Under rating threshold (hideshow)
@paul1159 from a strict mathematical perspective, we can put it in a notation (where ! represents NOT) like this: if A and B then C. If D then !C. A and B are true. Thus C is true and D is not true, but if C is axiomatic then it's almost optional to state it (we do not need to know that C is true to know that D is not). But there's also a logical fallacy here to assume that if the robot releases me, then it cannot assess me to likewise mean that if the robot can assess me, it cannot release me, unless we start interpreting the words and not in a strict mathematical sense, which is why I think the game should likewise respect axioms and not require them to be stated to draw conclusions. The last puzzle was actually the easiest IMO even though the last part of it was kind of confusing because of the OR, yet we knew !E is true which mean the whole predicate on the right is true (regardless of the truthhood of R) which means O is true... easy.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
How does 4 make any sense at all, if you say the laws of biology have been broken, then that mean you NOT being oxygen.
I am alive = I am breathing oxygen/ OR the laws of biology have been broken
That is contradicting itself!
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
but stinky472 order Does matter 1-4 only states the information while 5-6 is using the information to come to a conclusion.
if you separate them and look at 5-6 by themselves you will see that it makes no sense to have the order be 5) the machine can NOT release me 6) the machine must asses me.
Which brings up the question of why the machine must asses you if it can NOT release you and why is it NOT releasing you in the first place since it's prime directive doesn't say it can NOT release you.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
But the game also doesn't always seem to follow strict propositional logic. For instance, a lot of parts seem to assume IF/THEN produces symmetric relations: IF it's raining THEN the ground will be wet. That doesn't mean that if the ground is wet, it's raining, yet the game seems to make us draw such conclusions. So it seems natural, given the game's loose rules of inference, to relax some of these rules where things get rather ambiguous.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
In other words, it should be perfectly rational that if the machine's prime directive is to assess us and that it must follow its prime directive, that the it must assess us. Isn't that axiomatic? If it is, then we do not need to state the axiom to conclude from #2 that the machine cannot release us, so order should be irrelevant. I think I might tripping over the English wording because some of it is so axiomatic that I see no prerequisite of stating axiomatic deductions to conclude the truthhood of predicates based on axiomatic conditions.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
hmm lets see , 2 person caught me and trying threaten me that if i dun tell the secret about the box, they shall kill me within 1 hour.
I say to them , if i tell you about the secret, u kill me once you find out.
If i dun tell you the secret , you also kill me.
therefore i should not tell you the secret.
Since you two dun noe the secret , you are unable to kill me.
therefore i cannot be killed !
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
@Col_Tatticky agreed based on your analysis but we also have ambiguous wording issues. #3 and #4 states that the prime directive of the machine is to assess me and that it always follows its prime directive. That should already suffice to find the predicate #2 which states that if the machine releases me, then it cannot assess me to mean that the machine cannot release me. In other words, we could determine this: [3] A [4] B [2] IF C THEN !(A AND B). Given that A and B are true from 3 and 4, we know that C is not true. Therefore we can deduce that the machine cannot release us just from 2, 3, and 4 without even looking at 1. It's more of a wording issue in this case.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
@stinky: In order to derive that the machine cannot release you, you must first derive that it must assess you. While it is technically true that you can derive both from the given data, in order to get one you must go through the other. So... 1. IF one derivation is necessary for another derivation, THEN the perquisite derivation should be listed first. 2. "The machine must assess you" is a perquisite derivation to "the machine can NOT release you". 3. Therefore "the machine must assess you" should be listed first.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
1. IF I want to play this game AND I assume the first things to shows up is the new game button Then I presses it without reading it.
2. IF the game show the Quit button first THEN I cannot play the game
3. I always assume the first thing that shows up first is the new game button
4. The game always shows the quit button first
5. THEREFORE I always press the quit button
6. THEREFORE I cannot play the game
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Playing this game has reinforced an opinion I've held for basically my whole life. Namely, that logic and rationality, even when purposely attempting to be convoluted, is ridiculously simple and straightforward, and I am positively baffled by people's inability (or outright refusal) to utilize it correctly on a regular basis.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I was really annoyed to find several cases of what I think to be bugs. Example:
1. If (the prime directive is to assess me AND the machine always follows its prime directive) THEN the machine must assess me.
