Thinking

Facebook Twitter

Jokes

The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever. The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever is a logic puzzle invented by American philosopher and logician George Boolos and published in The Harvard Review of Philosophy in 1996.

The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever

A translation in Italian was published earlier in the newspaper La Repubblica, under the title L'indovinello più difficile del mondo. The puzzle is inspired by Raymond Smullyan. It is stated as follows: Three gods A, B, and C are called, in no particular order, True, False, and Random. True always speaks truly, False always speaks falsely, but whether Random speaks truly or falsely is a completely random matter. Boolos provides the following clarifications:[1] a single god may be asked more than one question, questions are permitted to depend on the answers to earlier questions, and the nature of Random's response should be thought of as depending on the flip of a coin hidden in his brain: if the coin comes down heads, he speaks truly; if tails, falsely.[2] History[edit] The solution[edit] Boolos' question was to ask A:

2010-02-24-determinism.png (588×819)

Working

Games. Clarke’s three laws. Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British science fiction writer Arthur C.

Clarke’s three laws

Clarke. They are: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Origins[edit] Clarke's First Law was proposed by Arthur C.

The second law is offered as a simple observation in the same essay. The Third Law is the best known and most widely cited, and appears in Clarke's 1973 revision of "Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination". A fourth law has been added to the canon, despite Sir Arthur Clarke's declared intention of not going one better than Sir Isaac Newton. Snowclones and variations of the third law[edit] and its contrapositive: See also[edit] References[edit] Nirvana fallacy. The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.

Nirvana fallacy

It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy. By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another improbable solution that could in some way be better. History[edit] The nirvana fallacy was given its name by economist Harold Demsetz in 1969,[1][2] who said:[3] The view that now pervades much public policy economics implicitly presents the relevant choice as between an ideal norm and an existing 'imperfect' institutional arrangement.

Examples[edit]

Learning

The Parapsychological Association.