Report Which Chair you will choose ? in New Logic/Math Puzzles Posted June 27, 2012 · Edited June 27, 2012 by voider I've been following this thread kind of haphazardly, but I have to come in and say that what you're saying, whether you're trying to or not, is discouraging people from posting with their ideas/thoughts on a puzzle, which I think is a key aspect of BD being a 'community' rather than just a website. Even if people are wrong, they may say something that inspires thoughts in others, and that in itself is valuable. I am a scientist, and highly value collaboration. Pretty much all great discoveries, although often credited to one person or the other, were made by a collaboration or at least one person building the past works of others. Also as a scientist, I've noticed that in science, economics, game theory, and even math, there are still problems 'experts' disagree on the correct approach to. And personally, as a puzzle maker who likes to make somewhat complex puzzles, I highly encourage people to work together and share their working thoughts. It usually 'gets the thread going' and builds a kind of happy, fun atmosphere as well. To be honest, I have not given this particular puzzle enough analysis to form an opinion on who is 'correct', my beginning line was with probabilities such as your first line, but I never took the time to finish. I recognize that you've put a lot of work and thought into your answer, and you gave a really good and thorough explanation...but I have to point out, it does not constitute a proof...your own 'comments' in red show the parts that need to be completed for it to be a proof. Welcome to the den ;P. Referring to the website, not this particular thread: (Maybe in the wrong section of the forum, but it is a reply.) Firstly I agree on the value of collaboration and openness to creativity. But I believe in the context of logic puzzles there is usually a distinction between "something I haven't thought about" and "something that makes no sense, and is based on assumptions that are difficult to intelligently comprehend". Obviously I must have some pride in what I believe to be logical or at least reasonable thinking (even if it is inaccurate) because it affects me when others can't see this distinction, or get it the wrong way round. In fact, this is the first thing I discovered on brainden, other than that it had puzzles and problems on it. Of 200+ comments on the Epimenides Paradox, I dare say 20% or less showed accurate comprehension of its meaning and solution. I discussed this with rookie and proposed a way to improve people's thinking, not just define an answer, a rare opportunity. It didn't come together. I know that generally you can't change people nor the way they think, and that's why my prior post is just an expression of my observations. If it is assumed that nothing can be done about it, and no one has tried, then what does it say about an appropriate environment on brainden? Is it appropriate that most people don't "get" one of the most famous paradoxes, doesn't it virtually encourage the notion that "it doesn't matter what's true, as long as others agree with you", or even "it doesn't matter what's true, as long as you agree with yourself [, and have fun in the process]" (deliberate hint of Hedonism, it's hard to initiate a discussion on that level) ? I would imagine a problem-solving context to do a bit better than that. Can you express whatever you think about a logic puzzle on brainden? Yes Should you be able to express it without second thought, and expect it to be accepted for what it is? I don't know. Do all expressions have value to the "system"? I don't believe so. Spam, redundancy, etc. Although not directly relevant, I will point out that the ideal logic problem solver would probably read problems, solve alone (never give up) and never come to a forum. But if I'm communicating any sense to you, you'll see that I think the worth of the community with respect to its social and objective values (if any) is a conundrum. You can't have everything, and I'm observing what brainden doesn't have.