Test Yourself: The Married Problem - 80% Get Wrong?

[Psinter]

@collinsmark @Psinter @Merlin3189 @Infinitum

Why don't you think the answer cannot be determined?

I did not even replied to this thread. I'm unaware of how you even know I voted. I'm like: *wut* Anyway...

You need evidence to reach a conclusion. If a married person is accused of looking at an unmarried person, the judge will ask who are these people. If no one says anything the case is closed as the judge cannot sentence a ghost or sentence a tangible person for looking at a ghost (or so I think).

Another analogy I used was:

• If you ask a scientists to solve something, they experiment and get all the data. They won't reach a conclusion based on assumptions. If they do, it is still a hypothesis or theory. Nothing has been proved. And if you tell them: make assumptions. The correct reply should be: "No, I won't make assumptions and pass it as proved. I must get empirical evidence before passing it as proved."

Since we have no solid evidence, we cannot determine. That was my logic.

Now if I'm told that the answer to the question is just for theory purposes then I can come up with answers by plugin values at each person at however I seem fit. If it's theory I can even scramble the sentence and make Jack look at George.

 

[micromass]

I did not even replied to this thread. I'm unaware of how you even know I voted. I'm like: *wut* Anyway...

You need evidence to reach a conclusion. If a married person is accused of looking at an unmarried person, the judge will ask who are these people. If no one says anything the case is closed as the judge cannot sentence a ghost or sentence a tangible person for looking at a ghost (or so I think).

Another analogy I used was:

• If you ask a scientists to solve something, they experiment and get all the data. They won't reach a conclusion based on assumptions. If they do, it is still a hypothesis or theory. Nothing has been proved. And if you tell them: make assumptions. The correct reply should be: "No, I won't make assumptions and pass it as proved. I must get empirical evidence before passing it as proved."

Since we have no solid evidence, we cannot determine. That was my logic.

Now if I'm told that the answer to the question is just for theory purposes then I can come up with answers by plugin values at each person at however I seem fit. If it's theory I can even scramble the sentence and make Jack look at George.

Spoken like a true constructivist

 

[ProfuselyQuarky]

I did not even replied to this thread. I'm unaware of how you even know I voted. I'm like: *wut* Anyway...

@micromass spilled the beans. He said … I mean she … nevermind (maybe micromass is a cat) Anyway, you can click the number of votes on the poll and it tells who voted what. It’s all public for the world to see.

You need evidence to reach a conclusion. If a married person is accused of looking at an unmarried person, the judge will ask who are these people. If no one says anything the case is closed as the judge cannot sentence a ghost or sentence a tangible person for looking at a ghost (or so I think).

Another analogy I used was:

• If you ask a scientists to solve something, they experiment and get all the data. They won't reach a conclusion based on assumptions. If they do, it is still a hypothesis or theory. Nothing has been proved. And if you tell them: make assumptions. The correct reply should be: "No, I won't make assumptions and pass it as proved. I must get empirical evidence before passing it as proved."

Since we have no solid evidence, we cannot determine. That was my logic.

Impressive logic and way of thinking, @Psinter

Constructivism or not, there is definite answer. We can answer yes or no with (almost) purely the information given. We are given enough information about Jack and George. We know who Jack is looking at and we know his marital status. We know George’s marital status, and it doesn’t really matter who he is looking at for the purposes of this riddle. We know that Anne is looking at George, however, we lack the knowledge of whether she is married or not. That’s all we need to know. No matter how we twist and turn the information, we can determine the answer and be sure that it is correct.

Spoiler: click if you want the supposed “solution”

The marital status of Anne is the only factor that we have to play with.

If Anne is married, then the statement in question (a married person is looking at an unmarried person) holds true because Anne is looking at George, who is not married. However, if Anne is not married, then the statement holds true yet again because Jack (who is married) is looking at Anne. It doesn’t matter whether George is looking at Jack or anything of that sort. Regardless, the answer is yes, a married person is looking at an unmarried person.

**To the question of whether Anne is cat or capybara or nonhuman, no, animals can’t be married in real life so that idea is eliminated. You can argue, “So if Anne is a cat, she is unmarried”. Well, that still makes the answer yes.

