abraker wrote:
1 is actually a lie. It was bait, and you should have felt that it was a trap because why would I make things so easy? So then where that leaves us? The answer being 4, of course because that is the only one that can be not a lie. See, if 2 is not a lie, then you get a contradiction: 2 says 3 is true but then 3 must be a lie because there is only one truth, so "4 is true" is actually a lie which contradicts 2. If 3 is not a lie, then you get same thing because that means 4 is a lie, contradicting 3's statement "4 is true". With 4 true, the statement "2 is false" is true because 2 is must be then a lie.
so #2 is false. that means "4 is true" is false. thus 4 is false. and we continue. though, feel free to continue explaining.
if you did not watch movies this past week, this means that all 4 were lies, and thus, you failed to comply with the very nature of the game. now, here's another argument.
if 4 can be true, despite 2 and 3 being false, which means 4 is false, then you have a bit of a circular contradiction. in a way, you can choose either 2, 3, or 4. in some sense, by your logic, considering that 4 being true would be contradictory, yet is listed as a "truth", that means that 2, 3, AND 4, can be "true", in your sense. in this case, you have 3 truths, which doesn't comply with the nature of this game. and thus, to comply with the game, the options being present are moot, and your whole puzzle is invalidated.
counter that, if you will.
- - -
abraker wrote:
1. 2 is unrelated to 3.
Let's make the rest lies. Boom! 2 is unrelated to 3 because they can be anything now. The challenge disappears as soon as your realize the one saying something else is false, a lie, unrelated, etc. must be the truth. The key is to pick a truth that doesn't care what something is, but cares what something is not , because it can be anything with it's not something in particular, which is perfect for a lie.
incorrect! you seem to have already gone for a logical fallacy in the middle of a fucking logic puzzle! something called confirmation bias, may be applicable, in a sense. you ignore every statement that does not correlate with the validity of the statement or claim you wish to be true.
now, to debunk this.
that means i must prove that Statement #2 is related to Statement #3, in order for you to be incorrect.
and holy shit! Statement #2 refers to 3, and #3 refers to #2, and their very nature ultimately affects each other, and in doing so, affects the entirety of the available options, including this one-- because this one is false!
#1 is false.
#2 has a lot to go for, but we'll skip this, it'll still be relevant, but can't be understood without looking at #3 and #4. #4 seems easy to pick off-- and it is!
"1 is complimentary with 3's statement."
unfortunately, no. they contradict each other, as #1 is already false, and #3 doesn't have an argument that even refers to #1 in the first place, plus, through its very nature, in being relevant to #2 as #2 is relevant to #3 (since they refer to each other), contradicts #1. since they are contradictory, not complimentary, #4 is false.
we need to look at #2 and #3 again.
#2 says that the patterns of the contents in statement 3 and 1 are identical to the patterns of statement 4 and 2's contents.
what patterns are there? let's start with their contents.
#3 mentions to "contradict", while #1 mentions that some things are "unrelated".
#4 mentions that some things are "complimentary", #2 mentions to find an "analogy", or parallel situation.
there are many ways to compare sections of this, but remember:
if statement #2 is true, YOU NEED TO FIND AN IDENTICAL RELATIONSHIP. it can't be just ONE PART of it, it needs to be ALL OF IT. this includes which statements a particular statement refers to, and the correlation between what you have to do for each statement to evaluate their validity.
but you CAN'T. look at the number of statements that statement #2 refers to. FOUR. no other statement refers to that many. off of that note, #4 and #2 refer to 4 and 2 terms, respectively. #3 and #1 refer to 2 and 2 terms respectively. something is off in that relationship.
here's a good tell. #1 is false. #3 is the outlier. if this specific relationship described in #2 (which by the way, this example only includes number of terms) were to be true, then one of them has to change, which may include #4.
there's so much to consider here that even that example won't work.
but back to the example, #3 is the outlier. what does statement #3 say?
"Statement #3 is contradictory to Statement #2".
...that matches up. that's reasonable, and makes sense. with everything i've considered, there has yet to be any reasonable answer other than this one.
thus,
#3 is the truth.
if it is not, provide some explanation that debunks this, and any other potential argument.
- - -
#1 would be interesting.
- - -
1. I honestly think my logical puzzle was one of the most difficult puzzles I've had to solve.
2. I feel accomplished and satisfied after what I've done today.
3. So far, I've only had 2 people correctly solve the logical puzzle.
4. I'm still on the toilet as of typing this.