Hardest Logic Puzzle of All Time

[Anonymous No.9700906]

A quick question and then I'll delete the thread. Is the object of the puzzle to find a unique set of three questions that will determine the identities of the gods regardless of their orderings, OR are we allowed to select different questions that may be formulated with previous answers in mind. I guess another way of putting it is, do I operate as though I were to ask each the god their respective question all at the time, or would I have the benefit of time to reflect on an answer before posing the next question.
Also, when pic related says 'each question must be put to exactly one god', does this mean that you cannot ask the same question twice AND each question must go to a different god? Thank you /sci/.

[Anonymous No.9700908]

>Hardest Logic Puzzle of All Time
not science or math

[Anonymous No.9700911]

>>9700906
It's a related topic.

[Anonymous No.9700912]

>>9700908
It's a related topic.

[Anonymous No.9700913]

>>9700906
>each question must be put to exactly one god
It means only one god can answer at once. It prevents the solution from being super easy like that liar paradox one where you can just trick them into outing themselves by asking them to do what the liar would do and they point at the same door. This puzzle is just that but x3, you have to come up with 3 questions to have them out themselves instead of 1

[Anonymous No.9700916]

>>9700913
So then there is nothing preventing me from asking the same question more than once, asking the same god a question more than once, or basing my next question on previous answers?

[Anonymous No.9700937]

>>9700912
>It's a related topic.
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.9700939]

>>9700916
Exactly and that's probably part of the trick, that everyone reads it and assumes you have to ask each god one different question.

[Anonymous No.9700940]

>>9700937
Logic is related to mathematics.

[Anonymous No.9700948]

>>9700906
maybe ask
Does Ja mean yes?
to all 3 gods

[Anonymous No.9700962]

>>9700939
Thank you for your help anon. I have to admit I remain skeptical since you don’t seem to be speaking as someone who is familiar with a solution to the puzzle. But for now I will assume that I can do anything that is not clearly forbidden in the puzzle’s description.
>>9700948
It would be silly to ask all three that question; the only inference you can make from the responses would be that the god whose response differed from the other two is NOT Random.

[/psy/mon|三|/sci/mon No.9700968]

>>9700906
Can't really believe myself, but if they are actual gods in the terms of might beyond imagination, then why not do the 4chan thing and say, "Divide By Zero?" Just to see three random gods ability to do something not consistent with our current set of mathematics. You would have the options of a non-destructive entropy set, a null-set, and a random positive outcome/outlook.

Would be baller. *Creates new dimensional axis of analysis*

[Anonymous No.9700971]

>>9700940
>Logic is related to mathematics.
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.9701045]

>>9700971
No, what do you mean? Are you suggesting that logic does not pertain to mathematics?

[Anonymous No.9701115]

>>9701045
Absolutely

[Anonymous No.9701150]

>>9701045
>Are you suggesting that logic does not pertain to mathematics?
It pertains about as much as English does.

[Anonymous No.9701564]

Boolos provides the following clarifications:[2] 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 fair coin hidden in his brain: if the coin comes down heads, he speaks truly; if tails, falsely.[3]

[Anonymous No.9701573]

>>9701150
Is there a subfield of English devoted to its study?

[Anonymous No.9701576]

>>9701115
Then what is mathematical logic the study of?

[Anonymous No.9701615]

>>9701576
>Then what is mathematical logic the study of?
Non-mathematical objects

[Anonymous No.9701616]

>>9700906
All your questions (and many more) are answered in "What is the name of this book" by Raymond Smullyan.
Specifically, chapter 11, beginning on page 149.

We have one who always tells the truth, one who always lies, and one who can do either. The only difference is they answer "bal" or "da" and you don't know which is word is "yes".

>https://www.amazon.com/What-Name-This-Book-Recreational/dp/0486481980

[Anonymous No.9701702]

>>9701615
that heavily pertain to mathematical objects.

[Anonymous No.9701799]

>>9701702
>that heavily pertain to mathematical objects.
Only as much as say, the English language pertains to mathematical objects.

[Anonymous No.9701872]

When did these overly-semantic fuckheads start populating this board?

[Anonymous No.9701891]

>>9701799
English is one of many possible media for conducting a study of those objects. It is a replaceable communicative tool. What would you replace logic with? How could mathematics be developed without its employment?

[Anonymous No.9701901]

>>9701799
Clearly, math is the study of formal systems; and, English being a formal system, ought to be considered math.

[Anonymous No.9701906]

>>9701901
It's not that formal

[Anonymous No.9701914]

>>9701906
Formal enough

[Anonymous No.9701929]

>>9701891
>What would you replace logic with?
Which logic?

[Anonymous No.9701999]

>>9701929
Deductive.

[Anonymous No.9702243]

Is there an actual answer to this logic puzzle or is this one of those things the government puts on the internet because they don't know the answer and hope someone else can figure it out. This problem seems like it relates to quantum computing.

[Anonymous No.9702262]

>>9700906
Why are you calling this the hardest logic puzzle of all time? Someone posted a puzzle very similar to this a couple days ago and the answer was pretty simple. It was slightly different though in that you weren't asked to come up with the questions to ask, and you simply had to determine who was lying/truthful/random based on the three statements they said to each other.

[Anonymous No.9702264]

>>9702243
It's literally impossible to do if you are only allowed one question to each.

[Anonymous No.9702684]

>>9702262
You fail to see just how much easier that other puzzle is in comparison. Consider that in this case, you have to overcome a language barrier, you are limited to yes-no questions, you can pose a question to only one god at a time, and you are not using their responses to evaluate the truth of a claim, but to determine EACH of their identities (even in that simplified version, you can only identify the liar using the given information, not the other two).
>>9702243
>>9702264
The puzzle was devised by the logician Boolos in the 90s. It is solvable.

[Anonymous No.9703836]

For all you 200+ IQ mofos
https://youtu.be/LKvjIsyYng8

[Anonymous No.9703852]

>>9700906
Does 'ja' mean yes?
Does 'da' mean no?
Does 'ja' mean no?

EZPZ

[Anonymous No.9704091]

>>9701914
Not even. The construction of English is a formally ambiguous grammar at best (which is to say it’s not part of a family of regular or even context-free grammars). While English is what academic papers are written in, the foundations of math are pretty deeply rooted in first order logic (or lambda calculus if you want to describe process or computation)

How can you talk about probability without talking about support sets? How can you talk about number theory if you don’t have any notion of induction on infinite sets, much less a notion of cardinality to talk about what sets the study number theory apart than just differential and integral calculus? While not every mathematician is a logician, it’s foolish to say logic hasn’t left an indelible mark on the way mathematics is developed. Just because you may like another field of mathematics, this notion of “purely mathematical” is sort of ironically fucked; mathematics has always either taken tools from logic or developed its own tools to further its study, so there’s this sense that mathematics refers more to the study of structures and calculi using any useful tool rather than asking “well is this tool mathemagical??” (Though the study of the tools and why they should work in the first place is valuable)