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.
Assume that both of the following sentences are true:
Tyler Parker
Aaron Scott
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
Owen Hernandez
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.
Zachary Hernandez
>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
Jaxson Watson
fuck I mean ''all my hats are green''. Hate being retarded :(
Carson Allen
She looks like AOC
Owen Bailey
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.
Zachary Smith
indeed
also, my answer is correct. What do I win OP?
Levi Foster
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
Christian Harris
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