Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 81.153.196.50	4-Apr-05/5:02 PM
I knew you'd say that. I'm not trying to trap you or catch you out. When you consider the problem of extracting information from a Liar, it becomes clear that there are two sorts of liars. To give you an idea of why Liar-Confusers were introduced to the discussion, consider the question "What did you have for breakfast?" Someone who is a liar answering your question could give two sorts of answer. The first is of the form "I didn't have baked beans". This is an informative lie, because you instantly know the liar had baked beans. In our formulation, this is what a Liar would say. The other possible answer is of the form "I had Ely Cathedral for breakfast." This lie is an answer to the question, but it is completely uninformative, because we don't get any closer to finding out what the liar actually had for breakfast. That is the sort of thing a Liar-Confuser would say. I have not added any new rules that weren't already obvious. If you insist that Liar-Confusers don't have to answer the question, then they could just lock themselves in a cupboard and parp the national anthem. That's not answering the question. It's also academically an utterly useless example.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	Dovina 12.72.8.226	4-Apr-05/4:54 PM
Oh, I see, you have added more rules to the game. If I refute what you say, is there some rule to prove me wrong, or will you wait for my answer before you tell me the next rule?
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 81.153.196.50	4-Apr-05/4:50 PM
Wrong. The Liar-Confuser has to answer the question you ask. And he has to lie. If he randomly changes "the shortest description of his reason" as the letters unfold, then he is not answering your question. Your questions are continually referring to THE description you asked him to think about in the first question, and any deviation from that on his part is an instance of not answering the question. You may say "Oh he's a confuser he doesn't have to answer your question" but that's silly, because then he could just say "wibble", or keep silent the whole time, which is OBVIOUSLY not what we mean by a Liar-Confuser.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	Dovina 12.72.8.226	4-Apr-05/4:33 PM
It fails because, being a confuser, he will not stick with his first answer, but will keep changing it as the letters unfold.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	Dovina 12.72.8.226	4-Apr-05/4:29 PM
Closed-minded people reject propositions for reasons other than the propositions' content, such as the race, sex, etc of the person presenting the proposition. I have said it all along in several ways.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 81.153.196.50	4-Apr-05/4:29 PM
Suppose you want the answer to the question "Why did you do X?". You say to the Liar-Confuser: "Consider the shortest description of your reason for doing X. Does this description begin with an A?" If he answers "No" then you know it begins with A and you move on to the next letter. If he answers "Yes" then you know it begins with B..Z and you say "Does the description begin with a B?" ... and so on. Exactly the same method as I outlined for the breakfast situation.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	Dovina 12.72.8.226	4-Apr-05/4:23 PM
How would you extract the correct answer to the question "Why did you do . . .?" from a Liar-Confuser? You did say it is possible. Or was the the other one of you. Oh well, fight about it among yourselves.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 82.39.21.223	4-Apr-05/3:16 PM
Using an alphabetical method that doesn't generate a contradiction.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 82.39.21.223	4-Apr-05/3:10 PM
Yes.
Re: a comment on Prayer For The Church by sliver	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 81.153.196.50	4-Apr-05/2:42 PM
Yeah only that's a load of balls really, isn't it? If it weren't a load of balls, all those catholics would have survived the potato famine.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 81.153.196.50	4-Apr-05/2:32 PM
I don't know what you keep asking. I think we all agree that Liars can communicate easily with each other. Liar-Confusers clearly don't want to communicate in the first place, but in spite of that, it is possible for anyone to extract whatever information they want from a Liar-Confuser. The REAL reason why Liars or Liar-Confusers could never really exist has nothing to do with whether or not they can communicate, and everything to do with the fact that they could solve the Halting Problem, which we all know is impossible. QED.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 81.153.196.50	4-Apr-05/2:27 PM
To -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. (not Dovina): Look, the Liar-Confusers have to answer your questions. They can't keep silent. Otherwise they may as well always keep silent, as that is the best way of witholding information. Moreover, when they do answer, they have to answer with a lie. The difference between Liar-Confusers and Liars is that Liar-Confusers will tell some arbitrary lie that isn't going to help you. BUT: if you adopt the alphabetical method, I think you can always extract the information you want. Of course it may take a while, but you will be able to get it in the end. Do you agree?
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 82.39.21.223	4-Apr-05/2:15 PM
Now that you know them, you can answer.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 82.39.21.223	4-Apr-05/2:15 PM
P.S. When you let words just flop out of your lips willy-nilly, it shows me you have a floppy brain. The only way to impart the "substance" of your argument is by saying exactly what you mean. Otherwise the dear fellow you're arguing with only has the foggiest idea what you're parping on about.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 82.39.21.223	4-Apr-05/2:11 PM
I can hardly accept the "arguement" when I don't know what it is. You want to simultaneously hold: 1. Closed-minded people reject propositions solely for reasons other than their content. 2. Closed-minded people reject propositions because of their content. Doublethink is an admirable talent, but I don't think it's helping.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	Dovina 17.255.240.6	4-Apr-05/1:44 PM
Oh, you didn't tell me all the rules of your game.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	Dovina 17.255.240.6	4-Apr-05/1:40 PM
"Rather than" means "not because of" and even if it didn't, I have stated the same thing in other ways during this discussion, giving you ample ways to know what I mean. When you argue a minor point of phrasing, instead of the argument's substance, it shows me you accept the arguement.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 82.39.21.223	4-Apr-05/1:06 PM
Remember, a Truth-teller could be just as stubborn about the question. You: Why are you eating snails for breakfast? TT: Well, it's not because the square of two is four. (Goes on until lunch-time). Liars and Truth-tellers have no advantages over each other in how easy it is to communicate. The only difference is that a Liar must either remove or add an odd number of negations from every proposition he wants to make.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 82.39.21.223	4-Apr-05/12:57 PM
(I assume the Liars are simply Liars, not Liar-Confusers, who would try to withhold all information. But at that rate they wouldn't answer your alphabetical questions either.)
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 82.39.21.223	4-Apr-05/12:51 PM
Of COURSE the Liars can't communicate easily with an outsider, unless the outsider has learned the way Liars communicate. Neither can an Englishman communicate easily with an Dutch, except by learning the crude grunts that form the Dutchman's natural mode of expression. The Liars have absolutely no difficulty communicating with each other. And you have STILL not grasped the point that it is EXTREMELY EASY to get information out of a liar. It's exactly as easy as getting information out of a truth teller. In your example: You: "Why are you eating snails for breakfast rather than eggs?" Liar: "It's not because they were the only things in my fridge" You, mentally translating: "Ah, it's because they were the only things in his sodding fridge." Reader: Sighs in exasperation, then heartily parps.