An interesting result of my random wanderings on google search
:
Puzzle # 1
(a) All babies are illogical.
(b) Nobody is despised who can manage a crocodile.
(c) Illogical persons are dispised.
As the subjects of this puzzle are people, we take the universe as the set of all people. We will rewrite each statement in the puzzle as an implication. First we define simpler statements,
B : it is a baby
L : it is logical
M : it can manage a crocodile
D : it is despised ,
where “it” in this context refers to a general person. Then the three statements can be rephrased as
(a) B → ~L : If it is a baby then it is not logical.
(b) M → ~D : If it can manage a crocodile then it is not despised.
(c) ~L → D : If it is not logical then it is despised.
Our aim is to use transitive reasoning several times, stringing together a chain of implications using all the given statements. We have an arrow pointing from B to ~L, and likewise an arrow pointing from ~L to D; thus we are able to start with B and arrive at the conclusion D. However, the second statement is still not utilized. But since any implication is equivalent to its contrapositive, we may replace the second statement with its contrapositive D → ~M. Then we get the transitive reasoning chain
We reason that if B is true, then ~L is true, hence D is true, and therefore ~M is true. Our ultimate conclusion is the statement
B → ~M : If it is a baby then it cannot manage a crocodile .
In ordinary language we would more likely rephrase this answer to the puzzle as
“No baby can manage a crocodile.”
Alternatively, we could write the answer as the contrapositive statement
M → ~B : If it can manage a crocodile then it is not a baby.
The translation into words then would be something like
“Anyone who can manage a crocodile is not a baby.”
Read on:
Enjoy!
Help
Billi Maiya m coming...c u on 6th dec@3.30pm
Linear Mode
