Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
> Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:29:14 +0300: Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
> scribeva:
>
>>Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
>>> Mon, 17 Jun 2024 11:18:24 -0700: HenHanna <HenHanna@devnull.tb>
>>> scribeva:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Kommen drei Logiker in eine Bar. Der Kellner fragt: "Na, was darfs sein,
>>>>die Herren? Drei Bier?" Sagt der erste Logiker "Ich weiß nicht", der
>>>>zweite auch "Ich weiß nicht" und der Dritte sagt "Ja"
>>>>
>>>> ------ is this funny? i don't really get it.
>>>
>>> 0 | 0 | 1 = 1, in Boolean logic.
>>
>>True but irrelevant.
>>
>>~0 & ~0 & 1 = 1 is the boolean logic that applies.
>
> What do you mean by ~? Not? How is don't know a not.

~ is indeed not.

Saying "don't know" is the *exclusion* of "no" as a possible state,
because if "no" was this guy's intention he would have correctly
answered "no" rather than "don't know".

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> wrote:
> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
>> Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:29:14 +0300: Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
>> scribeva:
>>
>>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
>>>> Mon, 17 Jun 2024 11:18:24 -0700: HenHanna <HenHanna@devnull.tb>
>>>> scribeva:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kommen drei Logiker in eine Bar. Der Kellner fragt: "Na, was darfs sein,
>>>>> die Herren? Drei Bier?" Sagt der erste Logiker "Ich weiß nicht", der
>>>>> zweite auch "Ich weiß nicht" und der Dritte sagt "Ja"
>>>>>
>>>>> ------ is this funny? i don't really get it.
>>>>
>>>> 0 | 0 | 1 = 1, in Boolean logic.
>>>
>>> True but irrelevant.
>>>
>>> ~0 & ~0 & 1 = 1 is the boolean logic that applies.
>>
>> What do you mean by ~? Not? How is don't know a not.
>
> ~ is indeed not.
>
> Saying "don't know" is the *exclusion* of "no" as a possible state,
> because if "no" was this guy's intention he would have correctly
> answered "no" rather than "don't know".

....except that 'don't know' usually means 'still deciding'.

On 23/06/2024 10:39 p.m., Phil Carmody wrote:
> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
>> Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:29:14 +0300: Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
>> scribeva:
>>
>>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
>>>> Mon, 17 Jun 2024 11:18:24 -0700: HenHanna <HenHanna@devnull.tb>
>>>> scribeva:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kommen drei Logiker in eine Bar. Der Kellner fragt: "Na, was darfs sein,
>>>>> die Herren? Drei Bier?" Sagt der erste Logiker "Ich weiß nicht", der
>>>>> zweite auch "Ich weiß nicht" und der Dritte sagt "Ja"
>>>>>
>>>>> ------ is this funny? i don't really get it.
>>>>
>>>> 0 | 0 | 1 = 1, in Boolean logic.
>>>
>>> True but irrelevant.
>>>
>>> ~0 & ~0 & 1 = 1 is the boolean logic that applies.
>>
>> What do you mean by ~? Not? How is don't know a not.
>
> ~ is indeed not.
>
> Saying "don't know" is the *exclusion* of "no" as a possible state,
> because if "no" was this guy's intention he would have correctly
> answered "no" rather than "don't know".
>
> Phil
>

But it also excludes "yes". So is ~1 equivalent to ~0? Why not just ~?

Antonio Marques wrote:

> Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> wrote:
>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
>>> Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:29:14 +0300: Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
>>> scribeva:
>>>
>>>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
>>>>> Mon, 17 Jun 2024 11:18:24 -0700: HenHanna <HenHanna@devnull.tb>
>>>>> scribeva:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kommen drei Logiker in eine Bar. Der Kellner fragt: "Na, was darfs
>>>>>> sein,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> die Herren? Drei Bier?" Sagt der erste Logiker "Ich weiß nicht", der
>>>>>> zweite auch "Ich weiß nicht" und der Dritte sagt "Ja"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------ is this funny? i don't really get it.
>>>>>
>>>>> 0 | 0 | 1 = 1, in Boolean logic.
>>>>
>>>> True but irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> ~0 & ~0 & 1 = 1 is the boolean logic that applies.
>>>
>>> What do you mean by ~? Not? How is don't know a not.
>>
>> ~ is indeed not.
>>
>> Saying "don't know" is the *exclusion* of "no" as a possible state,
>> because if "no" was this guy's intention he would have correctly
>> answered "no" rather than "don't know".

