Reviews for "ir/rational Redux"

Dear Creators,

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!

tjubert responds:

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!

1. This game is awesome
2. IF this game is awesome THEN it needs a sequel
3. THEREFORE this game needs a sequel !!

Its hard on lvl. 10 T.T

Based on this game if I am a rational human being then the game might be beaten. No human likes to be completly ratonal therefore there is small percentage of people who may not beat the game. Therefore someone who's not rational may not beat this game.

This was spectacular. It was hard, and at times I found myself not being able to keep my mind on track because I was thinking so hard, but it's entirely solvable and not in the least impossible. I wish we were taught things like this in school, using a puzzle system such as this game, to learn problem solving skills.
Gawwwwsh I loved this game. Thanks, mate. It was a pleasure.