 

[gjonesy]

It cannot be determined without making an assumption about Anne.

You HAVE to make an assumption. That's the point.

That's the problem you can't make a decision based on the assumption only, based on available information I voted Yes.

 

[ProfuselyQuarky]

That's the problem you can't make a decision based on the assumption only, based on available information I voted Yes.

Even after considering all *plausible* assumptions, the answer is still the same.

 

[gjonesy]

Even after considering all *plausible* assumptions, the answer is still the same

BINGO

 

[ProfuselyQuarky]

BINGO

 

[gjonesy]

The only 3 provable facts are:

Jacks married and looking at Anne
Anne is looking at George
George isn't Married

Consider all the possibilities and the answer is obvious.

 

[Infinitum]

@collinsmark @Psinter @Merlin3189 @Infinitum

Why don't you think the answer cannot be determined?

@Psinter brings up great points.

I do not intend to derail, but I actually sent micromass a message right after I voted for this question, as it made me realize how certain discussions with him had influenced my thoughts as a constructivist, long ago.

As a constructivist, I have to answer that it cannot be determined even though I completely understand what the solution is supposed to be.

How interesting. Although it has been quite a while, it appears that I have independently followed in the footsteps of my former mentor, in one aspect at least.
...Thanks!

In any case, I will only present two of the many reasons why the answer cannot be determined.

Spoiler

Firstly, to re-iterate the question itself,

Jack is looking at Anne, but Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, but George is not. Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?

We are given enough information about Jack and George.

Not necessarily. The question does not even specify whether Jack, Anne and George are persons. They could be robots. There is no reason to assume robots cannot marry.

(Fun fact, actually: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3142129/First-robot-wedding-Japan-takes-place.html)

The second point is the binary state of being married or unmarried. This need not be true. One could argue that there are three states to marriage, that is, married, unmarried, or marrying.

**To the question of whether Anne is cat or capybara or nonhuman, no, animals can’t be married in real life so that idea is eliminated. You can argue, “So if Anne is a cat, she is unmarried”. Well, that still makes the answer yes.

While you assume the question imposes bounds of realism, there is no compulsion by the question to do so. Also, it is possible that Anne is a cat (and implicitly unmarried), and cats are not people, while the question asks whether a married person is looking at an unmarried person.

 

[ProfuselyQuarky]

The only 3 provable facts are:

They don't even have to be proven--that information is given to everyone. The tricky part is the logic . . . and then you have all those proclaimed contructivists who keep suggesting different things and saying that the answer cannot be determined because of information not, such as the species of the subjects.

 

[gjonesy]

They don't even have to be proven--that information is given to everyone. The tricky part is the logic . . . and then you have all those proclaimed contructivists who keep suggesting different things and saying that the answer cannot be determined because of information not, such as the species of the subjects.

My logic is that they MUST be persons, marriage is a human concept since AI hasn't been invented and marriage implies a legal contract between people. I have to stick with the simple obvious conclusion.

 

[ProfuselyQuarky]

While you assume the question imposes bounds of realism, there is no compulsion by the question to do so. Also, it is possible that Anne is a cat (and implicitly unmarried), and cats are not people, while the question asks whether a married person is looking at an unmarried person.

The question based on the situation of Jack, Anne, and George. You're saying that the puzzle tells us all those things about the three beings and then asks a question that has nothing to do with them? I'm getting confused . . .

 

[micromass]

The question based on the situation of Jack, Anne, and George. You're saying that the puzzle tells us all those things about the three beings and then asks a question that has nothing to do with them? I'm getting confused . . .

Come on, you don't honestly think you could post a puzzle on PF and not get all kinds of smartass answers such as mine

 

[ProfuselyQuarky]

Come on, you don't honestly think you could post a puzzle on PF and not get all kinds of smartass answers such as mine

Well, I suppose not. I’ve been here at PF for only a month and I gather that most of the recognized members here are witty, cunning, argumentative, bold, and brilliant all at the same time.

It makes this place irresistible.

 

[Infinitum]

The question based on the situation of Jack, Anne, and George. You're saying that the puzzle tells us all those things about the three beings and then asks a question that has nothing to do with them? I'm getting confused . . .