> ....except that 'don't know' usually means 'still deciding'.

That misdirection is part of the puzzle (which I didn't get the first
time
I saw it). But they're logicians, which is a clue that ordinary
interpretation doesn't work.

I think this one can be worked out if it's presented as a puzzle,
ending "How did he know?" In that case "I don't know" can't
mean "I'm still deciding." It has to mean "I know what I want, but
I don't know what the others want." For the third logician to
answer confidently, he has to be able to assume that the other
two know what they want, but three people walking into a bar
together might know each other that well.

--
Jerry Fredman

On 2024-06-23, Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>>>>>> Kommen drei Logiker in eine Bar. Der Kellner fragt: "Na, was darfs sein,
>>>>>> die Herren? Drei Bier?" Sagt der erste Logiker "Ich weiß nicht", der
>>>>>> zweite auch "Ich weiß nicht" und der Dritte sagt "Ja"
>>>>>
>>>>> 0 | 0 | 1 = 1, in Boolean logic.
>>>>
>>>> ~0 & ~0 & 1 = 1 is the boolean logic that applies.
>
> But it also excludes "yes". So is ~1 equivalent to ~0? Why not just ~?

| or
& and
~ not
0 false
1 true

~0 is 1, and ~1 is 0 in the above.

The way the joke has been explained, none of the offered boolean
expressions capture the described conditional logic.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

Sun, 23 Jun 2024 13:39:03 +0300: Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
scribeva:

>Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
>> Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:29:14 +0300: Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
>> scribeva:
>>
>>>Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
>>>> Mon, 17 Jun 2024 11:18:24 -0700: HenHanna <HenHanna@devnull.tb>
>>>> scribeva:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Kommen drei Logiker in eine Bar. Der Kellner fragt: "Na, was darfs sein,
>>>>>die Herren? Drei Bier?" Sagt der erste Logiker "Ich weiß nicht", der
>>>>>zweite auch "Ich weiß nicht" und der Dritte sagt "Ja"
>>>>>
>>>>> ------ is this funny? i don't really get it.
>>>>
>>>> 0 | 0 | 1 = 1, in Boolean logic.
>>>
>>>True but irrelevant.
>>>
>>>~0 & ~0 & 1 = 1 is the boolean logic that applies.
>>
>> What do you mean by ~? Not? How is don't know a not.
>
>~ is indeed not.
>
>Saying "don't know" is the *exclusion* of "no" as a possible state,
>because if "no" was this guy's intention he would have correctly
>answered "no" rather than "don't know".

In the C programming language, ~0 is the same as 1, or true.

In your reasoning, it could also be the exclusio of yes as a possible
answer.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

On 23/06/24 20:39, Phil Carmody wrote:
> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
>> Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:29:14 +0300: Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
>> scribeva:
>>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
>>>> Mon, 17 Jun 2024 11:18:24 -0700: HenHanna
>>>> <HenHanna@devnull.tb> scribeva:

>>>>> Kommen drei Logiker in eine Bar. Der Kellner fragt: "Na, was
>>>>> darfs sein, die Herren? Drei Bier?" Sagt der erste Logiker
>>>>> "Ich weiß nicht", der zweite auch "Ich weiß nicht" und der
>>>>> Dritte sagt "Ja"
>>>>>
>>>>> ------ is this funny? i don't really get it.
>>>>
>>>> 0 | 0 | 1 = 1, in Boolean logic.
>>>
>>> True but irrelevant.
>>>
>>> ~0 & ~0 & 1 = 1 is the boolean logic that applies.
>>
>> What do you mean by ~? Not? How is don't know a not.
>
> ~ is indeed not.
>
> Saying "don't know" is the *exclusion* of "no" as a possible state,
> because if "no" was this guy's intention he would have correctly
> answered "no" rather than "don't know".

Similarly, if "yes" was his intention then he would have answered "yes"
rather than "don't know". So the Boolean expression should be "not zero
and not one". (Which evaluates to "False" by the Boolean rules.)

But in fact Boolean algebra has no provision for representing "don't
know". To handle this, you need a three-valued logic, where a
proposition can have one of three values: true, false, or unknown.

