[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni Chiru - Ep. 6 Dawn of the golden witch

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

However the "odd shape" solution is still something that doesn't really impress me, because you need to think about "preexisting extraordinary conditions" that allow you to solve the problem as opposed as an "extraordinary clever action" to solve the problem.

this kind of things are a lot cooler when you realize you could take a brilliant move to solve an apparently unsolvable problem, rather than realizing that the problem setup itself was a lot more manageable than you thought it was.

Actually a thin slice of cheese didn't seem all that extraordinary to me. I don't know about Japan but Battler said something about thinking that it was the cheese you put on a toast. I remember family and friends from Hong Kong putting cheese (and spam) on toast for breakfast every day.

Apparently, after asking a Japanese friend, it's pretty normal there too.

[Jan-Poo]

they are normally small, if they are big they aren't normal at all, and that someone would call the normal ones "big cheese" is also not normal.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

It is very disappointing for me, when I try to solve a logic problem starting from the idea that I am required to take a particular intelligent move and then I realize that the riddle teller just "forgot" to inform me about a very unusual detail on the setup.

I agree, though I should stress there is a small difference between "the teller forgot an important detail" and "the teller left something intentionally vague so that we would draw the wrong conclusion."

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.

[SeagullCrazy]

Originally Posted by Renall

I agree, though I should stress there is a small difference between "the teller forgot an important detail" and "the teller left something intentionally vague so that we would draw the wrong conclusion."

I found a riddle that is a good example of that.

"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.

[Jan-Poo]

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.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

In other words you can't resort to cheap tricks like that. that's just lame.

I agree with you, I just am somewhat concerned that ryukishi may not agree with you, and that the actual solution may require a cheap trick.

[SeagullCrazy]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

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.

When we're given riddles like Erika is the 18th human on Rokkenjima, but there are only 17 people , it really is deceiving. And we've come up with at least 10 different solutions to that riddle by now.

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.

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

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.

As far as I remember that scene those puzzles were dumped on by Erika since they contained the wrong solution for the puzzle described. In other words the puzzle was described wrongly. I certainly don't think Ryukishi's telling us, "hey, I'm going to present Umineko wrongly to you," since he just dumped on that kind of problem himself.

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...

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Kylon99

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...

That much is patently obvious. Most of the "closed rooms" are only closed because Battler decides they must be. Beatrice doesn't try to dissuade him. He assumes people are dead, when we know it's at least possible for someone to be faking. He makes assumptions about the methods of killing and mutilation that may not be true (and probably aren't). He's a bad judge of people's true character (Rosa sure keeps her promises!).

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.

[TTR]

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?

[Raiza Sunozaki]

Originally Posted by SeagullCrazy

It's even pretty obvious when you compare their fighting styles. Battler tried to fight Erika by seemingly creating a logical contradiction (like Nanjo's murder in EP3), yet having an actual solution. But that strategy was really risky, and he accidentally created the logic error because he couldn't think of a solution. Compared to that, Beatrice refused to repeat a lot of things in red on the basis that "she did it with magic". That was something that Battler didn't say even once. And that's the main difference between their fighting styles. Battler acknowledged too much with the red in an attempt to confuse Erika, but ended up confusing himself. Beatrice didn't repeat reds that could be explained with magic to keep Erika guessing.

I'm still up for the idea of Genius Battler, mostly because I don't want to see all those bad-ass points he got from realizing the truth in Episode 5 go to waste. More so, I can't stand the concept of him being outsmarted by a bitch like Erika.
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.

[DgBarca]

Originally Posted by Raiza Sunozaki

I'm still up for the idea of Genius Battler, mostly because I don't want to see all those bad-ass points he got from realizing the truth in Episode 5 go to waste. More so, I can't stand the concept of him being outsmarted by a bitch like Erika.
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.

Then he is using magic like Kinzo. The more the bet is dangerous, more the reward is great.

[Thunder Book]

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.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Kylon99

As far as I remember that scene those puzzles were dumped on by Erika since they contained the wrong solution for the puzzle described. In other words the puzzle was described wrongly. I certainly don't think Ryukishi's telling us, "hey, I'm going to present Umineko wrongly to you," since he just dumped on that kind of problem himself.

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...

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!

Originally Posted by Renall

I agree with you, I just am somewhat concerned that ryukishi may not agree with you, and that the actual solution may require a cheap trick.

mystery novels are not exactly like problem solving tests, because some kind of deception is to be expected. However that kind of deception should still be bound to certain rules which Knox summarized in his decalogue. For example the fact that all hints must be presented is a necessary condition to avoid speculations about stuff that were never mentioned.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

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!

mystery novels are not exactly like problem solving tests, because some kind of deception is to be expected. However that kind of deception should still be bound to certain rules which Knox summarized in his decalogue. For example the fact that all hints must be presented is a necessary condition to avoid speculations about stuff that were never mentioned.

When I was a kid in school, they made us do these brain-teasers called "Stories With Holes," which I guess is a book series or something. They're supposed to be reasoning exercises, but the idea is they start from a sentence which is unusual or strange and you must ask yes/no questions about the nature of the story and try to find a solution.

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.

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

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!

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.)

[Renall]

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.

[Jan-Poo]

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.

[TTR]

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!

[SeagullCrazy]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

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.

Oh, I get it. At the time I didn't understand the question they were asking, but it makes sense now.

Spoiler for answer:

I can demonstrate it using spoiler tags.

For the 3-coin puzzle:

Spoiler for Glass 3:

One coin in here.

Spoiler for Glass 2:

One coin in here.

Spoiler for Glass 1:

One coin in here.

For the 5-coin puzzle:

Spoiler for Glass 2:

One coin in here.

Spoiler for Glass 1:

One coin in here.

Spoiler for Glass 3:

Three coins in here.

It works because the glass contains the other glasses, and as a result it contains their coins too.
So yes, it only works with glasses that can go inside each other.
That's an assumption you need to make to solve the riddle.