Search results

with pleasure :) understand that all the monks will do as told: upon realising they have the dot, they will kill themselves that night. if there was one monk with a dot, 99 without the dot would see it, he would see 99 without dots and would realise he has the dot and kill himself that...

commisso, you are right to laugh. i am a little surprised, though, that you needed to make that post, given that my explanation above was posted 17 minutes before yours.

oh, finally. i got it. there was a solution, and freakin EXPLANATION. i'll take whatever abuse you wanna hurl at me for not getting it. that's fine. the thing that gets up my nose is that i thought you guys were trying to say there was NO explanation. i wasn't even entertaining the...

SOOOOOO commisso, if _I_ saw YOU with a dot, i would KNOW it was YOU that has to kill yourself. under no circumstances would i even think of killing myself. i have been given the criteria for suicide, i see that YOU satisfy it, so i would assume you would kill yourself. BUT in the example...

i don't follow you at all. you are saying these guys didn't know how many of them had the dot? in that case, no one monk could ever be certain if has the dot or not. in the case that we aren't told how many monks have a dot, the only way i could be certain that _I_ have the dot, is if we...

commisso, i would certainly NOT think i'm fucked. because if the visitor had stated the one with a dot on his head must die, and i see a dot on YOUR head and you don't kill yourself, i'd think you are cheating. ( If we BOTH have the dot, then we'd both have to die, except in your scenario...

lobster, if you can't see that the above is just plain junk, i don't wanna waste anymore time with you.

jeeeeezus you guys are frustrating! you can CLAIM to know, and you may very well know. but an explanation actually explains so that others may know too. get it? Te' didn't give me anything with his example. if there's two people on the island and one has the disease, well DUH, you look...

commisso, the question was "HOW did they know"? the only "correct" answer to that question is to explain HOW they knew. so, i ask you, on what basis can you possibly claim to "know the answer" when you haven't provided us with an explanation of how the monks knew?

then in that case they had no way of KNOWING, they just guessed.

what? i'd look at you, if you didn't have the dot, i'd know it was me. pretty straightforward.

commisso, you and i talked about this in private (before you left in a huff). the above is an attempt at an EXPLANATION. an explanation must make sense to OTHER PEOPLE, otherwise, it's not an explanation at all. now, if the monks weren't told how many of them had the disease, your above...

that is just bullshit. you fail to state whether the monks were TOLD that there were exactly 10 of them with the disease. if they were told, then it's straight simple. you can see nine others, it means number ten is you. they'd all go kill themselves that night. if this is meant to be a...

here's a classic one: A man stood before an open casket at a funeral service and said " Brothers and Sisters ,I have none. But this man's Father is my Father's son. who's in the casket?

i'm getting results similar to what i normally get, so i guess they are.

You're absolutely right Stu. That only scratches the surface. There is so much more that's worse than that. I seem to have lost my references though - dammit! The following is distilled from a conversation my friend LP had on another message board, which follows on from some of the points...

Unfortunately no, but I wouldn't dream of dropping by without bringing up a gift. Does he like chocolate?

Excellent. Do you think he'll be happy to see me?

It's really nothing like that at all. Obviously you have a vested interest in seeing the PDT rule stay as it is, but it might be a good idea if you didn't flaunt that fact so blatantly.

I wonder what Don Miller would do? Do you know?