Analysis 70 (1):39-44 (2010)
|Abstract||Rabern and Rabern (2008) have noted the need to modify `the hardest logic puzzle ever’ as presented in Boolos 1996 in order to avoid trivialization. Their paper ends with a two-question solution to the original puzzle, which does not carry over to the amended puzzle. The purpose of this note is to offer a two-question solution to the latter puzzle, which is, after all, the one with a claim to being the hardest logic puzzle ever.|
|Keywords||logic puzzle Boolos|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
J. Gerbrandy (2007). The Surprise Examination in Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Synthese 155 (1):21 - 33.
Seahwa Kim (2005). The Real Puzzle From Radford. Erkenntnis 62 (1):29 - 46.
M. A. Moffett (2002). A Note on the Relationship Between Mates' Puzzle and Frege's Puzzle. Journal of Semantics 19 (2):159-166.
Philip Atkins (2013). A Pragmatic Solution to Ostertag's Puzzle. Philosophical Studies 163 (2):359-365.
Robert C. Robinson (2007). S5 Solution to the Red Hat Puzzle. Disputatio 2 (22).
George Boolos (1996). The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever. The Harvard Review of Philosophy 6 (1):62-65.
Stefan Wintein (2012). On the Behavior of True and False. Minds and Machines 22 (1):1-24.
Tim S. Roberts (2001). Some Thoughts About the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (6):609-612.
Brian Rabern & Landon Rabern (2008). A Simple Solution to the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever. [REVIEW] Analysis 68 (2):105-112.
Gregory Wheeler & Pedro Barahona (2012). Why the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever Cannot Be Solved in Less Than Three Questions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (2):493-503.
Added to index2009-12-26
Total downloads134 ( #3,295 of 549,094 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #12,390 of 549,094 )
How can I increase my downloads?