AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Umineko

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-07-07, 12:15   Link #13261
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Abstract tangent.

The only one who can claim Kanon's name is the person himself, right? What logically follows is that whoever we see claiming Kanon's name is Kanon, as other people are not allowed to by the red. The red was given to dismiss the theory of "Kanon" as a title, after all.

Now, the real question.

Do we ever see Kanon "claim his name", that is, state that "I am Kanon" in one way or another, after his introduction?...
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-07, 12:16   Link #13262
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
Abstract tangent.

The only one who can claim Kanon's name is the person himself, right? What logically follows is that whoever we see claiming Kanon's name is Kanon, as other people are not allowed to by the red. The red was given to dismiss the theory of "Kanon" as a title, after all.

Now, the real question.

Do we ever see Kanon "claim his name", that is, state that "I am Kanon" in one way or another, after his introduction?...
I think this would include responding to the name Kanon.
__________________
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-07, 12:18   Link #13263
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Did Kyrie really say so?

Anyway I think you misunderstood me. I was merely trying to define what is the requirements for a disguise to be used in a mystery novel without going against the 2nd rule.
I didn't mean to say that Battler didn't see Beatrice, nor that there doesn't need to be a good reason for him to think she was Beatrice.

on Kanon

Yes it's quite blatantly a shkanon denying red, considering that most theories at the time assumed that Kanon existed but died and was impersonated by Shannon, similar to what happens in Psycho or Code Veronica.

Of course recently this red has been bypassed by claiming that in this game "Kanon" is no one else but Shannon. If this reasoning isn't valid then Ghosterika is false as well, because Erika Furudo really exists in the world and it was stated in red that All names refer only to the actual people!!

Of course it is unthinkable that both theories are wrong, so we need to accept this reasoning as valid, even if it stinks...
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-07, 12:23   Link #13264
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
I think this would include responding to the name Kanon.
I'm not sure he actually does that, either. He executes orders given "to Kanon", he reacts to lines addressed to Kanon, but these are not really claiming his name, as they do not stop anyone else from doing so. He does not answer affirmatively to statements like "Are you Kanon?" often either, which definitely would be "claiming name".

No, not Shkanon. ...Jessinon.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-07, 12:32   Link #13265
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Why not, actually.

Was the corpse discovered in Ep2 really identified as Jessica? That is, did anyone turn her over, look at her face, or did they just leave her lying down on that very face?

That's how Kanon could die in this room with no body to be found and Jessica would still be "also included".
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-07, 12:37   Link #13266
Almazluverdis3
Shall we do it?
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: In the Golden toilet.
Send a message via MSN to Almazluverdis3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
Why not, actually.

Was the corpse discovered in Ep2 really identified as Jessica? That is, did anyone turn her over, look at her face, or did they just leave her lying down on that very face?

That's how Kanon could die in this room with no body to be found and Jessica would still be "also included".

Maybe Kanon underwent magic-in-a-second surgery.
__________________
Almazluverdis3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-07, 13:16   Link #13267
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
I'm not sure he actually does that, either. He executes orders given "to Kanon", he reacts to lines addressed to Kanon, but these are not really claiming his name, as they do not stop anyone else from doing so. He does not answer affirmatively to statements like "Are you Kanon?" often either, which definitely would be "claiming name".

No, not Shkanon. ...Jessinon.
Well, let me explain why I think so. By responding to a called title or name you are saying that is you or that is your name. Thus, responding to a name is essentially claiming the name.
Maybe I am over-thinking this?

And yes, I recall Kyrie saying something to that effect, Jan-Poo. However, even if I am right it falls under Knox's 9th.
__________________
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-07, 13:30   Link #13268
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
Well, let me explain why I think so. By responding to a called title or name you are saying that is you or that is your name. Thus, responding to a name is essentially claiming the name.
Not necessarily, unfortunately. "Kanon is not my name but I will do it for you without breaking your illusion first." would be the explaining logic. Mind you, I don't think Kanon is even getting called that to his face often.

