CREATE YOUR AI CUM SLUT ON CANDY.AI TRY FOR FREE
x

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

4.70 star(s) 332 Votes
Discussion Reviews (332)
F

FapPoggers

Newbie
Jul 3, 2021
20
73
Hello, guys! Can anyone tell me on how to install the current patch? I tried to run it as an .exe but it didn't work.
 
V

Viper4bravo

Newbie
Jun 30, 2020
18
3
So, patch notes say that Rae got a new sex scene, how exactly do you activate it because I've tried everything I can think of at this point.
 
M

MorganMaximara

Member
Nov 9, 2017
211
124
Cartageno said:
True, but ...

- in mathematical logic it spoils the "fun" (and is strictly speaking unnecessary)

- in real life (or even other scientific) applications it is so heavily implied that making it explicit would be unnecessary. A doctor making all kind of absolutely logically true statements about a non existing illness wouldn't be a genius but somebody asked to see a different doctor himself please, and don't go near the scissors.
Click to expand...
Let me present an example of logic that points out the problem with the phone game:

DOCTOR: All elephants are pink. Nellie is an elephant, therefore Nellie is pink. Logical?
DAVROS: Perfectly.
DOCTOR: You know what a human would say to that?
DAVROS: What?
TYSSAN: Elephants aren't pink.

The phone game is disconnected from reality - several of the puzzles hammer this point home as they don't match up with reality. The answer doesn't make sense based on what we are given.

Remember we are told "Last one! Let's get it right. All ambulances are life savers. No ambulances are bumper cars. Then..."

All ambulances are life savers. (ambulances = life savers)
No ambulances are bumper cars (no ambulances = bumper cars)

But instead of "No bumper cars are life savers" and "No life savers are bumper cars" we are told that "Some life savers are no bumper cars" is the correct answer.
But if you turn the statements into equations (life savers replaces ambulances) this makes no sense. "All life savers are no bumper cars" would also be another way to render it. How did we go from "All" to "some"?
 
Last edited:
Kitsune241

Kitsune241

Member
Aug 25, 2017
257
696
MorganMaximara said:
All ambulances are life savers. No ambulances are bumper cars. Then..."

All ambulances are life savers. (ambulances = life savers)
No ambulances are bumper cars (no ambulances = bumper cars)

But instead of "No bumper cars are life savers" and "No life savers are bumper cars" we are told that "Some life savers are no bumper cars" is the correct answer.
But if you turn the statements into equations (life savers replaces ambulances) this makes no sense. "All life savers are no bumper cars" would also be another way to render it. How did we go from "All" to "some"?
Click to expand...
In terms of formal logic "Not All" = "Some Not", "Not all of the marbles are green" = "Some of the marbles are not green"
So "Some life savers are no bumper cars" could also be rendered as "Not all life savers are bumper cars" (NOT "All life savers are no bumper cars", that is something we don't know).

To take the real world terms out of it:
All A are L (this does NOT mean "All L are A" that is a totally different statement)
No A are B

Therefore:
Some L are not B
There could be all sorts of things in L but we know at least some of them are not B (cause they're A)

The other two answers are wrong because:
"No B are L"
We know L contains all of A, but it could also contain a bunch of other things, some of which might be B

"No L are B"
We know A can't be B, but again there could be a bunch of other things in L some of which could be B

To substitute other values in A = "dogs", B = "cats", and L = "animals"
All dogs are animals (but not all animals are necessarily dogs)
No dogs are cats
Therefore some animals are not cats (cause they're dogs)

Where as "No cats are animals" and "No animals are cats" make no sense right?

I know it's weird to think "Some bumper cars could be life savers" cause it doesn't match up with real world logic, but in terms of formal logic it's more about the fact that with the two statements we were give we do not have enough information to prove otherwise.
"Some life savers are no bumper cars" is the only answer we can actually prove.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DorcasAurelia, Cartageno and Master of Puppets
DavDR

DavDR

Engaged Member
Oct 14, 2020
2,017
3,300
Somebody posted a guide to the Halloween dream, now I can't seem to find it. Spooky. Does anyone know what the post number is?
 
Master of Puppets

Master of Puppets

Conversation Conqueror
Oct 5, 2017
7,544
10,056
MorganMaximara said:
Let me present an example of logic that points out the problem with the phone game:

DOCTOR: All elephants are pink. Nellie is an elephant, therefore Nellie is pink. Logical?
DAVROS: Perfectly.
DOCTOR: You know what a human would say to that?
DAVROS: What?
TYSSAN: Elephants aren't pink.

The phone game is disconnected from reality - several of the puzzles hammer this point home as they don't match up with reality. The answer doesn't make sense based on what we are given.
Click to expand...
I think you got that backwards, the answers don't match reality, but they do make sense based on what we are given.
MorganMaximara said:
Remember we are told "Last one! Let's get it right. All ambulances are life savers. No ambulances are bumper cars. Then..."

All ambulances are life savers. (ambulances = life savers)
No ambulances are bumper cars (no ambulances = bumper cars)
Click to expand...
That isn't how you write logical equations, because 'All X are Y' is not reversible. 'X = Y' is equivalent to 'Y = X', which isn't the case with logical if-then statements. 'All dogs are mammals' is true, while 'All mammals are dogs' is false. The way you write that in symbolic form is 'Ambulance→Lifesaver' and 'Ambulance→¬Bumpercar'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cartageno and whichone
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
4.70 star(s) 332 Votes