How Logical Are You?

The question seems to be in conversational English, which can have significant things implied that are not overtly stated.

The number of cards required to be flipped and the certainty that might provide varies with the statement meaning. Three typical cases:

1. "All even number..."....flip 8 to see if the rule is broken.

2. "Some even number cards..." you can flip 8 and blue to check if the statement could be true.

3. "Only even number cards..." flip blue to see if the rule is broken.

4. "Only and all even number cards...." flip 8 and blue to verify the possibility (or rule out).

Of course you would, and that I where you and I totally agree!

Right. "Even" implies "blue" on the other side, so, the contrapositive, it follows that "not blue" implies "not even". So you have to check both "even" and "not blue".

Two cards. The card marked "8", and the green card.

Card 5 is odd, it doesn't matter what color the opposite side is; if the opposite face is blue it doesn't violate the rule.

Card 8 is even, so it must be flipped to verify that the opposite face IS blue.

Blue card does not need to be flipped, as it could be odd or even (see card 5 explanation).

Green card must be flipped to verify whether the opposite face is blue, and therefore violates the rule.

P.S. (edit) Do not cheat! I did not watch the video until after my answer.

Right choice, wrong reason. You need to check the green card for an even number, not for blue on the other side.

What about if the card with the '5' showing has a '2' on the other side.

Having a blue on the back of a green face doesn't violate, but having an even on the other side of a green would.

Cut and paste brain fart!

The card conditions are specified " each with a single-digit number on one face and one of two colors on the other".

It actually says 'a color on one side and a number on the other side'. That doesn't exclude having a color on both sides, or even a number on both sides.

Wow, two off topics? How could it be more on topic?

I guess the truth really does hurt.

It's because there isn't a "You've got it seriously wrong" button

Listen to the recording again. Only listen to the words actually said, not what you suspect they intend.

I voted against your first "off topic".

Can't understand why the first answer was voted OT.

Correctamundo! Have to flip the 5, 8 and green to make sure that the back side of the 5 doesn't have an even number, that the 8 has a blue back and the green card does not have an even number on the other side.

Based on the text from the OP, I stand by my answer.

I just watched the video and in it, there is an additional rule, each card has a number on one side and a color on the other. That being the case, the 8 and Green are the correct choice.

I'd just skip the test and do something productive with my time to show what value to society I may have.

I've met many people who suposedly had IQ's way higher than mine yet despite their suposed superior intelligence I found most of them to be largely useless people severely lacking in having any practical working value of any kind.

No real applied general skill or output of any kind.

What they did make me often ponder on is how I could tie their intellectual capacities with some of the overdriven dummies I know who are all physical go and no brains that run at 100% output going no where of value.

At least no one is here to play the "that is highly illogical" card today, and rain on the parade.

I'm watching him right now. In the episode: The Enterprise Incident.

I guess someone doesn't like my reference. Here I'll make it six!

The given task is structurally identical with checking a person's ID before serving or selling alcohol.

You need to turn over a maximum of the last three cards. The 5 is not even so it does not matter what the reverse color is. You need to turn the 8 to test if the reverse is blue. If it is not blue the proposition is not true and you need not turn any further cards. Then turn over the blue card to test if it is even. If it is not even the proposition is not true and you need not turn any further cards. Then turn over the green card to test if it is even. If it is even the proposition is not true.

3 cards:

The 5, because the rules don't state that if one side has a number, the other side must be a color, so the 5 could have an even number on the other side, invalidating the rule.

The 8, for obvious reasons.

The green, for obvious reasons.

The rules are quite clear. For each card, one side (and one side only) bears a number. The other side of that card bears a colour. There are no cards with a number on both faces, nor are there cards with colours on both faces.

You are quite clearly stating the rules as you think they should be and not what was expressly stated.

The rules only say 'each card has a color on one side and a number on the other side'.

There is no stipulation of 'and one side only'. You completely made that part up. Listen to it again. Go ahead.

As stated there could be numbers on both sides and colors on both sides. If I hold up a card with a color and a number on each side and ask you if the card has a number on the side facing you and you answer 'yes' isn't it true that the card has a number on one side (the side facing you)? That truth is independent of what is on the other side.

I get it! Very clever!

If I could give you a GA, I would. I don't think others understand what you mean.

Not really. More like pseudo-clever, as with lawyers and Talmudic pilpullers.

Maybe, but it is a logic puzzle and he does have a point.

Can we say he's very clever and was looking outside the box or he's like a lawyer, looking for a technicality?

It was a perfectly good logic exercise without bring in word tricks such as numbers on both sides. Some "technicalities" are just bogus.

I get it! Goes back to the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law.

It is the title that encourages the beyond-practical logic.

This challenge seems to be about how strictly logical one can be. It is kind of silly now to pout about it being taken to an exteme.

Sorry it was ruined for you, though that is more in your court than mine.

Hey! Fake news has to come from somewhere, right? Might was well be a lawyer trick.

I would hate to see some people try to teach children the math tables for arithmetic, except the teachers have outlawed actual arithmetic, especially inequalities. Hey now, no making 3>2, that would be unequal.

Common Core?

I commend to you the adage "A picture is worth a thousand words". Look at the illustrated cards to realise what is meant.

They have not shown all combinations....not even all the general combinations to which you assume the possibilities to be limited.

There is no fault in not seeing it originally. I even understand and respect the opinion that what I have proposed is excessively legalistic, perhaps bordering on offensively so.

However I do find fault in not admitting the existence once shown.

What I find so irritating is that the answer in your frame of reference is still the same.

What I find irritating is that you two have made me so exhaustipated from reading your argument back and forth, that I just don't give a sh**.

Sorry about that. You could always press the <unsubscribe> button.

Your irritation and insistence to the contrary has done nothing to alter the facts. My frame of reference remains the same even after careful reevaluation because the facts remain the same and the literal interpretation is not technically flawed.

Could what is literally said differ meaningfully from what is likely to be the most common interpretation? Sure.

Could I expect problems if I chose to interpret every communication (not just this game about the degree of logic one might use) in this ultra-literal manner? Sure.

Could I be deriving just the slightest bit of quasi-perverse pleasure at the intensity of your reaction/displeasure on this point? Sure.

Could it be my curiosity whether your displeasure is related to not being the one to come up with the idea first, something to do with ultraconformistism, or something all together different, that motivates me in large part to continue to prod and poke? Definitely.

Yeah, I have noticed a sort of "all of the above" case with you, however, I have adapted to more or less revel in it with you - in a limited way.

Or could it be that you have not been able to publish the difference between the correct answers in the intended frame of reference and in your own version?

I don't like to answer questions like this with an indefinite answer. In our world, we run only in yes or no.

Mostly NO!

Given that there are no restrictions on what could not be on the reverse side of any card, and that the purpose of turning the cards is not clearly stated, but only implied, then, 100% of the cards would have to be turned over in order to be 100% confident in the results of turning any of them over...