But while Kanon may in fact be dead for much of the time he is seen on screen (he can't never have existed though, since he definitely introduces himself to Battler) if such an interpretation is correct, that does not necessarily mean it's Shannon who is posing as him.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-07, 13:37   Link #13269
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
"Kanon is not my name but I will do it for you without breaking your illusion first."
Kanon nor anyone in the series has not said anything to that effect, ever. We also never see anyone respond to Kanon's name aside from Kanon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
But while Kanon may in fact be dead for much of the time he is seen on screen (he can't never have existed though, since he definitely introduces himself to Battler) if such an interpretation is correct, that does not necessarily mean it's Shannon who is posing as him.
Well, someone is Kanon for at the very least the duration of the game. If it were Shanon, then it would be an obvious case of D.I.D. However, only Kanon can claim his name so if it the person in question could only claim Kanon's name while the Kanon identity is in effect.
__________________
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-07, 13:48   Link #13270
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Let's see, let's see, statements I would ask the witch side to repeat in red...
  • "The game is closed at the moment it begins. Influences from the outside cannot affect it once the game has begun, and nothing inside can escape, even as knowledge, until it ends."
  • "The number of people on the island is fixed at the beginning of the game, and although the number can go down, it does not go up under any circumstances."
  • "Only a living human being with a physical body can die. When an individual 'dies,' this refers only to the permanent cessation of physical bodily functions."
  • "An individual can never be depicted as acting against their character unless he or she is doing so intentionally, and the desire to do that must also be within their character. This is true of any scene depicted on the board under any circumstances!"
  • "Positive evidence of a disguise permits a disguise to exist; lack of evidence of a disguise does not leave open the possibility that one does exist."
  • "Whenever the epitaph is depicted as being solved, it truly was solved at that time by that person. Whether anyone else already solved it is not important if it was not shown."
  • "In at least one game, the epitaph was never solved by anyone, either visibly or in secret, before or during the events of the game! Individuals who helped create the epitaph do not count as having solved it."
  • "'Kinzo' refers only to the individual whose name is known to be Ushiromiya Kinzo, and no one else possesses that name."
  • "All scenes depicting a living Kinzo not involving Natsuhi are actual flashbacks!"
  • "There is only one culprit."
  • "There is only one murderer."
  • "The murderer and the culprit are one and the same person."
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-07, 13:50   Link #13271
Almazluverdis3
Shall we do it?
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: In the Golden toilet.
Send a message via MSN to Almazluverdis3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Let's see, let's see, statements I would ask the witch side to repeat in red...
  • "The game is closed at the moment it begins. Influences from the outside cannot affect it once the game has begun, and nothing inside can escape, even as knowledge, until it ends."
  • "The number of people on the island is fixed at the beginning of the game, and although the number can go down, it does not go up under any circumstances."
  • "Only a living human being with a physical body can die. When an individual 'dies,' this refers only to the permanent cessation of physical bodily functions."
  • "An individual can never be depicted as acting against their character unless he or she is doing so intentionally, and the desire to do that must also be within their character. This is true of any scene depicted on the board under any circumstances!"
  • "Positive evidence of a disguise permits a disguise to exist; lack of evidence of a disguise does not leave open the possibility that one does exist."
  • "Whenever the epitaph is depicted as being solved, it truly was solved at that time by that person. Whether anyone else already solved it is not important if it was not shown."
  • "In at least one game, the epitaph was never solved by anyone, either visibly or in secret, before or during the events of the game! Individuals who helped create the epitaph do not count as having solved it."
  • "'Kinzo' refers only to the individual whose name is known to be Ushiromiya Kinzo, and no one else possesses that name."
  • "All scenes depicting a living Kinzo not involving Natsuhi are actual flashbacks!"
  • "There is only one culprit."
  • "There is only one murderer."
  • "The murderer and the culprit are one and the same person."
[*] "The cake did it."

Just to add things.
__________________
Almazluverdis3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-07, 13:53   Link #13272
delita-umw-
Wild Speculator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: 13th Hierarchical City Kagutsuchi
Damn. Sorry smeckle

Last edited by delita-umw-; 2010-07-07 at 14:19. Reason: cause i fail hard at reading
delita-umw- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-07, 14:03   Link #13273
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
  • "'Kinzo' refers only to the individual whose name is known to be Ushiromiya Kinzo, and no one else possesses that name."
  • "All scenes depicting a living Kinzo not involving Natsuhi are actual flashbacks!"
Seconded, LONG LIVE KINZO.

I got some.
The cake is a lie.
The number of people on the island refer to the number of living, human bodies on the island at the start of the game and never changes.
The culprit's motive for killing is Battler's sin.
The portrait and epitaph were put up after Kinzo had died.
Dr. Nanjo refers to that person and never an impersonator.
The culprit did not set any sort of explosive device on the island.
__________________
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-07, 14:04   Link #13274
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
Actually...
What if there was a disguise, somewhere, but it was Rosa who disguised herself as someone else? And she's one of the better candidates for actually having an alternate personality as well, the Black Witch.
Well this red really comes out of the blue. Since it's specifically saying 'there are no hints for it.' I deliberately went to look back for hints for any disguise because of this red. If Jessica's scene were enough she wouldn't be saying 'there are no hints' she'd be asking for them. So that scene doesn't count and what we're looking for are not hints that someone is capable of disguising themselves as someone else, but suspicions by the characters in the text that there is such a disguise. After all the only hint for a Beatrice dsiguise is that people are suspicious that one exists. Other than that there aren't any real hints that someone is disguising as her.

NOTE: Actually using this logic a Battler disguise is possible from EP2 on ironically. Since Rosa is suspicious of one.

This is kind of weird becuase how Dlanor seems to be interpreting Knox here is very different from how it is in decalouge itself. Where for a disguise to work you need a lot training in acting, but since Jessica's on stage performance doesn't count as a hint by itself then maybe Umineko doesn't use that interpretation.

Last edited by Judoh; 2010-07-07 at 14:14.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-07, 14:16   Link #13275
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
NOTE: Actually using this logic a Battler disguise is possible from EP2 on ironically. Since Rosa is suspicious of one.
That reminds me of another red truth I would like said.

