sammyo at 4:40 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 4:40 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
There are two boxes on the shelf.
One is labeled "may contain GMOs."
The other is labeled "zero cholesterol."
Both are labeled "packed by weight, not by volume," followed by an emoji that looks like a hamburger.
Neither is labeled "watch carefully for the removal of this sign."
Never trust anybody.
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:59 AM on September 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
One is labeled "may contain GMOs."
The other is labeled "zero cholesterol."
Both are labeled "packed by weight, not by volume," followed by an emoji that looks like a hamburger.
Neither is labeled "watch carefully for the removal of this sign."
Never trust anybody.
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:59 AM on September 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
There were thirty cows in a paddock, and twenty ate chickens.
How many didn't?
Now ask somebody else this question. Don't let them read it.
posted by flabdablet at 6:03 AM on September 3, 2015
How many didn't?
Now ask somebody else this question. Don't let them read it.
posted by flabdablet at 6:03 AM on September 3, 2015
it took me a long time to understand why writing things on boxes could not force reality one way or the other
Quantum physics would like a word with you.
posted by flabdablet at 6:13 AM on September 3, 2015
Quantum physics would like a word with you.
posted by flabdablet at 6:13 AM on September 3, 2015
A famous puzzle with this sort of questioning of assumptions is the Unexpected Hanging.
Sort of. But not really, in that the prisoner's reasoning is completely irrelevant to the puzzle conditions, which remain true. He made an assumption that Friday wouldn't be a surprise? So who cares? It doesn't really matter to the judge what flights of fancy he engaged in - it would always be a surprise because no certainty was ever offered. If the execution had happened on Friday it would still be a big surprise because he'd convinced himself that was impossible. And If it's about questioning assumptions, then another assumption we could question is that the judge decided it didn't matter whether the execution was on a weekday, or at noon, and offed him on a Saturday. Or that the judge might just let him rot in prison until he died a natural death. The FPP puzzle works like that - it's the equivalent of making the judge untrustworthy. The FPP puzzle works only by implying a puzzle-world that is basically false. Unexpected Hanging's scenario remains true to everything in the puzzle world, just distracts you by trying to make the prisoner's reasoning sound reasonable, when it's not. The only lesson here is not to forget to question whether the given puzzle conditions are reliable.
I have a long history of collecting and teaching with lateral thinking puzzles. I like them delivered in person a thousand times better than read from a page, because the interaction is where you really get to assumption-probing. The question-and-answer interchange starts to lead people to ask things like "Is there any reason to believe the signs are true?" "Can I assume the judge is telling the truth?" and so on. It's more of a method of rifling through all the mental drawers in the puzzle and leaving no stone unturned (to mix metaphors).
posted by Miko at 6:24 AM on September 3, 2015
Sort of. But not really, in that the prisoner's reasoning is completely irrelevant to the puzzle conditions, which remain true. He made an assumption that Friday wouldn't be a surprise? So who cares? It doesn't really matter to the judge what flights of fancy he engaged in - it would always be a surprise because no certainty was ever offered. If the execution had happened on Friday it would still be a big surprise because he'd convinced himself that was impossible. And If it's about questioning assumptions, then another assumption we could question is that the judge decided it didn't matter whether the execution was on a weekday, or at noon, and offed him on a Saturday. Or that the judge might just let him rot in prison until he died a natural death. The FPP puzzle works like that - it's the equivalent of making the judge untrustworthy. The FPP puzzle works only by implying a puzzle-world that is basically false. Unexpected Hanging's scenario remains true to everything in the puzzle world, just distracts you by trying to make the prisoner's reasoning sound reasonable, when it's not. The only lesson here is not to forget to question whether the given puzzle conditions are reliable.
I have a long history of collecting and teaching with lateral thinking puzzles. I like them delivered in person a thousand times better than read from a page, because the interaction is where you really get to assumption-probing. The question-and-answer interchange starts to lead people to ask things like "Is there any reason to believe the signs are true?" "Can I assume the judge is telling the truth?" and so on. It's more of a method of rifling through all the mental drawers in the puzzle and leaving no stone unturned (to mix metaphors).
posted by Miko at 6:24 AM on September 3, 2015
"What do I get if I add two plus two?"
