Assume that both of the following sentences are true:
-Pinocchio always lies;
-Pinocchio says, "All my hats are green."
What can you conclude?
(A) Pinocchio has at least one hat.
(B) Pinocchio has only one green hat.
(C) Pinocchio has no hats.
(D) Pinocchio has at least one green hat.
(E) Pinocchio has no green hats.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I conclude that OP is a faggot
F) Pinocchio has at least one non-green hat
that pinocchio is an insufferable twit to be around
this is the one and only correct answer
but how do you know pinocchio ALWAYS lies?
All heads could be green, in which case this would not be a lie. If Pinocchio had no hat with a color other than green, he could not know for a fact that there are non-green hats. If he had merely seen a non-green hat in the past, he could not now that this hat would still exist and wasn't somehow destroyed in the meantime, ergo he must be in control/possession of a non-green hat to be certain his "All green hats claim" is actually untrue.
Therefore (A), he has at least one hat (and that hat is NOT green), and excluding answers (B), (C). He still might have a green hat as well, but not necessarily, therefore excluding answer (D) and (E).
Conclusion, the only statement we can conclude must be accurate is (A)
Pinocchio is a real boy and his bussy is fantastic.
What you can conclude is
(F) If Pinocchio has any hats at all, at least one of them isn't green.
A is the closest to being true, but the existence of hats is on shaky grounds
If hats was the empty set, i.e. hats do not exist at all, then the statement that all hats are green would still be true.
how do you even know if he even has a hat ? For what we know he could have no hats at all and be butt naked while saying this
we know hats exists, because if they didn't exist, his claim that all heads (i.e. all zero of them) are green would be logically correct, i.e. true.
if he had not hats himself, then he couldn't know if there is any non-green hat for sure, which would render his claim that "all heads are green" not a lie from his point of view, but merely an uncertainty, thus violating the constraint that he always lies - not knowing is not the same as lying.
>if I have no hats, then me saying ''I have no green hats'' is correct because all 0 of them are green ?
I mean I see the logic but it still sounds stupid to me on subconscious level
fuck I mean ''all my hats are green''. Hate being retarded :(
She looks like AOC
That doesn't follow logically. If something can be true, it has to be able to be false as well. If all the 0 hats are green is true, then them being red would be false. You can't attribute a positive quality to the non-existent hat and call it true.
indeed
also, my answer is correct. What do I win OP?
It clearly says assume both sentences are true, that's how you know, because the fact that you *know* Pinocchio always lies is accounted for in the hypothetical
that's the point of these kind of logic "trick" questions, to go against what normal human common sense would suggest is true. It's the same with the gold coin question. The right answer "feels" wrong but is actually correct.
It's just how our brains work. This is basically a "logical illusion", in the same vein as logical illusions like pic related work
all (0) hats are green
all zero hats are green
all of those zero hats are green
You'd win a "congrats" for having your brain still working well and logically, but you chose F which is not the correct answer.
if you think its E you are wrong
>If something can be true, it has to be able to be false as well.
wrong
In logic the concept of a tautology exists, i.e. statements that are always true. Same for statements that are always false.
The most simple logical statement that is always true is: true
but assumptions are foolish
fine, its A. I'm high.
If "all my hats are green" is false, then he cannot have zero hats
Ok, now use that logic as a refutation.
Because all (0) hats are green, none of the hats are red.
All of those zero hats are green, therefore none of them are red.
Just because the sentence structure works, doesn't mean the logic works. Those refutations work just fine with any other number, and the difference is that 0 is like infinity symbol, less of a quantity, and more of a concept.
Take your troll thread and skedaddle, bitch.
all 0 of the hats are both green and red and whatever other colour you want. They are a whole fucking rainbow for what we know.
what a bunch of fucking nerds
if he has no hats, then his hats are not green because he has no hats
> Because all (0) hats are green, none of the hats are red.
no, because is zero. All zero are green. All zero are red.
> But something can't be green and red at the same time
zero (0) things are
That doesn't matter. For the purposes of the hypothetical, you know Pinocchio always lies. How you know is completely irrelevant.
this is incorrect. Zero is special. It took a long time to accept zero is a real number. It was discovered in India.
all zero of his hats are green
But it is true that all the hats he has are green
My girlfriend is cute, but I don't have one.
>Because all (0) hats are green, none of the hats are red.
If there are no hats, then all hats are green AND all hats are red (as well as any other color and no color at all)
Also, the following statements would be true, still assuming hats do not exist:
- Only trannies wear hats
- All YOUR hats are MAGA
nope
pinocchio has at least one non-green hat
That would be (a) then