Ren'Py A House in the Rift [v0.7.14b1] [Zanith]

[MorganMaximara]

The logic puzzles of Rina are confusing. We are told "Last one! Let's get it right. All ambulances are life savers. No ambulances are bumper cars. Then... with "Some life savers are no bumper cars" being the correct answer. Why are "No bumper cars are life savers" and "No life savers are bumper cars" wrong?

ambulances = life savers
no ambulances = bumper cars
ergo
no life savers = bumper cars

What am I missing?

 

[Construct]

The logic puzzles of Rina are confusing. We are told "Last one! Let's get it right. All ambulances are life savers. No ambulances are bumper cars. Then... with "Some life savers are no bumper cars" being the correct answer. Why are "No bumper cars are life savers" and "No life savers are bumper cars" wrong?

ambulances = life savers
no ambulances = bumper cars
ergo
no life savers = bumper cars

What am I missing?

I admit I forgot the logic puzzles at the beginning of the game, but here is how I would explain it on the fly.

All Ambulances are within the set of life savers. No ambulance is in the set of bumper cars. Thus no bumper car is an ambulance, but not all life savers have to be ambulances since the set of life savers can contain more than just ambulances. In this case The set of life savers seems to contain bumper cars as well. As such, not all life savers are bumper cars, since ambulances are life savers, too.

Now that I think about it, is it possible that the puzzle you quoted refers to information from previous puzzles? I seem to remember that at one point it said that bumper cars are life savers.

 

[Darklord_Zeref]

Anyone have issues with save detection from 5.8 to 5.10? I moved my saves over to my new PC and have them in the right spot but when I boot up the game they're not there. Is there something else I need to move? Or do they need to be there when I launch the game for the first time? I didn't have this issue with some other renpy games.

 

[Master of Puppets]

The logic puzzles of Rina are confusing. We are told "Last one! Let's get it right. All ambulances are life savers. No ambulances are bumper cars. Then... with "Some life savers are no bumper cars" being the correct answer. Why are "No bumper cars are life savers" and "No life savers are bumper cars" wrong?

ambulances = life savers
no ambulances = bumper cars
ergo
no life savers = bumper cars

What am I missing?

We aren't told anything about the intersection of 'Life savers' and 'Bumper Cars', so it's incorrect to conclude that they do or do not intersect. These two Euler diagrams are both valid given the information in the question:
Some bumper cars are life savers and some life savers are bumper cars:

No bumper cars are life savers and no life savers are bumper cars:

You can't tell which of these is true from the two statements in the question.

 

[Evil13]

Bear in mind that it is also something of a dream sequence, so the fact that its veering off into nonsensical should be expected.

 

[sillyrobot]

The logic puzzles of Rina are confusing. We are told "Last one! Let's get it right. All ambulances are life savers. No ambulances are bumper cars. Then... with "Some life savers are no bumper cars" being the correct answer. Why are "No bumper cars are life savers" and "No life savers are bumper cars" wrong?

ambulances = life savers
no ambulances = bumper cars
ergo
no life savers = bumper cars

What am I missing?

There exists at least one life saver type and it is an ambulance. This does not limit all life savers to ambulances; that would require all life savers be ambulances which is not a premise provided. Or as Monty Python put it: " Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. "

No ambulance is a bumper car. Therefore bumper cars are not that type of life saver. So at least some life savers are not bumper cars.

Bumper cars might belong to a different class of life saver we simply don't know -- we only are told of one but the description does not make it the only one.

 

[NoStepOnSnek]

Bear in mind that it is also something of a dream sequence, so the fact that its veering off into nonsensical should be expected.

Oh, that's not the dream's fault, that's just how a course/club on formal logic is. The main trick here is to ignore any associations with the words and just treat them as generic variables.

 

[BlasKyau]

The logic puzzles of Rina are confusing. We are told "Last one! Let's get it right. All ambulances are life savers. No ambulances are bumper cars. Then... with "Some life savers are no bumper cars" being the correct answer. Why are "No bumper cars are life savers" and "No life savers are bumper cars" wrong?

ambulances = life savers
no ambulances = bumper cars
ergo
no life savers = bumper cars

What am I missing?

I don't remember any of these puzzles and I think I did all the main and sub quests for each LI. When does this happen?

 

[tunknownusert]

What happened to the old rapey dream with Lyriel? Dream ends now before getting to fuck her if you go that route, whereas before you absolutely could.


