2010-06-11, 16:49 | Link #2021 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Quote:
Apparently, after asking a Japanese friend, it's pretty normal there too. |
|
2010-06-11, 17:31 | Link #2023 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Like the old riddle about the doctor who can't operate on her own son. It operates on the implicit assumption that we don't suppose his mother could also be a doctor. But it never led us to believe otherwise. That's fair because the listener didn't notice they were making an assumption (that the father was the only doctor in the story) that unfairly excluded the answer (the mother was also a doctor). The unfair case is when we're told to look for a green car and then at the end find out the car was actually red. Well, we might have spotted the red car, if we knew we were looking for it! If I understand Jan-Poo's objection, it's that the circumstances did indeed lead us to believe the cheese was not thin enough for that operation, then went ahead and bent it anyway. I'm not up enough on the language used to know.
__________________
|
|
2010-06-11, 18:05 | Link #2024 | |
Endless Witch-Doctor
Join Date: Mar 2010
|
Quote:
"Two fathers and two sons went duck hunting. Each shot a duck but they shot only three ducks in all. How come?" If this is similar to a puzzle in Umineko, you could consider the above red text. Two fathers and two sons went duck hunting. Each shot a duck but they shot only three ducks in all. The solution I instantly thought of was that two people shot the same duck. But that's not the right answer, even though it doesn't contradict the red. The widely accepted answer is that there was a grandfather, a father, and a son, and each one shot a duck. Since the grandfather and father are both fathers, they add up to 2. And since the father and the son are both sons, they add up to 2. In this case, there was more than one possible solution (although two people shooting the same duck might be less probable). It's leaving something intentionally vague to make me draw the wrong conclusion....even though it's perfectly acceptable. If you think about it, it's kind of like Shkanon. In this riddle, the 3 people are believed to be 4 people, just like Shannon and Kanon are believed to be 2 people (when there might only be 1). But I managed to create a solution where 4 people still exist, and before I've managed to create theories with both Shannon and Kanon as separate people. Ryukishi is intentionally leaving it vague to troll us one way or the other in the end. |
|
2010-06-11, 21:13 | Link #2025 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Riddles are not all the same. There are two completely different kinds that are subjected to completely different rules.
The one you (Renall and Seagullcrazy) have quoted are the kind of riddles that are based on play on words and are usually deceiving. But there is another kind that by default explain facts without deceits or omissions. That kind of riddles are like math problems, except you use logic to solve them. Maria's book only contains this kind of riddles. The reader here is not supposed to find where the explanation is trying to deceive him, the reader is supposed to totally trust the explanation and try to find a practical solution to the problem. The riddle of the sheeps and wolves was also that kind of riddle. Just think about it. You don't question the reliability of the explanation there. The facts are exactly as they were explained, you just need to solve the problem exactly as you would if you were to be in the same situation trusting that all the hints necessary to the solution were already given. If you start making assumptions or imagining particular cases then you can find "n" solutions that aren't the one that were really meant by the riddle. For example, you can't assume that there is another boat, if the riddle only tells you that there's one. You can't assume that you can gather other sheep from somewhere else to increase their numbers. You can't assume that you can kill a wolf either, even if the explanation only tells you that you get game over when one sheep dies, and doesn't say anything about the wolves. In other words you can't resort to cheap tricks like that. that's just lame.
__________________
|
2010-06-11, 21:31 | Link #2027 | |
Endless Witch-Doctor
Join Date: Mar 2010
|
Quote:
Oh, and by the way, I don't want it to be a cheap trick either. That would be a huge waste of everyone's time and sort of disappointing. |
|
2010-06-11, 23:26 | Link #2028 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Quote:
Also, I don't remember them saying anything about it being a 'big' cheese. What was the Japanese line, can you remember? I just can't remember there being anything significant about the size... I do remember them not specifying the shape of the cheese though, before it got to Battler's answer. By the way, what I mentioned about being 'primed' wrong was more about the family reactions than the puzzle itself. After the puzzle was described, a few people started talking about the 'block' of cheese. I was going, "Hey, they never said anything about that!" This has to go with what I said about Battler being the detective in EP1-4 and yet not solving the mystery properly. If he's not part of the solution then he's part of the problem. He's probably responsible for priming us wrongly in many ways... |
|
2010-06-12, 00:03 | Link #2029 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
I'm not saying he's unreliable in the lying sense, but we should probably go back and look at the things Battler sees and ignore what Battler says.
__________________
|
|
2010-06-12, 00:54 | Link #2030 |
受話器持って魔女・エアトリーチェ
Join Date: Apr 2009
|
Hm, I was late for the discussion about Real-world Rokkenjima-prime and Meta-world writers.