--
Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
> On 23/06/24 20:39, Phil Carmody wrote:
>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
>>> Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:29:14 +0300: Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
>>> scribeva:
>>>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
>>>>> Mon, 17 Jun 2024 11:18:24 -0700: HenHanna
>>>>> <HenHanna@devnull.tb> scribeva:
>
>>>>>> Kommen drei Logiker in eine Bar. Der Kellner fragt: "Na, was
>>>>>> darfs sein, die Herren? Drei Bier?" Sagt der erste Logiker
>>>>>> "Ich weiß nicht", der zweite auch "Ich weiß nicht" und der
>>>>>> Dritte sagt "Ja"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------ is this funny? i don't really get it.
>>>>>
>>>>> 0 | 0 | 1 = 1, in Boolean logic.
>>>>
>>>> True but irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> ~0 & ~0 & 1 = 1 is the boolean logic that applies.
>>>
>>> What do you mean by ~? Not? How is don't know a not.
>>
>> ~ is indeed not.
>>
>> Saying "don't know" is the *exclusion* of "no" as a possible state,
>> because if "no" was this guy's intention he would have correctly
>> answered "no" rather than "don't know".
>
> Similarly, if "yes" was his intention then he would have answered "yes"
> rather than "don't know".

No, because each one is answering the question regarding '3', and the only
individual choice that can determine the yes/no outcome for '3' is 'no'. If
one doesn't want it, then the group can't want 3.
But that requires some other assumptions, as mentioned earlier.

> So the Boolean expression should be "not zero
> and not one". (Which evaluates to "False" by the Boolean rules.)
>
> But in fact Boolean algebra has no provision for representing "don't
> know". To handle this, you need a three-valued logic, where a
> proposition can have one of three values: true, false, or unknown.

The problem with finding 'the boolean expression' is that different moments
of the story are modeled by different expressions. This isn't a single
statement, it's a story.

Ar an tríú lá is fiche de mí Meitheamh, scríobh Ruud Harmsen:

> >>>~0 & ~0 & 1 = 1 is the boolean logic that applies.
> >>
> >> What do you mean by ~? Not? How is don't know a not.
> >
> >~ is indeed not.
> >
> >Saying "don't know" is the *exclusion* of "no" as a possible state,
> >because if "no" was this guy's intention he would have correctly
> >answered "no" rather than "don't know".
>
> In the C programming language, ~0 is the same as 1, or true.

!0 (logical not) is the same as 1, ~0 (bitwise not) is the same as 0xffffffff
or whatever the equivalent value is on your machine for the int value with all
its bits set. And this is usually the same as -1. Which is regarded as
logically true in C.

This is nit-picking, getting into the weeds of C, your point basically stands.

> In your reasoning, it could also be the exclusio of yes as a possible
> answer.

--
‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
(C. Moore)

Mon, 24 Jun 2024 10:26:32 +0100: Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net>
scribeva:

>
> Ar an tríú lá is fiche de mí Meitheamh, scríobh Ruud Harmsen:
>
> > >>>~0 & ~0 & 1 = 1 is the boolean logic that applies.
> > >>
> > >> What do you mean by ~? Not? How is don't know a not.
> > >
> > >~ is indeed not.
> > >
> > >Saying "don't know" is the *exclusion* of "no" as a possible state,
> > >because if "no" was this guy's intention he would have correctly
> > >answered "no" rather than "don't know".
> >
> > In the C programming language, ~0 is the same as 1, or true.
>
>!0 (logical not) is the same as 1, ~0 (bitwise not) is the same as 0xffffffff
>or whatever the equivalent value is on your machine for the int value with all
>its bits set. And this is usually the same as -1. Which is regarded as
>logically true in C.

Yes, you are right, I mixed things up, although I usually know how to
distinguish them very well.

>This is nit-picking, getting into the weeds of C, your point basically stands.
>
> > In your reasoning, it could also be the exclusio of yes as a possible
> > answer.