There is only one Ushiromiya Battler who participates in this game.
__________________
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-07, 14:20   Link #13276
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
  • "The game is closed at the moment it begins. Influences from the outside cannot affect it once the game has begun, and nothing inside can escape, even as knowledge, until it ends."
In a certain way this has been said:

Nothing outside the island can interfere.

But it wasn't extended to the whole game nor to any game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
  • "The number of people on the island is fixed at the beginning of the game, and although the number can go down, it does not go up under any circumstances."
I would phrase it as "the number of human bodies on the island, regardless of their dead/alive status, is fixed for the whole duration of the game".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
  • "Only a living human being with a physical body can die. When an individual 'dies,' this refers only to the permanent cessation of physical bodily functions."
This is similar to the one I proposed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
  • "An individual can never be depicted as acting against their character unless he or she is doing so intentionally, and the desire to do that must also be within their character. This is true of any scene depicted on the board under any circumstances!"
The use of "depicted" would probably justify a refusal. Knox 9 allow subjective interpretations and the witch is allowed to show those interpretations even if they lead to completely out of character depictions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
  • "Positive evidence of a disguise permits a disguise to exist; lack of evidence of a disguise does not leave open the possibility that one does exist."
This is actually a clarification of the 2nd knox rule. It would be probably Dlanor herself that would confirm it rather than the witch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
  • "Whenever the epitaph is depicted as being solved, it truly was solved at that time by that person. Whether anyone else already solved it is not important if it was not shown."
the acceptance or refusal of this red would lie on the witch wims, since there's no effective blue text that could be formulated upon this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
  • "In at least one game, the epitaph was never solved by anyone, either visibly or in secret, before or during the events of the game! Individuals who helped create the epitaph do not count as having solved it."
See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
  • "'Kinzo' refers only to the individual whose name is known to be Ushiromiya Kinzo, and no one else possesses that name."
There could still be a trick! Known by who? I'd rather go with: "Kinzo refers to Kinzo Ushiromiya, biological father of Krauss Ushiromiya, Eva Ushiromiya, Rudolf Ushiromiya and Rosa Ushiromiya. In no way a person that doesn't fit with this description can be called Kinzo in this game."

followed by

"The one I've always known as Kinzo Ushiromiya is indeed Kinzo Ushiromiya."

You never know...

This kind of request could be repeated for every single character. The witch could propose an alternative definition, but she'd be forced to give one in order to avoid seeing her reds being countered with:

Even if you say that Jessica died, it doesn't mean that the Jessica I know died.

Somehow this issue was addressed in EP6, but apparently the wording still leaves some doubts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
  • "All scenes depicting a living Kinzo not involving Natsuhi are actual flashbacks!"
Yet another request that might not be answered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
  • "There is only one culprit."
  • "There is only one murderer."
  • "The murderer and the culprit are one and the same person."
I would ask the definition of "murderer" and "culprit" first. Apparently requests on a definition cannot be refused. that would by itself answer the last question.
As for the rest the witch would probably refuse.


@smeckeldorf

The cake is a lie. <- there is no need for confirmations! This is the third universal truth after death and taxes

The number of people on the island refer to the number of living, human bodies on the island at the start of the game and never changes. <- no if you ask specifically for the number of living humans, the number cannot be fixed.

The culprit's motive for killing is Battler's sin. <- interesting but there's no obligation to answer.

The portrait and epitaph were put up after Kinzo had died. <- She will refuse. She has shown in the game that the contrary happened.

Dr. Nanjo refers to that person and never an impersonator. <- This one works. But like in the case of Kinzo above I prefer this to be checked by including clear identifying elements. Of course you need to use a previously stated red about Nanjo to force the witch to answer. But there is one in EP3.

The culprit did not set any sort of explosive device on the island. <- this maybe could be used in regards of the final riddle of EP4. But otherwise it wouldn't be answered.

There is only one Ushiromiya Battler who participates in this game. <- This can work, in fact Tahillys used a theory based on second Battler in one of his videos.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-07, 14:27   Link #13277
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
I'm counting on several of these being refused, actually. There are viable reasons why refusing might be disadvantageous in some circumstances, but if the witch side can't confirm in red (because it's not true), they have to refuse.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-07, 14:36   Link #13278
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
The portrait and epitaph were put up after Kinzo had died. <- She will refuse. She has shown in the game that the contrary happened.
Of course she would refuse to say that, I would like to see it said though.
__________________
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-07, 14:37   Link #13279
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
BTW do you think that in the last duel between Erika and Beatrice, the latter had to answer any repetition request provided she could do it?

Because if she didn't, then it would have been a tremendously unfair duel. Beatrice could simply refuse everything, or decide to refuse on purpose just one thing to lead Erika to believe she hit the nail.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-07, 14:39   Link #13280
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
BTW do you think that in the last duel between Erika and Beatrice, the latter had to answer any repetition request provided she could do it?

Because if she didn't, then it would have been a tremendously unfair duel. Beatrice could simply refuse everything, or decide to refuse on purpose just one thing to lead Erika to believe she hit the nail.
Slightly off-topic, are there any good theories to how that could have worked out without one of five people being Kanon?
__________________
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:15.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.