Talk:The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 12 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever at the Reference desk.

Enslaving gods and making wishes seems like OR

Unlike the rest of the article, which is reasonably sourced, the section on "Enslaving gods and and making wishes" has no sources.

I'd normally just add citation tags, but in this case, I'm willing to bet that it can't be sourced, and is pure OR, so I'm going to be bold and delete it. Here's why:

It's written as an argument that this solution is correct, rather than reporting on the solution.
It's chock full of LessWrong-style jargon, which makes it unlikely that it's sourced to anything Wikipedia would consider a reliable source.
It was added by User:Florian Dietz, whose only actions ever were to add this, re-add it after ClueBot reverted it as potential vandalism, and clear the ClueBot warning from his talk page. So, it's plausible that Florian wouldn't know the Wikipedia standards (most importantly: Wikipedia isn't about what's true, only what's verifiable, via reliable sources), and could add OR in purely good faith.

Of course I could be completely wrong about that bet. In which case, please revert the delete and add the citations.

And either way, it's an interesting idea, so if it really is OR, the author really should create at least a blog post or something about it. --157.131.168.209 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that should be User:FlorianDietz. Also see Special:Contributions/FlorianDietz.

More importantly, I noticed that Florian responded to ClueBot as follows:

I have no external sources for what I just wrote because I came up with this myself and posted it here directly. I hope this is allowed? Is there a way to mention myself (Florian Dietz) as the author without referring to an external source?

So, all the guesswork above is unnecessary. It is original research, made in good faith by someone who didn't realize that OR is not allowed on Wikipedia. --157.131.168.209 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be interesting to note...

Another general discussion post. See WP:NOTAFORUM

(Warning: contains a hint towards solving the puzzle)

One obvious approach someone might take to this puzzle would be to first try to learn the meanings of 'da' and 'ja', and then use that knowledge in their remaining questions. I think it's interesting to note that it's actually impossible to (reliably) obtain BOTH the solution AND the meanings of da/ja in the same 3 questions; correct solutions will identify the gods but will NOT determine the meanings of da/ja, even in retrospect.

This is easily provable, but I do not have a reputable citation for it, so Wikipedia rules on original research prevent me from adding it to the article.

(Proof: There are 6 possible ways to label the gods, and 2 possible ways to label da/ja, producing 6*2 = 12 possible worlds. But a binary question yields at most 1 bit of information (possibly less, because of Random, but definitely not more than 1 bit). 3 bits from 3 questions can distinguish between at most 2^3 = 8 possible worlds, which is not enough to solve the puzzle AND learn the meanings of 'da' and 'ja' at the same time.)

– Antistone (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]