"Four."
"Wrong! I didn't specify that I was using modular arithmetic with a modulus of 3! Ha ha! Made you participate in good faith!"
Weak.
posted by zenoli at 8:28 AM on September 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
"Four."
"Wrong! I didn't specify that I was using modular arithmetic with a modulus of 3! Ha ha! Made you participate in good faith!"
Weak.
posted by zenoli at 8:28 AM on September 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
I feel like that's a mischaracterization of the problem as presented.
What do I get if I add two plus two?
a. Four
b. Two
c. Five
d. Modular or not modular?
When you consider the entire problem (including the limited answer set provided) it becomes clear that there's something else going on. Back in school the 'There is not enough information provided' answer, when present, was always enough make me reconsider my premises.
posted by carsonb at 9:51 AM on September 3, 2015
What do I get if I add two plus two?
a. Four
b. Two
c. Five
d. Modular or not modular?
When you consider the entire problem (including the limited answer set provided) it becomes clear that there's something else going on. Back in school the 'There is not enough information provided' answer, when present, was always enough make me reconsider my premises.
posted by carsonb at 9:51 AM on September 3, 2015
Miko: Yeah, it is hilarious that he actually made boxes.
If you ask me, making the whole thing physically real was essential to the point he was making about the limitations of logical reasoning. As long as the whole puzzle exists in the realm of words, it's halfway reasonable to say things like "You're breaking the conventions of these sorts of puzzles". But once you have real boxes with real labels and a real treasure inside one of them, you're forced to confront the fact that reality is capable of breaking those assumed conventions as well.
This is also why answers like "open both boxes" fail. Because actually, you didn't open both boxes. You had no access to them. "You didn't say I couldn't open the boxes"? He didn't need to say that; you already know whether you can open the boxes or not. You can't find a real treasure with pretend actions.
posted by baf at 10:22 AM on September 3, 2015
If you ask me, making the whole thing physically real was essential to the point he was making about the limitations of logical reasoning. As long as the whole puzzle exists in the realm of words, it's halfway reasonable to say things like "You're breaking the conventions of these sorts of puzzles". But once you have real boxes with real labels and a real treasure inside one of them, you're forced to confront the fact that reality is capable of breaking those assumed conventions as well.
This is also why answers like "open both boxes" fail. Because actually, you didn't open both boxes. You had no access to them. "You didn't say I couldn't open the boxes"? He didn't need to say that; you already know whether you can open the boxes or not. You can't find a real treasure with pretend actions.
posted by baf at 10:22 AM on September 3, 2015
Well sure but then it's not really a puzzle then baf. What have a I got in my pocket and all that.
posted by Carillon at 10:29 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Carillon at 10:29 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
making the whole thing physically real was essential to the point he was making about the limitations of logical reasoning
No, it wasn't, and he's done nothing remotely like "making the whole thing physically real." He's only supplied some photos that illustrate the puzzle. There are no red and green labeled treasure-boxes on the table in front of me, or presumably in front of you either (or if there are, it's not because he put them there). The essentially identical puzzle in Smullyan's book takes place in a rather silly and entirely fictional world, and that doesn't change the point at all. The point is that truth-claims need to be grounded somehow, not that truth-claims need to be grounded in reality.
posted by RogerB at 10:44 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
No, it wasn't, and he's done nothing remotely like "making the whole thing physically real." He's only supplied some photos that illustrate the puzzle. There are no red and green labeled treasure-boxes on the table in front of me, or presumably in front of you either (or if there are, it's not because he put them there). The essentially identical puzzle in Smullyan's book takes place in a rather silly and entirely fictional world, and that doesn't change the point at all. The point is that truth-claims need to be grounded somehow, not that truth-claims need to be grounded in reality.
posted by RogerB at 10:44 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Meh. The pictures of the boxes are on the solution page, not the "puzzle" page. The "right" "answer" could just as easily have been justified by saying, "Psych! There aren't any boxes, and this is just a bad faith interaction that pretends to be a logic puzzle."