That assumption never commented on the status of Jack and George, both of whom may be (or for the sake of this argument, are) persons. So the question is still valid and has to do with the given beings. Only that Anne may be a cat.

On a side note, given the choices of (a) Yes (b) No and (c) Cannot be determined, it is entirely logical for the question to ask something completely unrelated which can be put into (c), but of course, it would not make it a very exciting question.

Come on, you don't honestly think you could post a puzzle on PF and not get all kinds of smartass answers such as mine

EDIT: In all fairness, I completely understand the "supposed solution". I simply believe that there there are more ways to look at the solution, given the question.

 

[ProfuselyQuarky]

On a side note, given the choices of (a) Yes (b) No and (c) Cannot be determined, it is entirely logical for the question to ask something completely unrelated which can be put into (c), but of course, it would not make it a very exciting question.

Mmm . . . “cannot be determined” and “all of the above” has always been considered the lazy answers, but they are answers, nevertheless.

I'm yielding and not yielding to your arguments at the same time. Sort of reminds me of Anne.

 

[gjonesy]

On a side note, given the choices of (a) Yes (b) No and (c) Cannot be determined, it is entirely logical for the question to ask something completely unrelated which can be put into (c), but of course, it would not make it a very exciting question.

Cannot be determined has to be a VALID answer as well but, It can be valid for logical reasons as well assuming all three are people, just overthink the answer which I think is the goal of the question. All you have to do is assume Anne is separated. Makes her both married and single depending on the legal definition.

 

[Infinitum]

Mmm . . . “cannot be determined” and “all of the above” has always been considered the lazy answers, but they are answers, nevertheless.

I'm yielding and not yielding to your arguments at the same time. Sort of reminds me of Anne.

Haha. As an aspiring computer scientist and programmer, I will have to take laziness as a compliment. (http://threevirtues.com/)

Cannot be determined has to be a VALID answer as well but, It can be valid for logical reasons as well assuming all three are people, just overthink the answer which I think is the goal of the question. All you have to do is assume Anne is separated. Makes her both married and single depending on the legal definition.

I simply mentioned that as a side note. Assuming them to be people is -not- a part of the question. What about them hypothetically being robots as I proposed above?

 

[ProfuselyQuarky]

Haha. As an aspiring computer scientist and programmer, I will have to take laziness as a compliment. (http://threevirtues.com/)

LOL You’re very welcome to take that as a compliment. And those virtues are dynamite. Kinda makes me want to go into computer science as well even though I can't do anything past basic HTML (and LaTeX, but that doesn't count)

 

[gjonesy]

My answer is based on the legal definition of marriage, if they are robots then I would have to know where its "legal" for robots to be legally married? Since AI hasn't been invented who would give consent? How would they consummate the married? What would be considered robot consummation? would the pastor or justice of the peace have to be a robot? Would they be required to have blood test? Would they register at the county court house or online since they are robots? What's the definition of robots? Lots of reasons why they can not be robots legally.

 

[Infinitum]

LOL You’re very welcome to take that as a compliment. And those virtues are dynamite. Kinda makes me want to go into computer science as well even though I can't do anything past basic HTML (and LaTeX, but that doesn't count)

Come over to the computer science side. We have cookies.

Enough derailing though, apologies.

My answer is based on the legal definition of marriage, if they are robots then I would have to know where its "legal" for robots to be legally married? Since AI hasn't been invented who would give consent? How would they consummate the married? What would be considered robot consummation? would the pastor or justice of the peace have to be a robot? Would they be required to have blood test? Would they register at the county court house or online since they are robots? What's the definition of robots? Lots of reason why they can not be robots legally.

I already brought up the point that the question does not impose the constraint of realism. Still, being realistic (and not necessarily legal, because I don't know the law involved), there have been actual robot marriages as you can see in the link I already posted above...

Questioning the definitions only aids my point, since you can also fundamentally question the binary states of marriage itself, which I also described in the spoiler above.

 

[gjonesy]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Marriage

Assuming the question has a real valid answer in my interpretation, they have to be people. I concede That can not be determined has to be considerable for the question itself to be a valid choice. As I stated before a legal separation renders a person both married and single or could be considered neither married or single. Which ever you prefer. No need to place the question into question.