--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
> Sun, 23 Jun 2024 13:39:03 +0300: Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
> scribeva:
>
>>Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
>>> Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:29:14 +0300: Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
>>> scribeva:
>>>
>>>>Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
>>>>> Mon, 17 Jun 2024 11:18:24 -0700: HenHanna <HenHanna@devnull.tb>
>>>>> scribeva:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Kommen drei Logiker in eine Bar. Der Kellner fragt: "Na, was darfs sein,
>>>>>>die Herren? Drei Bier?" Sagt der erste Logiker "Ich weiß nicht", der
>>>>>>zweite auch "Ich weiß nicht" und der Dritte sagt "Ja"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------ is this funny? i don't really get it.
>>>>>
>>>>> 0 | 0 | 1 = 1, in Boolean logic.
>>>>
>>>>True but irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>~0 & ~0 & 1 = 1 is the boolean logic that applies.
>>>
>>> What do you mean by ~? Not? How is don't know a not.
>>
>>~ is indeed not.
>>
>>Saying "don't know" is the *exclusion* of "no" as a possible state,
>>because if "no" was this guy's intention he would have correctly
>>answered "no" rather than "don't know".
>
> In the C programming language, ~0 is the same as 1, or true.

Irrelevant.

> In your reasoning, it could also be the exclusio of yes as a possible
> answer.

Wrong.

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> writes:
> On 23/06/24 20:39, Phil Carmody wrote:
>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
>>> Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:29:14 +0300: Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
>>> scribeva:
>>>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
>>>>> Mon, 17 Jun 2024 11:18:24 -0700: HenHanna
>>>>> <HenHanna@devnull.tb> scribeva:
>
>>>>>> Kommen drei Logiker in eine Bar. Der Kellner fragt: "Na, was
>>>>>> darfs sein, die Herren? Drei Bier?" Sagt der erste Logiker
>>>>>> "Ich weiß nicht", der zweite auch "Ich weiß nicht" und der
>>>>>> Dritte sagt "Ja"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------ is this funny? i don't really get it.
>>>>>
>>>>> 0 | 0 | 1 = 1, in Boolean logic.
>>>>
>>>> True but irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> ~0 & ~0 & 1 = 1 is the boolean logic that applies.
>>>
>>> What do you mean by ~? Not? How is don't know a not.
>>
>> ~ is indeed not.
>>
>> Saying "don't know" is the *exclusion* of "no" as a possible state,
>> because if "no" was this guy's intention he would have correctly
>> answered "no" rather than "don't know".
>
> Similarly, if "yes" was his intention then he would have answered "yes"
> rather than "don't know".

False. If guys 1 and 2, the ones who say "don't know" do want a beer,
then they still haven't got a clue if all three of them want a beer,
and therefore cannot confidently answer "yes". "Don't know" is the only
honest answer they can respond.

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

Antonio Marques wrote:

> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
>> On 23/06/24 20:39, Phil Carmody wrote:
>>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
>>>> Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:29:14 +0300: Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
>>>> scribeva:
>>>>> Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> writes:
>>>>>> Mon, 17 Jun 2024 11:18:24 -0700: HenHanna
>>>>>> <HenHanna@devnull.tb> scribeva:
>>
>>>>>>> Kommen drei Logiker in eine Bar. Der Kellner fragt: "Na, was
>>>>>>> darfs sein, die Herren? Drei Bier?" Sagt der erste Logiker
>>>>>>> "Ich weiß nicht", der zweite auch "Ich weiß nicht" und der
>>>>>>> Dritte sagt "Ja"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------ is this funny? i don't really get it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 0 | 0 | 1 = 1, in Boolean logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> True but irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~0 & ~0 & 1 = 1 is the boolean logic that applies.
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by ~? Not? How is don't know a not.
>>>
>>> ~ is indeed not.
>>>
>>> Saying "don't know" is the *exclusion* of "no" as a possible state,
>>> because if "no" was this guy's intention he would have correctly
>>> answered "no" rather than "don't know".
>>
>> Similarly, if "yes" was his intention then he would have answered "yes"
>> rather than "don't know".

> No, because each one is answering the question regarding '3', and the
> only
> individual choice that can determine the yes/no outcome for '3' is 'no'.
> If one doesn't want it, then the group can't want 3.
> But that requires some other assumptions, as mentioned earlier.

>> So the Boolean expression should be "not zero
>> and not one". (Which evaluates to "False" by the Boolean rules.)
>>
>> But in fact Boolean algebra has no provision for representing "don't
>> know". To handle this, you need a three-valued logic, where a
>> proposition can have one of three values: true, false, or unknown.

> The problem with finding 'the boolean expression' is that different
> moments
> of the story are modeled by different expressions. This isn't a single
> statement, it's a story.

Also that there are other kinds of inference in the
problem, namely epistemological and numerical. They
could be included in a formal system that used Boolean
logic--for instance, "I don't know" would be a
proposition rather than a third possible value. If
someone were really, really bored.

--
Jerry Friedman