Which would be a trivially obnoxious way to respond to any logic puzzle. "There's no tribe and no jungle. You can't fool me, you're just using words!"
Where do I contribute to the kickstarter for Naughty Box fic?
posted by zenoli at 10:50 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Which would be a trivially obnoxious way to respond to any logic puzzle. "There's no tribe and no jungle. You can't fool me, you're just using words!"
Where do I contribute to the kickstarter for Naughty Box fic?
posted by zenoli at 10:50 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Another way to look at it is that you've got three unknowns (truth of label on red box, truth of label on green box, location of treasure) and only two assertions (content of label on red box, content of label on green box) so the system is underdetermined. You'd need a third assertion, reliably connecting the truth of at least one label with the location of the treasure in a way that didn't reduce to one of the existing assertions, to be able to generate a unique solution.
posted by flabdablet at 10:56 AM on September 3, 2015
posted by flabdablet at 10:56 AM on September 3, 2015
BEEP BOOP YOUR LOGIC LACKS PICS AND EMOTIONS BOOP BLORT
posted by carsonb at 11:34 AM on September 3, 2015
posted by carsonb at 11:34 AM on September 3, 2015
Back in school the 'There is not enough information provided' answer, when present, was always enough make me reconsider my premises.
Yeah, but if you need to do that, you've given away the answer, so you don't have a puzzle but a demonstration. And if you needed that prompt, the concept wasn't working. Something strikes me as very funny about people thinking that including this in the possible answers makes the result different somehow, but including the possible falsity of the premises in the puzzle conditions wouldn't. It would be a simple matter to add to the conditions: "the labels say XYZ but you do not know if the labels are true." It's the same either way. In practice, either you always question premises - as this puzzle is asking you to learn to do - or you accept puzzle conditions and work from there.
you already know whether you can open the boxes or not. You can't find a real treasure with pretend actions.
Your answer makes no sense to me. If both (real) boxes are closed, why assume there is a real treasure? How does modeling the boxes help convince me that I can trust the premise, or not? All I can see is that there are some boxes.
you've got three unknowns (truth of label on red box, truth of label on green box, location of treasure)
Four: because you have to add existence of treasure. If we're questioning premises there's no reason to assume any treasure is even available.
posted by Miko at 11:52 AM on September 3, 2015
Yeah, but if you need to do that, you've given away the answer, so you don't have a puzzle but a demonstration. And if you needed that prompt, the concept wasn't working. Something strikes me as very funny about people thinking that including this in the possible answers makes the result different somehow, but including the possible falsity of the premises in the puzzle conditions wouldn't. It would be a simple matter to add to the conditions: "the labels say XYZ but you do not know if the labels are true." It's the same either way. In practice, either you always question premises - as this puzzle is asking you to learn to do - or you accept puzzle conditions and work from there.
you already know whether you can open the boxes or not. You can't find a real treasure with pretend actions.
Your answer makes no sense to me. If both (real) boxes are closed, why assume there is a real treasure? How does modeling the boxes help convince me that I can trust the premise, or not? All I can see is that there are some boxes.
you've got three unknowns (truth of label on red box, truth of label on green box, location of treasure)
Four: because you have to add existence of treasure. If we're questioning premises there's no reason to assume any treasure is even available.
posted by Miko at 11:52 AM on September 3, 2015
BEEP BOOP YOUR LOGIC LACKS PICS AND EMOTIONS BOOP BLORT
This is actually, to me, the most interesting thing about talking about this kind of puzzle on the Internet — the sort of cultural history of pop-philosophy or folk-philosophy that it reveals. It's an interesting demonstration not just how (a) nerd culture has internalized a BEEP BOOP ROBOT-shallow model of rationalism — as of course much of it did — but rather (b) in addition, just how silly a version of the counterarguments to that model the nerdworld has also internalized. So much of it sounds like a folk version of Wittgenstein constructed by someone who saw James T. Kirk vs. Landru as the pinnacle of argumentative rigor.