Case law

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Marriage

 

[ProfuselyQuarky]

This has gone from an innocent riddle to a legal debate about marriage

 

[Infinitum]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Marriage

Assuming the question has a real valid answer in my interpretation, they have to be people. I concede That can not be determined has to be considerable for the question itself to be a valid choice. As I stated before a legal separation renders a person both married and single or could be considered neither married or single. Which ever you prefer. No need to place the question into question.

Case law

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Marriage

Perhaps you are correct legally for some specific country/location. But what if one views marriage as they did for the robots in Japan (or maybe there is an imaginary country with those laws)? Hence the constructivism. The question never bounded the solution to be strictly adhering legal terms. Although, you certainly could, and it may be completely fine and correct in those terms. All I am suggesting is that the existence of a possibility of a "No" in addition to a "Yes", makes the answer open to interpretation.

Although I am quite enjoying myself, I will have to respectfully bow out of this debate, for I must study.

 

[gjonesy]

Its less of a debate and more of a question of whether to adhere to anyone defining parameter. I can certainly see the argument being made in either situation given the limited information in the question.

addendum:
If you consider them People and if you do not adhere to a strict legal definition of (separation) the answer would still have to be yes.

Which ever way you look at it being a real people scenario or a unrealistic robot scenario http://www.seiyaku.com/seiyaku/en/discussion/law.html#main is the marriage legal by japans definition? if so it makes them people...lol

 

[Merlin3189]

@Merlin3189
Why don't you think the answer cannot be determined?

Well, I was the first to answer and the question was different when I read it.
However, when I read the edited question, I did not work out the answer and, because I was a bit miffed, I read the spoiler answer of axmls before giving it more thought. Then I metaphorically kicked myself for my stupidity.

So I don't think it cannot be determined.

The only remaining puzzle is why some people still think it cannot be determined! None of their arguments makes any sense at all to me.

 

[collinsmark]

@collinsmark [...]

Why don't you think the answer cannot be determined?

I misread the question. Or maybe something switched in my mind by the time I clicked the vote button.

For some reason, which I'm sure why, by the time a clicked the vote I had thought the question was asking "Is an unmarried person looking at a married person." (Instead of the other way around, as it was actually written.)

I'm pretty sure (maybe) that I read the question right when I first read it, but whatever the case, after thinking about it, the "married" and "unmarried" parts of the question switched in my mind.

Am I alone in this?

For what it's worth, I did not drink any coffee before voting. I was slightly groggy. That might have had something to do with it.

[Note to self: Must drink coffee on the Tuesday, November 8, 2016 before voting. ]

 

[Psinter]

@micromass spilled the beans. He said … I mean she … nevermind (maybe micromass is a cat) Anyway, you can click the number of votes on the poll and it tells who voted what. It’s all public for the world to see.

Spoiler: click if you want the supposed “solution”

The marital status of Anne is the only factor that we have to play with.
View attachment 98802
If Anne is married, then the statement in question (a married person is looking at an unmarried person) holds true because Anne is looking at George, who is not married. However, if Anne is not married, then the statement holds true yet again because Jack (who is married) is looking at Anne. It doesn’t matter whether George is looking at Jack or anything of that sort. Regardless, the answer is yes, a married person is looking at an unmarried person.

**To the question of whether Anne is cat or capybara or nonhuman, no, animals can’t be married in real life so that idea is eliminated. You can argue, “So if Anne is a cat, she is unmarried”. Well, that still makes the answer yes.

I've been enlightened.

 

[Infinitum]

Its less of a debate and more of a question of whether to adhere to anyone defining parameter.

I agree. The definition of any parameter is entirely the choice of the person who interprets the question.

addendum:
If you consider them People and if you do not adhere to a strict legal definition of (separation) the answer would still have to be yes.

Which ever way you look at it being a real people scenario or a unrealistic robot scenario http://www.seiyaku.com/seiyaku/en/discussion/law.html#main is the marriage legal by japans definition? if so it makes them people...lol

As I did not know Japan's legal definition (and lacked the time to look it up, sorry!), just to be sure, I also had added the possibility of an imaginary country which makes its marriage laws for robots, and not necessarily people - which would result in a different answer.