I had a thought the other day as my friends were playing a riddle-game. My friend Maria had started the riddle, stating that "In my world there are books but no pages." Then it added further and further and further. "In my world there are trees but no leaves" "In my world there are weeks but no days" Of course, this is easy to solve once you read it or write it, but what the interesting part is that once Maria created the fact of the world, other people started playing the game beside her using that same system of rule sets (i.e. double letters) after realizing the truth behind her world. Although the person who originated the facts (i.e. something like Touya for 3-6) isn't part of the meta-retelling of the games, the old rules are only discovered by the new Game Masters on thus are told through their eyes. Maybe the writers of Rokkenprime are kind of like weavers of the story, and Game Masters that use red truth know the rules of the game and start a new game/continue an old game without the writer being present? Something like this? |
2010-06-12, 05:03 | Link #2031 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Quote:
So I still think he purposely led her on, revealing hints in a way that she would trap him in the logic error, so that he could risk everything he had gained to revive Beato. |
|
2010-06-12, 05:17 | Link #2032 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-06-12, 05:42 | Link #2033 |
Endless Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
|
The other thing is that it would be a great excuse to give Battler a proper "I TROLLED YOU! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHO'S INCOMPETENT NOW? HUH MOTHER ******S?!!!! WHO THE **** IS INCOMPETENT NOW!!!!????" face later on in the story when he reveals this.
|
2010-06-12, 07:22 | Link #2034 | ||
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
this is the line that Maria reads when first explaining the riddle: えっと、……大きなチーズが1個あります。それをナイフで1回切り分けると2つになります。 It was clearly there since the beginning. "大きなチーズ" was then repeated later, showing that it's not like they forgot about that. As for the book describing stuff wrongly, how did you get that impression? I don't really remember that... Rather I remember the fact that the answer to the cheese riddle was correctly shown as being "3" in the book. And btw Battler thinking that "3" was too easy to be the right solution doesn't really makes him a great detective, since he should have known that a riddle book meant for children couldn't be that difficult! Quote:
__________________
|
||
2010-06-12, 12:03 | Link #2035 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
The initial setup is always incredibly misleading. Usually critical details are left out, or the wording is intentionally vague. So you get something like "A woman had two sons who were born on the same hour of the same day of the same year. But they were not twins." It's a bit like the red text, actually, if you think of the red provided by the author as an honest lateral thinking exercise and not an aggravating troll. To be honest, I've never seen the red as the latter; I think it's fair as long as we realize it's true but not necessarily forthright. Anyway what I'm saying is you'd be surprised the kind of riddles they make for kids.
__________________
|
|
2010-06-12, 16:21 | Link #2036 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Quote:
So, after Battler reveals that he could cut the cheese in 1 slice, the family questions how this could be done. Erika takes over at that point (acting like she knew the answer all along... heh.), verifying Battler's answer and putting down the writer of that puzzle for not having clarified the shape or type of the cheese. So beyond the priming effect I think this shows us that Ryukishi is aware of problems described incorrectly. Also I think he was trying to show that Battler is actually smart, on-par with Erika. But his lack of self-confidence ends up making himself look like he didn't know the answer (like Natsuhi... heh.) |
|
2010-06-12, 16:44 | Link #2037 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Battler is pretty sharp, but he massively overthinks things. Unlike Erika, who is willing to home in on a solution and pursue it to "provability" even if it's wrong, Battler is likely to overlook the answer by making situations more complicated than they need to be.
The closed rooms etc. are a good example. He tends to assume a puzzle when there's no particular reason to believe one actually exists. That doesn't mean he's wrong, but at some point I'm certain he's made an erroneous leap to judgment based on thinking a problem is more complex than it needs to be.
__________________
|
2010-06-12, 17:48 | Link #2038 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
BTW have you thought about the next riddle?
In the story they interrupt midway so you don' get to see the solution, but it's actually not that hard. It goes like this: You have 6 coins and 3 glasses, you need to get 1 coin inside the first glass, 2 coins inside the second and 3 coins inside the last. This kind of problem is a no brainer. However then it proceeds asking: "what if you only have 5 coins?". It is still possible to solve this problem with only 3 coins. However you need to imagine a particular kind of glasses, it wouldn't work with any glass.
__________________
|
2010-06-12, 17:57 | Link #2039 |
受話器持って魔女・エアトリーチェ
Join Date: Apr 2009
|
OH I see...
You put one coin in the first glass, you put the next glass over the coin inside the first, then another coin, then another glass, and then the final coin! In the bottom glass there are 3 coins, in the second glass there are two, and in the top glass there is only 1! |
2010-06-12, 18:03 | Link #2040 | |
Endless Witch-Doctor
Join Date: Mar 2010
|
Quote:
Spoiler for answer:
|
|
|
|