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

[ProfuselyQuarky]

Clearly, your riddle didn't take into account QM and the fact that Anne might not be comfortable identifying herself as human. I declare you speciesist and theory-ist.

Hey, hey go easy . . . this is not my riddle, I just took it from someone else who probably took it from someone else who probably took it from someone else who probably took it from someone else who probably took it from someone else who probably took it from someone else who probably took it from someone else who probably took it from someone else ...

Let Anne call herself what she wants. Cat, dog, horse, capybara . . . the sky’s the limit!

@micromass let me see you create a new riddle with all of these considerations.

 

[micromass]

Hey, hey go easy . . . this is not my riddle, I just took it from someone else who probably took it from someone else who probably took it from someone else who probably took it from someone else who probably took it from someone else who probably took it from someone else who probably took it from someone else who probably took it from someone else ...

Let Anne call herself what she wants. Cat, dog, horse, capybara . . . the sky’s the limit!

@micromass let me see you create a new riddle with all of these considerations.

So you don't think cats are allowed to marry? You make me sick.

 

[ProfuselyQuarky]

I actually also first thought, well I can't just assume that Jack is married and George is unmarried, because if Anne has a probability of being married or unmarried, then I can't be certain about Jack or George's status.

However, it was already stated the status of Jack and George, but nothing was said about Anne except that she was looking at George

 

[ProfuselyQuarky]

So you don't think cats are allowed to marry? You make me sick.

Nope, sorry

 

[ProfuselyQuarky]

@collinsmark @Psinter @Merlin3189 @Infinitum

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

 

[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