Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I would like to critique this wonderful game.
Wonderful concepts, however I believe to have spotted some flaws.
As in, the level on oxygen.
So we are trying to prove we are breathing oxygen,
It has a If A then B or C
However there is no statement on if it is (If A then B) Or C
or if it is If A then (B or C).
Moreover, this statement follows the former interpreted statement. But then follows it should be or else. Having just the singular or there thus indicates there isnt anything to do with that latter information, and thus due to the ambiguity of the parantheses here, will have seen If A Then (B or C)
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Flaw in first problem. You already assume the switch turns on the light. So IF you want the light to come on, you must find out how the light works, thus you try the switch. Trying the switch turns on the light, but logically, you had no way of knowing that it was the switch which controlled the light.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Well, this was entertaining, but let's be honest. Even the greatest minds hate pure mathematical logic when the final conclusion is not relevant to prior conclusions. 10 messed with me since the final conclusion was not related to the two prior.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
brad1134, when the machine (SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT) kills you at the end of the game, it does so because the assessment is complete. If the assessment is complete AND the machine sees no reason to keep you alive, THEN it will kill you. IF you act on emotion, THEN the machine will see no reason to keep you alive. You act on emotion. The assessment is over. THEREFORE the machine sees no reason to keep you alive, THEREFORE it kills you.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
ugh on both level 7 and 10 the key option wasnt there ;-; please fix this (although for most people it seems to be there :/)
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Where the heck did the guy get a spray paint bottle?
How was he brought there?
How did the guy have anything with him to write stuff down?
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
@misobored That moment when you write yourself a comment before finding your answer 2 comments above in the top rated comments.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Level 7 doesn't give me any options beyond, "Micheal Atkinson parks in disabled spaces" "Video games are not more dangerous then films" and "Video games should be treated as films" and their inverses. I can't solve the problem with only these.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I was confused by some of the stuff to begin with, but reading it through once or twice led me to the conclusion, the 10th one was hard to think through because I had to reimagine the connections in my head every time I went through the equations
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Level 10 was much easier for me than levels 7-9. Should have remembered my old test taking trick and just reduced the verbal problems to equations to begin with.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I used to hate level 9. I did not know the difference between a relevant clue and a red herring. But I know what both are now so I got it. Yay.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
IF: I can solve this game
AND: it makes me laugh
THEN: it is a good game.
I solved the game and it made me laugh
THEREFORE: it is a good game
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Got only one false and that was because I couldn't resist saying I'm a happy bunny in the conclusion. It helped I just finished a course on basics of propositional logic and First-order logic.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I think Level 9 might need another proposition to make it a purely logical, non-semantic argument. For example, that
IF I wonder if that's a relevant clue,
THEN the machine thinks that that's a relevant clue.
For all x, IF x is a red herring, THEN x is not a relevant clue.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I had fun with this. Who knew using my brain could be so entertaining? I enjoyed its humor, the writing style, and the arguments really made me think. Nice job, I hope to see more from you in the future.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Logic stuff is cool. This game is Cool. But i'd never made it if i didn't press the down arrow key to see more alternatives to select...
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
You mentioned something about a next game 3 years ago. Please get to it! I love a great puzzle game about logic which isn't boring and actually makes you wanna put yourself through another, more difficult but also more witty level. Please make my sequel!
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
IF I use logic THEN a computer will kill me,
THEREFORE a computer will kill me,
IF i die THEN i will experience another adventure OR endless nothing,
THEREFORE i will experience another adventure OR endless nothing
IF i experience another adventure OR endless nothing THEN it will be fun,
THEREFORE it will be fun.
Conclusion: If I use logic it will be fun.
:) Great game.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
IF AND ONLY IF Jack OR Jill is ill, THEN there is a possibility that the other is not ill.
Jack is ill.
THEREFORE Jill might not ill.
The game stated that Jill was not ill.
THEREFORE Jill should be able to fetch the water on her own.
This was not an option in the game.
Logical errors make me wonder about their reasoning.
_____________________
THEREFORE I am wondering why Jill can't fetch the water by herself.
Do you know what goes in the blank? ;)
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
@silversleek:
That is incorrect. That is called denying the antecedent, which is a formal fallacy. It follows the form:If p then q. Not p, therefor not q.
You can, however, deny the consequence, saying that: If p, then q. Not q, therefor not p.
At the end of your comment, your form was:
P. If not p, then not q. Therefor q.
However, the only way to change your statement legally is to change it to:
P. If q, then p. Therefor q.
However, to get that statement to comply with the data, obviously a fallacy is necessary.
So you're wrong.