posted by RogerB at 12:15 PM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
This is actually, to me, the most interesting thing about talking about this kind of puzzle on the Internet — the sort of cultural history of pop-philosophy or folk-philosophy that it reveals. It's an interesting demonstration not just how (a) nerd culture has internalized a BEEP BOOP ROBOT-shallow model of rationalism — as of course much of it did — but rather (b) in addition, just how silly a version of the counterarguments to that model the nerdworld has also internalized. So much of it sounds like a folk version of Wittgenstein constructed by someone who saw James T. Kirk vs. Landru as the pinnacle of argumentative rigor.
posted by RogerB at 12:15 PM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Another way to look at it is that you've got three unknowns (truth of label on red box, truth of label on green box, location of treasure) and only two assertions (content of label on red box, content of label on green box) so the system is underdetermined.
Doesn't this argument make every single logic puzzle underdetermined? If the truth of every statement in the logic puzzle is an unknown, plus the question posed by the puzzle, there will always be one more unknown than there are assertions.
posted by ssg at 12:27 PM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Doesn't this argument make every single logic puzzle underdetermined? If the truth of every statement in the logic puzzle is an unknown, plus the question posed by the puzzle, there will always be one more unknown than there are assertions.
posted by ssg at 12:27 PM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
The reliability of the information given by the puzzle can be baked into the premise, or not.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:35 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:35 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
nerd culture has internalized a BEEP BOOP ROBOT-shallow model of rationalism [...] just how silly a version of the counterarguments to that model the nerdworld has also internalized. So much of it sounds like a folk version of Wittgenstein constructed by someone who saw James T. Kirk vs. Landru as the pinnacle of argumentative rigor.Can you unpack that a bit, RogerB? I'm not quite sure which threads in this discussion you're referring to, here.
posted by zenoli at 1:53 PM on September 3, 2015
Can you unpack that a bit
Think I'll be leaving it packed at this point, sorry. I don't think anyone would be happy with the discussion that would ensue from that.
posted by RogerB at 2:14 PM on September 3, 2015
Think I'll be leaving it packed at this point, sorry. I don't think anyone would be happy with the discussion that would ensue from that.
posted by RogerB at 2:14 PM on September 3, 2015
If reaching the "correct" solution involves not trusting the implicit context of the puzzle, surely I can just go and redefine the word "red" (which some people might incorrectly expect to describe the colour of something) as meaning "contains a treasure". And Yay! My original answer was right all along!
posted by russm at 10:43 PM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by russm at 10:43 PM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
You are on a web site where 50% of the members always tell the truth, and 50% of the members always lie. You need to find out if the treasure in the box puzzle is fair or unfair, and if you fail to find the correct answer, all your favorites will be devoured by lions that haven't eaten in three years. You can only ask one member one question in order to determine this. What do you ask? (Note that I, myself, may or may not belong to this web site, and am thus either an entirely unreliable narrator, or a super-reliable narrator and all around groovy person.)
posted by taz at 11:32 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by taz at 11:32 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
If we're questioning premises there's no reason to assume any treasure is even available.
Doesn't this argument make every single logic puzzle underdetermined? If the truth of every statement in the logic puzzle is an unknown, plus the question posed by the puzzle, there will always be one more unknown than there are assertions.
If reaching the "correct" solution involves not trusting the implicit context of the puzzle
The point of the Annoying Box Puzzle is that the statements from the box labels are not premises of the puzzle.
Here is the puzzle again, to save scrolling up:
Both of the labels are lies and there is no treasure. Ya burnt.
There are two statements here. "Both of the labels are lies" is consistent with all the given premises. "There is no treasure" is not.
The only solution to "Can you figure out which box contains the treasure?" is "Not without additional information."
posted by flabdablet at 4:19 AM on September 4, 2015
Doesn't this argument make every single logic puzzle underdetermined? If the truth of every statement in the logic puzzle is an unknown, plus the question posed by the puzzle, there will always be one more unknown than there are assertions.
