|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Should I play? | |||
| y |
   
|
5 | 62.50% |
| n |
  
|
3 | 37.50% |
| Voters: 8. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
08-12-2007, 04:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting logic question
I am posting this in SMP and OOT, please answer the below question.
Thanks, Barron PS- this may be simple/unintersting but i'm curious to see the distrubtuion of responses 
|
|
#2
08-12-2007, 04:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting logic question
That statement doesn't actually makes sense. Strictly from the sentence logic it implies that big head injuries should be ignored and small ones be treated. At the same time it states that there is no head injury that can be so small that it falls out of the big head injury group.
When confronted with unexpected absurd literal interpretations our brain automatically adjusts/completes the statement to make sense. In this case "no head injury is too small that it would be correct to ignore it.
|
|
#3
08-12-2007, 05:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting logic question
[ QUOTE ]
That statement doesn't actually makes sense. Strictly from the sentence logic it implies that big head injuries should be ignored and small ones be treated. At the same time it states that there is no head injury that can be so small that it falls out of the big head injury group. When confronted with unexpected absurd literal interpretations our brain automatically adjusts/completes the statement to make sense. In this case "no head injury is too small that it would be correct to ignore it. [/ QUOTE ] well said.
|
|
#4
08-12-2007, 05:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting logic question
I read it like four times and answered the poll before I understood how the second option could possibly make any sense.
My brain just automatically interpreted it as, "No head injury is small enough to ignore." Weird.
|
|
#5
08-12-2007, 05:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting logic question
[ QUOTE ]
I read it like four times and answered the poll before I understood how the second option could possibly make any sense. My brain just automatically interpreted it as, "No head injury is small enough to ignore." Weird. [/ QUOTE ] isn't it though!! thats why i posted it. i also wanted to see whether OOT would do vastly different than SMP (as i hypothesized). results are still not final but i think it is the case that mathematics people who are more logical can more readily ignore the non-sensical statement being asserted and get to the syntax of what is being stated by the sentence. Barron
|
|
#6
08-12-2007, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting logic question
[ QUOTE ]
isn't it though!! thats why i posted it. i also wanted to see whether OOT would do vastly different than SMP (as i hypothesized). results are still not final but i think it is the case that mathematics people who are more logical can more readily ignore the non-sensical statement being asserted and get to the syntax of what is being stated by the sentence. [/ QUOTE ] Well, it is debateable if the syntactical (absurd) meaning of the sentence is what is "implied" by the statement. Unless you have that sentence as part of a Dadaist's artwork it isn't really unreasonable to be of the opinion that the statement (as opposed to the literal meaning of the sentence) implies option one.
|
|
#7
08-12-2007, 06:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting logic question
[ QUOTE ]
That statement doesn't actually makes sense. Strictly from the sentence logic it implies that big head injuries should be ignored and small ones be treated [/ QUOTE ] nope, the statement says that even small head injuries can be ignored since NO head injurty is small enough to NOT be ignored. i.e. even the tiniest of head injuries can be ignored. [ QUOTE ] . At the same time it states that there is no head injury that can be so small that it falls out of the big head injury group. [/ QUOTE ] i don't see this but maybe i'm wrong. [ QUOTE ] When confronted with unexpected absurd literal interpretations our brain automatically adjusts/completes the statement to make sense. In this case "no head injury is too small that it would be correct to ignore it. [/ QUOTE ] yup. well said. Barron
|
|
#8
08-12-2007, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting logic question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] isn't it though!! thats why i posted it. i also wanted to see whether OOT would do vastly different than SMP (as i hypothesized). results are still not final but i think it is the case that mathematics people who are more logical can more readily ignore the non-sensical statement being asserted and get to the syntax of what is being stated by the sentence. [/ QUOTE ] Well, it is debateable if the syntactical (absurd) meaning of the sentence is what is "implied" by the statement. Unless you have that sentence as part of a Dadaist's artwork it isn't really unreasonable to be of the opinion that the statement (as opposed to the literal meaning of the sentence) implies option one. [/ QUOTE ] the statement comes from a nonsensical queen. the queen of hearts from the Alice in Wonderland story by Lewis Carroll. see my post in OOT for the full context. i thought it was interesting as a logical construct. Barron
|
|
#9
08-12-2007, 06:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting logic question
[ QUOTE ]
the statement comes from a nonsensical queen. the queen of hearts from the Alice in Wonderland story by Lewis Carroll. [/ QUOTE ] I think this qualifies as my Dadaist artist exception [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] BTW I went with this reasoning and actually voted 1 despite catching the literal meaning. I guess in assuming it was meant as an earnest statement I assumed a bit much.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