Anyway to get an older version of the game?

 

[tunknownusert]

All ambulances are life savers. = Some lifesavers are not bumper cars. This is an absolute fact. Hence it's the correct answer, by deductive reasoning.
No ambulances are bumper cars. = Self explanatory.

It does not state that "No lifesavers are bumper cars", which is why that answer is incorrect. It's an assumption, not a given fact.

Please use "Edit" and combine your 3 consecutive posts, to one.

I think i deleted the first, sorry about that. combining the 2 remaining.

 

[whichone]

I think i deleted the first, sorry about that. combining the 2 remaining.

Nice one, thanks.

What happened to the old rapey dream with Lyriel? Dream ends now before getting to fuck her if you go that route, whereas before you absolutely could.


Anyway to get an older version of the game?

OK, with regards the dream, do you mean the one where she's in the stocks & you can take advantage of her?
I don't think it's been changed, but I can't check because I didn't take the rapey option. I have a feeling that was a BJ.

There might be an older version posted in the thread, but there isn't one available from the OP, only the latest version.
Can I ask, why do you want an older version? Just to check the dream, or something else?

 

[tunknownusert]

Nice one, thanks.

OK, with regards the dream, do you mean the one where she's in the stocks & you can take advantage of her?
I don't think it's been changed, but I can't check because I didn't take the rapey option.

There might be an older version posted in the thread, but there isn't one available from the OP, only the latest version.
Can I ask, why do you want an older version? Just to check the dream, or something else?

No, I'm referring to the scene where she has her hands tied to the bed. Now if you go down that route it fades out of the dream, and if i load a save mid scene from that it produces an error after clicking once. So the scene itself seems to exist in the files somewhere but it is no longer accessible im guessing for some reason.
The only reason I was looking for an older version was for that 1 scene, yeah.

 

[NoStepOnSnek]

I don't remember any of these puzzles and I think I did all the main and sub quests for each LI. When does this happen?

Fairly early on, I think it's still just you and Rae in the house, you can have a dream about a dating sim the MC was playing before the events of this game. It's just a one-off sequence with a random anime character and a lewd scene at the end.

 

[BlasKyau]

Fairly early on, I think it's still just you and Rae in the house, you can have a dream about a dating sim the MC was playing before the events of this game. It's just a one-off sequence with a random anime character and a lewd scene at the end.

I don't really remember it.

 

[fcati78]

anyone else have the animation stop cycle around? there is a way to solve it?

 

[BlasKyau]

There are a couple early dreams which are never expanded upon so they're easy to forget. This one is in a 2D computer graphic style (for a while). I remembered this one but completely forgot about the others before I recently replayed it.

I guess that.

Although I have to say that if dreams aren't mandatory for the story or/and don't happen automatically, I will not have seen them.

 

[sillyrobot]

<snip>



If we're talking about practical application: certainly. Although I wouldn't denote it personally because it is irrelevant to everything that follows whether they exist or not. Here we are not talking about something slice of life but a competition in formal logic however, there I don't see them making it too easy by applying common sense - just the bare rules and their consequences. That's why all the attributes are so silly as well. You could take whichone's example of human mortality otherwise, but then real life might give you a hint as to whether or not the answer is feasible - and where's the fun in that?

I would for two reasons: first it tends to remove a whole bunch of potential cases that otherwise need testing or review and second, anyone else who looks at the premises can immediately see if my assumptions hold true in case I misunderstood something.

If I mark "At least one message will exist" and someone else knows there are cases where something happens silently, they can point out my premise is faulty and therefore my conclusions need to be re-examined.

 

[BlasKyau]

I'm not entirely sure what all this ambulance talk is about.

 

[BlasKyau]

The 2D mini game, early on.
There's a couple of statements that are said to be true, followed by 3, or 4 statements, of which only 1 is true.
You have to use deductive reasoning to deduce which one is true.
"All ambulances are life savers" was one of the true statements.

I still don't remember doing this part of the game... The questions or any minigame don't sound familiar to me.

 

[Cartageno]

But it's not.
I just explained how it's exactly true.
It's only the illogical process you're following that says it "must be" false.

The "illogical process" I'm following is called "formal logic" and works exactly like that. We don't care what your real world thinks about unicorns.

Think again how it all is the same, so that the different combos of unicornness and horsity work out. Your approach would lead to a logical conundrum if unicorns did actually exist. And it must work whether or not they do.