If reaching the "correct" solution involves not trusting the implicit context of the puzzle
The point of the Annoying Box Puzzle is that the statements from the box labels are not premises of the puzzle.
Here is the puzzle again, to save scrolling up:
There are two boxes on a table, one red and one green. One contains a treasure. The red box is labelled "exactly one of the labels is true". The green box is labelled "the treasure is in this box." Can you figure out which box contains the treasure?The premises of the puzzle are that one of two distinguishable boxes contains a treasure, and that the boxes are labelled in the specified fashion. There is no premise that refers to the truth values of the statements on those labels.
Both of the labels are lies and there is no treasure. Ya burnt.
There are two statements here. "Both of the labels are lies" is consistent with all the given premises. "There is no treasure" is not.
The only solution to "Can you figure out which box contains the treasure?" is "Not without additional information."
posted by flabdablet at 4:19 AM on September 4, 2015
Here is Smullyan's version, if you want to compare the framing.
posted by rollick at 4:23 AM on September 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by rollick at 4:23 AM on September 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
the statements from the box labels are not premises of the puzzle.
That's not really my argument about it. I understand they are not premises but conditions (I am guilty of being sloppy about that usage upthread, but I do get the difference). My argument is that it's a bad-faith 'puzzle' because the premises don't specify any truth value for the labels. The author(s) use people's good faith and previous experience with similar games to create a trap for them. This makes it not a puzzle, but a trick.
Smullyan's writeup (a thousand times clearer) says it well:
The suitor should have realized that without any information given about the truth or falsity of any of the sentences, nor any information given about the relation of their truthvalues, the sentences could say anything, and the object (portrait or dagger, as the case may be) could be anywhere.
Exactly. There is a premise missing, essentially, and the 'puzzle' is to notice at least one missing premise, not to deduce things from the conditions of the puzzle. This is why the response "well when you show me that 'not enough information' is an option, it's easy' leaves me cold, because of course it's easy once you're reminded that there might be at least one missing premise. That's giving the answer away, because the reader didn't come to that themselves. The challenge of the 'puzzle' is not to be tricked by the puzzle-maker's knowlege of people's past experience with similar puzzles to overlook missing premises.
The object could be anywhere, or nowhere. There might not be any object. Premises are missing and untrustworthy. There is no certainty that any condition given in the 'puzzle' reflects reality because no assurances are given. This is also why the boxes in the FPP are funny - they might as well be bags, or coffee cans, or yo-yos, or not exist. My vote: trick, not puzzle.
Note: it's interesting to note the difference in framing. The FPP frame is second person: you are the one supposing there are boxes on a table. In the Smullyan version, there is a story frame. The story frame is more powerful because it is much more reasonable to accept the story frame and assume the reality of the boxes (if not the reality of a treasure). The lack of any framing device creates a kind of unstructured, anything's-possible fuzzy realm of existence in the FPP version.
posted by Miko at 6:13 AM on September 4, 2015
That's not really my argument about it. I understand they are not premises but conditions (I am guilty of being sloppy about that usage upthread, but I do get the difference). My argument is that it's a bad-faith 'puzzle' because the premises don't specify any truth value for the labels. The author(s) use people's good faith and previous experience with similar games to create a trap for them. This makes it not a puzzle, but a trick.
Smullyan's writeup (a thousand times clearer) says it well:
The suitor should have realized that without any information given about the truth or falsity of any of the sentences, nor any information given about the relation of their truthvalues, the sentences could say anything, and the object (portrait or dagger, as the case may be) could be anywhere.
Exactly. There is a premise missing, essentially, and the 'puzzle' is to notice at least one missing premise, not to deduce things from the conditions of the puzzle. This is why the response "well when you show me that 'not enough information' is an option, it's easy' leaves me cold, because of course it's easy once you're reminded that there might be at least one missing premise. That's giving the answer away, because the reader didn't come to that themselves. The challenge of the 'puzzle' is not to be tricked by the puzzle-maker's knowlege of people's past experience with similar puzzles to overlook missing premises.