If that is confusing, let me give you a scenario (which I also proposed before), which completely adheres to the original question, but has a specific, yet valid interpretation, and I would like to know what your answer would be:

Jack is a human, Anne is a cat, George is a human. Cats are certainly not persons, nor can they marry.
Among the beings described, Jack is looking at Anne, but Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, Geroge is not.
Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?

Yes, I am nitpicking. Yes, it makes the question boring for some, and I agree that it sort of beats the point. But the nitpicking is a result of the openness of interpretation which the question completely allows.

 

[gjonesy]

But the nitpicking is a result of the openness of interpretation which the question completely allows.

Agreed...the question lacks solid indisputable context. And as someone already pointed out option C, can be a valid and correct answer given the lack of information.

Wonder why no hasn't gained a single vote?

If it could be esablished that Anne is a cat then I'd have to say No...but since Annes species can't be established from the information given it would then be "cannot be determined."

It really all boils down to interpretation.

 

[Infinitum]

Agreed...the question lacks solid indisputable context. And as someone already pointed out option C, can be a valid and correct answer given the lack of information.

Ah, but given the infinite possibilities of interpretations, all with possible different answers, only (C) can be considered valid. Assuming one answers "Yes" to the original question, there still exists a scenario when that answer does not hold. So for answering the question, one should preferably consider all possible interpretations because that is a free choice in the question, to lead them to an answer which holds true for all cases. Among the given thee options, only the nature of answer (C) allows the uncertainity or the lack of solid context. And thence, my choice.

EDIT: I realized one could even argue that in the interpretation of the "supposed solution", the answer (C) does not hold, for the answer is then definite. But to prove (C) is valid, there only need to exist two interpretations which have different answers, where as to prove it is "Yes", it needs to be "Yes" for all possible interpretations.

If it could be esablished that Anne is a cat then I'd have to say No...but since Annes species can't be established from the information given it would then be "cannot be determined."

Yes, I had that line of reasoning (of the many) for the original question as well. And hence chose (C).

Wonder why no hasn't gained a single vote?

My speculation was that people who considered multiple interpretations, automatically searched through enough interpretations to notice the answer could possibly be either "Yes" or "No" depending on the interpretation, and hence stick to (C) instead of "No". However, that appears to contradict the reasoning behind some of the people who answered (C) as they mentioned above. So I am somewhat curious about this myself. Probably, it has to do with the nature of assumptions we are likely to make.

 

[ProfuselyQuarky]

None of their arguments makes any sense at all to me.

Phew! At least you're not one of them pesky constructivists

Wonder why no hasn't gained a single vote?

So I am somewhat curious about this myself. Probably, it has to do with the nature of assumptions we are likely to make.

The YouTuber who posted the video (an awesome mathematician, btw) has a friend who works for the Guardian who posted this puzzle. Out of a poll of over 200,000 people only 4.55% answered no. Really puts that into perspective.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...the-logic-question-almost-everyone-gets-wrong

Jack is a human, Anne is a cat, George is a human. Cats are certainly not persons, nor can they marry.
Among the beings described, Jack is looking at Anne, but Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, Geroge is not.
Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?

The only answer I have for that is perhaps, just perhaps, Jack is glancing at George with his peripheral vision

 

[ProfuselyQuarky]

Am I alone in this?

Don’t worry, you’re not

I had to pause for quite a while to wrap the question around my head when I initially saw the problem. I was like, "Wait, what . . . ?"

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yes, maybe Anne is a cat. And maybe this is in opposite-land where "yes" means "no" and "married means unmarried". But this kind of argument goes out of style about the time we are 10 years old. You don't see letters to mathematical journals saying "This proof is wrong, because when I use the word 'square', I mean a polygon with seven sides!"

 

[ProfuselyQuarky]

Yes, maybe Anne is a cat. And maybe this is in opposite-land where "yes" means "no" and "married means unmarried". But this kind of argument goes out of style about the time we are 10 years old. You don't see letters to mathematical journals saying "This proof is wrong, because when I use the word 'square', I mean a polygon with seven sides!"

Oh . . . 50% of the people I know live in opposite-land, so that argument is rather legitimate