Hexus IQ - A Problem Almost Everyone Gets Wrong (and an extra one for Maths guys)

[Bagnaj97]

Whether something Is fashionable or not is subjective, and who determines what's fashionable?

It doesn't matter whether it's subjective or who determines it, it's still a binary state - fashionable or not. Given that, the answer would still remain yes.
The point of the original question is that the binary state of the middle entity is moot.

[roma123]

This is quite tricky but I think I got it

[Saracen]

It doesn't matter whether it's subjective or who determines it, it's still a binary state - fashionable or not. Given that, the answer would still remain yes.
The point of the original question is that the binary state of the middle entity is moot.

But an objective one. You and I might disagree about what's fashionable, but there's novarguing about whether someobe is married or not. The law determines, there are, or aren't. There are also various tyoes of fadhionable - haute couture, high street fashion, catwalk, Milan or Paris? Oh, and by the way, nice fashionable shirt but those shoes are so last year, dear.

[Bagnaj97]

But an objective one. You and I might disagree about what's fashionable, but there's novarguing about whether someobe is married or not. The law determines, there are, or aren't. There are also various tyoes of fadhionable - haute couture, high street fashion, catwalk, Milan or Paris? Oh, and by the way, nice fashionable shirt but those shoes are so last year, dear.

Whether we agree or disagree doesn't matter in the context of the original question though. We can disagree and argue about whether they are or aren't married/fashionable/attractive/etc but at the end of the day it makes no difference as long as it's a binary outcome.

A(1) is looking at B(0|1) is looking at C(0), is a 1 looking at a 0?

If B is 0 (unmarried, unfashionable, unattractive etc - by whatever or whoever's definition or opinion) then A(1) is looking at B(0) and therefore a (1) is looking at a (0) and the answer to the question is yes
If B is 1 (married, fashionable, attractive etc - by whatever or whoever's definition or opinion) then B(1) is looking at C(0) and therefore a (1) is looking at a (0) and the answer to the question is yes

So we can disagree and still get the same answer to the original question.

[scaryjim]

... we can disagree and still get the same answer to the original question.

Heh, interesting point, but with fashion there is an area between fashionable and unfashionable. I'm wearing a charcoal suit, white shirt, plain tie and smart shoes. Am I fashionable or unfashionable? I'd argue I'm neither - there's a place in the middle that's "normal" and doesn't qualify for either state. It's that middle state that doesn't exist with married.

[Raz316]

Heh, interesting point, but with fashion there is an area between fashionable and unfashionable. I'm wearing a charcoal suit, white shirt, plain tie and smart shoes. Am I fashionable or unfashionable? I'd argue I'm neither - there's a place in the middle that's "normal" and doesn't qualify for either state. It's that middle state that doesn't exist with married.

I've had a word with the guys and George and Anne think you're fashionable, you're not in Jacks line of sight though, so we don't know what he thinks yet.

[Gerrard]

I think there are a couple of problems with the question

Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?

1. Does unmarried = NOT married?
If they reworded the question to say " Is a married person looking at a person who is not married?", then that would clear up some of the pedantic arguments here.

2. Assuming all three names are associated with people.
This was brought up earlier and I think is the bigger ambiguity with the question, as at no point does it state they are, but does ask it in the question. For a logic problem, I guess it depends how deep you want to go?

[scaryjim]

... George and Anne think you're fashionable ...

Wow, there really IS a first time for everything

[wazzickle]

I think there are a couple of problems with the question

1. Does unmarried = NOT married?
If they reworded the question to say " Is a married person looking at a person who is not married?", then that would clear up some of the pedantic arguments here.

2. Assuming all three names are associated with people.
This was brought up earlier and I think is the bigger ambiguity with the question, as at no point does it state they are, but does ask it in the question. For a logic problem, I guess it depends how deep you want to go?

Both of these objections/queries fall into the category of 'trying to distract from the obvious crux of the problem'. The question could be reformulated to be 100% precise, but then it's not appealing to the layman.

[Bagnaj97]

I think there are a couple of problems with the question

1. Does unmarried = NOT married?

That's irrelevant - it doesn't matter how you define married/unmarried. The end result is that Anne is either married or unmarried (by whatever definition or opinion you like), there is no in between state.

Knowing this you've either got married Jack looking at unmarried Anne, or married Anne looking at unmarried George - there is always a married person looking at an unmarried person so the answer is always yes.

[scaryjim]

That's irrelevant - it doesn't matter how you define married/unmarried. The end result is that Anne is either married or unmarried (by whatever definition or opinion you like), there is no in between state. ...

Unless your definition of married and unmarried allows for there to be an indeterminate state between them. The question relies on an unstated assumption that married/unmarried is a binary state. That assumption is unstated because it essentially gives the whole puzzle away if you state it.

Of course, thinking there's a third undefined state between married and unmarried *isn't* why most people don't get the right answer. It's much simpler than that: lazy thinking. I answered incorrectly at first, because I hadn't bothered to actually work through the logical outcomes of Anne's status. Once I watched the video that explains it I cried out in anguish and beat myself around the head with shame, because I should've answered correctly.

Anyone who argues that married/unmarried is not a binary state as an excuse for getting the puzzle wrong was either massively overthinking a fun logic puzzle, or needs to front up and admit their own laziness

[Gerrard]

Just to be clear, I did get the question right, but I could still see a logical answer to "Not enough information" if you said that the original statement did not state they were people as that is technically true. It is just not in the "spirit" of the question.