The object could be anywhere, or nowhere. There might not be any object. Premises are missing and untrustworthy. There is no certainty that any condition given in the 'puzzle' reflects reality because no assurances are given. This is also why the boxes in the FPP are funny - they might as well be bags, or coffee cans, or yo-yos, or not exist. My vote: trick, not puzzle.
Note: it's interesting to note the difference in framing. The FPP frame is second person: you are the one supposing there are boxes on a table. In the Smullyan version, there is a story frame. The story frame is more powerful because it is much more reasonable to accept the story frame and assume the reality of the boxes (if not the reality of a treasure). The lack of any framing device creates a kind of unstructured, anything's-possible fuzzy realm of existence in the FPP version.
posted by Miko at 6:13 AM on September 4, 2015
It's sort of interesting from a philosophical point of view, but only if you go far enough to recognise that the "not enough information" issue applies/does not apply to all statements equally. In the end, any answer to any puzzle could be met with a response of the type "But I did not specify that this was occurring in a universe where the necessary preconditions of this puzzle pertain", even a puzzle that does include such an explicit statement (because that itself could have been made in the context of another language game or what have you). So it points out something significant about language, truth and logic (and Language, Truth and Logic), but probably doesn't do a great job in suggesting the implication of that.
posted by howfar at 2:45 PM on September 5, 2015
posted by howfar at 2:45 PM on September 5, 2015
The only solution to "Can you figure out which box contains the treasure?" is "Yes."
I can accomplish this by opening the boxes.
There is no better answer that conforms to the puzzle as presented.
This has been established by others up-thread. The author of the linked piece is just wrong.
posted by yesster at 7:50 PM on September 7, 2015
I can accomplish this by opening the boxes.
There is no better answer that conforms to the puzzle as presented.
This has been established by others up-thread. The author of the linked piece is just wrong.
posted by yesster at 7:50 PM on September 7, 2015
You're not really granted agency in box world though, are you?
posted by Artw at 4:59 AM on September 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 4:59 AM on September 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Uncle Wooster has the agency to walk by and stick random labels on these boxes but we don't have the agency to open them? The problem doesn't specify that they're locked, or booby-trapped, or anything like that.
The fact that we can't simply peek in the box, or even give it a shake, is assumed based on our foreknowledge of how puzzles work, but so is the fact that when something is labeled, that label refers to the thing it is stuck to. Why is one assumption right and the other wrong?
posted by muddgirl at 6:12 AM on September 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The fact that we can't simply peek in the box, or even give it a shake, is assumed based on our foreknowledge of how puzzles work, but so is the fact that when something is labeled, that label refers to the thing it is stuck to. Why is one assumption right and the other wrong?
posted by muddgirl at 6:12 AM on September 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The question is if you can tell what is in the boxes, not what you would do next. You'd have to expend an additional Action Point for that.
posted by Artw at 7:58 AM on September 8, 2015
posted by Artw at 7:58 AM on September 8, 2015
The fact that we can't simply peek in the box, or even give it a shake, is assumed based on our foreknowledge of how puzzles work
No, it's simply true. I may well have hypothetical access to other hypothetical boxes that the puzzle would also accurately describe, but I do not have access to the particular boxes described by the puzzle.
The entire point of this puzzle is to illustrate how easy it is to be careless with modus ponens.
posted by flabdablet at 8:24 PM on September 8, 2015
No, it's simply true. I may well have hypothetical access to other hypothetical boxes that the puzzle would also accurately describe, but I do not have access to the particular boxes described by the puzzle.
The entire point of this puzzle is to illustrate how easy it is to be careless with modus ponens.
posted by flabdablet at 8:24 PM on September 8, 2015
« Older Slave Tetris | "No deal is perfect" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by rustcrumb at 5:30 PM on September 2, 2015 [20 favorites]