2. If (the machine releases me) THEN it cannot assess me.
3. The machine always follows its prime directive.
4. The prime directive is to assess me.
*5. Therefore the machine can NOT release me.
*6. Therefore the macine must assess me.
This was considered incorrect to my great confusion, but flipping the order of 5 and 6 made the game consider the answers to be correct. Now I can see why the reverse order would be more intuitive, but from a strict propositional logic standpoint, we can deduce 5 from 1-4 and 6 from 1-4, so the order actually does not matter. 6 does not have to be derived from 5.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
number 9 is true therefore it should be true, number 9 is false therefore should be false, but if 9 is true and false its a contradiction, therefore its not true, but because it is not true it is also true. .................i reject your reality and substitute my own!(Adam Savage)
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
When I scroll up and down with the arrow keys it changes all of my inputs. Also the answer is not unique for every puzzle. I got a couple wrong that I'm sure were correct but I'm not sure if it's because I was actually wrong, the answers changed because of scrolling or the game doesn't catch alternate answers.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I think this is leaving off the correct answer sometimes. For example, on tOn the level with the door, on the last clue, I can give an answer about A or E, but not about O. The correct answer is about O. Therefore, I cannot give the right answer. If I cannot give the right answer, then I can't win. Therefore, I can't win. If I can't win then the game sucks. Therefore, the game sucks.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I didn't really like the fact that the choices you made previous to the logic puzzles aren't relevant at all. Other than that, really interesting game!
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
for #7, I don't understand why it's telling me I'm wrong. if we start with the statement that if there's no evidence of video games being worse than movies then they should be treated the same, then the only missing assumption is that movies are treated correctly, which is not an option. from that assumption, the rest of the conclusions flow without the need for another if-then. without that assumption the whole thing falls apart no matter what I put.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
persanly i dont like it i completed it but i just dont think that people will be haveing fun with this game as much a say any other its diffent i will give it that
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Crap, I forgot to ask for hints... It would've came in handy at the red door >.> Anyway, great game! Reminded me a bit of portal...
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
IF Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pale of water, THEN the person who made this game probably used spellcheck instead of physically checking for typos.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
IF FTL is NOT out, then you should be working on it / If this game is out, then you are NOT working on FTL / If you are NOT working on FTL, then FTL is finished / If FTL is finished, it would be out / FTL is NOT out / THEREFORE this game is NOT out / THEREFORE I didn't just play an amazing game that needs a sequel.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I liked it, except the fact that the ending underlined the fact that the second to last puzzle was logically flawed. I was kind of willing to overlook it as an 'oops' originally, but the ending made an unspoken assumption turn out to be false.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Answer: False ,drat ok lets try this again Answer: False ,ugh ok one more time Answer: False ,grr Answer: True ,ugh finally well onto the next lvl xD
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
IF i got put asleep by the gas AND i woke up not remembering anything
THEN i woke up from my own sleep by the gas
THEREFORE the machine put me on the same room as the shutdown
THEREFORE the game repeats itself
nice game i loved it
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
IF the game designer is clever THEN the answers are all correct. The game designer is clever THEREFORE the answers are all correct.
IF I make no mistake in this game AND the answers are all correct THEN I am clever. I made no mistake in the game. Therefore I am clever.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
IF I do NOT love this game AND I keep on playing to see how the story ends then it is NOT a great game. /
IF this game has an unique idea AND it is entertaining, then it is a great game. /
This game has an unique idea. /
This game is entertaining. /
I kept on playing to see how the story ended. /
THEREFORE, this is a great game /
THEREFORE, I loved this game.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
IF I was not so damn lazy THEN I would think of smart comment
I am so damn lazy
THEREFORE this comment is not smart
Thank you for this well-made game.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I really like the game! Gives you puzzles in a nice story (really nice). It was a bit too short tho. But I'm sure you'll make up for that in the sequel *hint* *hint*