Subject: That's quite tempting, actually. (nm)
Author:
Posted on: 2015-05-13 10:03:00 UTC
-
Anybody want to solve a logic puzzle? by
on 2015-05-12 00:50:00 UTC
Reply
So, I was wandering YouTube when I came across this animation. It is an animation about a logic puzzle. While it involves ponies, you should watch it even if you don't watch MLP. I am going to be honest: I have absolutely no idea what the answer is. So, I need your help to solve it.
And don't try looking up the answer either. There is a commonly accepted one by the brony community, but I refuse to see it as a solution to a logic puzzle. Unless you can explain how that answer makes sense, I don't buy it. -
The PPCÂ’s answer by
on 2015-05-13 19:42:00 UTC
Reply
My listening ability is far less developed than my ability to read this strange language. Thus, I’m not entirely sure what the question actually is and what the reactions to Twilight’s answers are, and I simply have to trust Huinesoron’s transcription of the correct answers.
As far as I understand this, whenever Twilight says a number, the answer is not correct because it’s a fragment and thus grammatically incorrect. A correct answer must be a grammatically correct sentence. The actual number doesn’t matter, because the result of any attempt to count the stars is subjective, depending on eyesight, atmospheric conditions and other circumstances. (And that’s probably what some other posters try to say, just in other words.)
HG -
The solution is simple. by
on 2015-05-12 21:00:00 UTC
Reply
Provided you have a Turing-complete computer, of course!
You see, the present composition of the universe is a direct result of the history of the universe. That means that - with a powerful-enough computer - you can calculate back from a sample of the universe to describe its origin - and then calculate forward again to deduce any desired fact (such as the number of stars in the night sky).
But that only applies for a representative sample. The elements that make up an eyepiece, lamp, flower, field of grass, etc, are not representative of the universe as a whole. Thus, every time you calculate from one of those objects, you will obtain a different answer. (Admittedly the answer with pi stars must have been an interesting simulation.)
Then why is Pink Thing claiming you can do it by looking at the objects? Simple: those aren't ponies. I mean, you know that, right? You know they're just computer animation, not actual real-live ponies? Heck, it's even flagged up by the fourth-wall breaking!
And there's a key word in there: computer. Yes, the animation was clearly made on the turing-complete system I discussed above.
So the answer is: I'm not a computer, Pink Thing, I can't do that. Why don't you calculate it for me and let me know?
^_~
hS -
You know what? by
on 2015-05-13 09:58:00 UTC
Reply
You should post this on the comments to the video, just to see how other people react.
-
That's quite tempting, actually. (nm) by
on 2015-05-13 10:03:00 UTC
Reply
-
Yes, watch the puny non-Boarders squirm at the logic of PPC. (nm by
on 2015-05-13 12:17:00 UTC
Reply
-
Where'd that 'hS is MacGyver' meme go? by
on 2015-05-12 22:37:00 UTC
Reply
(Though it's not quite as applicable in this case...)
- You mean... by on 2015-05-13 03:39:00 UTC Reply
-
Pfff haha, no, but that works, too. XD (nm) by
on 2015-05-13 03:46:00 UTC
Reply
-
Look, I did my best. by
on 2015-05-12 22:40:00 UTC
Reply
If Pink Robot had ended with 'count all the stars in the night sky using [thing]', I would've had an easier time of it.
(What was the last thing? Flying Robot's mane? Simple: create a primitive diffraction grating, and take an average of the light output of the sky as a whole. Using an estimate of the average brightness of a single star, calculate back. Ea-sy!)
hS -
Fine. Let's do this. by
on 2015-05-13 07:02:00 UTC
Reply
The correct answers, in order, are:
"There are four hundred and twenty stars."
"There are eighty stars, tonight."
"There are three point one four one five nine two six five stars."
"What if I say there are one hundred and seventeen times ten to the power of three point forty-three stars?"
"I thought there were absolutely no stars tonight."
There are, clearly, two possible answers. The second requires a bit of calculation, and I'll do it later; the first is obvious simply by looking.
-Taken as a RGB code, '420' is a dark orange colour. Orange is practically the same colour as pink.
-In both ASCII and Unicode, decimal 80 is the code for 'P'.
-3.14 etc is, of course, pi.
-117x10^3.43 comes out as 314909; that's a very clear simple visual code for 'is agog'.
-'no' means 0, which can be read as 'oh'.
Thus, the string of answers reads:
"pink P pi is agog! Oh..."
This is, of course, a third-person statement that Pinkie Pie is awestruck by the sheer beauty of the stars - which, if you recall, was the trigger for the entire conversation. Given that the character being addressed is called Twilight, the final answer is obvious:
4, because there are four books in Stephanie Meyer's Twilight series.
^_^
hS -
Not 4... by
on 2015-05-13 22:27:00 UTC
Reply
4 novels, a novella, an illustrated guide and a half-finished novel draft. So more like 4.75 and a guide. Clearly the guide represents 42, so the answer is 46.75!
(I hope that 3/4 of a star stays well away...) -
And the mathematical answer: by
on 2015-05-13 09:47:00 UTC
Reply
-3,149,044.305 stars.
Obtained by calculating a Lagrange Interpolating Polynomial according to the Hughes method. The polynomial obtained was:
Sn = -1573216.444 + 3200251.055n - 2151387.758n2 + 577253.124n3 - 52479.977n4
(to three decimal places, obvs)
The graph looks something like this:
(And in case you're wondering: no, it doesn't look like the number ever goes positive again.)
hS, brute forcing it
(PS: Of course, as Sam points out in the second link, you can Lagrange Interpolate the answer to be literally any number. This is just the one that falls naturally out of the sequence provided.) -
Simple. by
on 2015-05-12 02:31:00 UTC
Reply
As stated before, the solution can be anything as long as it fits the question asked. It's not a true logic puzzle - it depends on the target's inherent acceptance that because they are told it is, the solution will follow the rules usually followed in logic puzzles. In essence, they were trolling Twilight. Unless you know the trick, most people aren't going to get it at all.
-
Ah! That makes sense. (nm) by
on 2015-05-12 04:36:00 UTC
Reply
-
Well... by
on 2015-05-12 02:00:00 UTC
Reply
I'm going with what one of the video's commenters said, which is, and I quote:
"How many stars are there in the night sky?
The answer is "There are [insert number here] stars in the night sky."
The answer can involve ANY number, because technically any number from 1 to infinity is correct. It's not about finding the COMPLETE number of stars; it's about stating that there ARE stars in the sky in the first place. You have to give a "correct answer."
Twilight always got it wrong because she only said a number, instead of that there were stars in the sky.
Get it?" -
Sadly, that doesn't work. by
on 2015-05-12 21:06:00 UTC
Reply
We're specifically told at one point that 'absolutely no stars' is a correct answer.
hS
PS: Also... uh, the number of visible stars is between 5000 and 10000, depending on a number of variables. The number of stars in the total observable universe is somewhere on the order of 1027. Unless you interpret 'in the night sky' to mean 'technically behind an area of the night sky, even though it's physically impossible for the light to ever reach the Earth', infinity is not a correct answer. ^_^ ~hS -
Wow? by
on 2015-05-12 01:47:00 UTC
Reply
I don't get it. I watched it twice, and while there probably is an answer, I'm not clever enough to get it.
