Wonderful game, but I think I have an alternate solution to #9.
1. If the Machine has contradicted itself,
then the Machine is not perfect.
2. The Machine claims to be perfect and all knowing.
3. The Machine claims that you PROBABLY know what a red herring is.
4. If the Machine is uncertain of your knowledge of a red herring,
then the Machine is not all knowing.
5. Therefore the Machine is not all knowing.
6. If the Machine is not all knowing,
then the Machine has contradicted itself.
7. Therefore, the Machine has contradicted itself.
8. Therefore, the Machine is not perfect.
I registered here on NG because I think there is a flaw in the argument lines of LEVEL 9.
I figured out, that the yes/yes/yes/probably are the machines answers, however, the actual mistake is in the arguing itself:
1. If the machine has contradicted itself, then the machine is not perfect.
2. The Machine thinks smugness is a relevant clue.
3. The Machine thinks smugness is a red herring.
4. IF the Machine thinks smugness is a relevant clue AND The Machine thinks smugness is a red herring then ......
And this is the part where I got stuck, Something like this should follow: then the machine doesn't know what a red herring is.
INSTEAD you have to write "the machine has contradicted itself" which CANNOT be placed here since it is in line 5.
In other words if you deduct with the "then" in line 4 that the machine has contradicted itself, then line 5 is a redundant line!!! Redundant, because it echoes the deduction already made in line 4.
So you either change the "then" part in line 4.. OR remove line 5.
I don't know if I'm making sense here. You have a deduction in line 5, which has already been deducted at the end of line 4.
At least please consider my post. I would also appreciate if the creators addressed this issue. Thanks and great game!
Hi! It makes sense, but I'm afraid, as far as I can see, it's not broken int he way you think. It's percetly okay to repeat the same clause in a different context, as 'the machine has contradicted itself' is here. First it's part of an IF-THEN, then it's stated as a conclusion (since we knwo the IF part of the statement has been satisfied. It's a bit like having to show your working in maths.
What's actually a problem with one of the possible solutions to that puzzle is that you can use both smugnes is a red herring and smugness is a relevant clue together, and strictly speaking you should have a premise which states that they mean the same thing. Actually, that's a much better puzzle. Next version!
This was an interesting game... is it sad if I found the last puzzle to be the easiest OR does that prove that this game has sufficient ability to teach the subject of logical reasoning.
I found a bug.... if you at IX turn arond the AND answers, you will have it wrong. That was so mean, so after a few minutes asking why in the hells name i could have it wrong i looked at the walktrough and saw that you have to turn around those -_-.
But I think the game needs a sequel. Why?
1. IF a game is awesome THEN it needs a sequel
2. This game is awesome
3. THEREFORE this game needs a sequel
1. IF you are good at math THEN this game will be easy
2. You are good at math
3. THEREFORE this game will be easy
Cool game. I feel all smart now.
The last puzzle gave me a bit of trouble.. but I got through it.