Graduate studies at Western
Minds and Machines 22 (1):1-24 (2012)
|Abstract||Uzquiano (Analysis 70:39–44, 2010 ) showed that the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever ( HLPE ) [in its amended form due to Rabern and Rabern (Analysis 68:105–112, 2008 )] has a solution in only two questions. Uzquiano concludes his paper by noting that his solution strategy naturally suggests a harder variation of the puzzle which, as he remarks, he does not know how to solve in two questions. Wheeler and Barahona (J Philos Logic, to appear, 2011 ) formulated a three question solution to Uzquiano’s puzzle and gave an information theoretic argument to establish that a two question solution for Uzquiano’s puzzle does not exist. However, their argument crucially relies on a certain conception of what it means to answer self-referential yes–no questions truly and falsely . We propose an alternative such conception which, as we show, allows one to solve Uzquiano’s puzzle in two questions. The solution strategy adopted suggests an even harder variation of Uzquiano’s puzzle which, as we will show, can also be solved in two questions. Just as all previous solutions to versions of HLPE , our solution is presented informally. The second part of the paper investigates the prospects of formally representing solutions to HLPE by exploiting theories of truth|
|Keywords||Hardest logic puzzle ever Self-reference Truth|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
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.
Gabriel Uzquiano (2010). How to Solve the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever in Two Questions. Analysis 70 (1):39-44.
Brian Rabern & Landon Rabern (2008). A Simple Solution to the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever. [REVIEW] Analysis 68 (2):105-112.
Fenrong Liu & Yanjing Wang (2013). Reasoning About Agent Types and the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever. Minds and Machines 23 (1):123-161.
Stefan Wintein (2011). A Framework for Riddles About Truth That Do Not Involve Self-Reference. Studia Logica 98 (3):445-482.
Tim S. Roberts (2001). Some Thoughts About the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (6):609-612.
Seahwa Kim (2005). The Real Puzzle From Radford. Erkenntnis 62 (1):29 - 46.
Erik J. Wielenberg (2001). The New Paradox of the Stone Revisited. Faith and Philosophy 18 (2):261-268.
Philip Atkins (2013). A Pragmatic Solution to Ostertag's Puzzle. Philosophical Studies 163 (2):359-365.
Bjørn Jespersen (2011). An Intensional Solution to the Bike Puzzle of Intentional Identity. Philosophia 39 (2):297-307.
Assaf Sharon & Levi Spectre (2010). Dogmatism Repuzzled. Philosophical Studies 148 (2):307 - 321.
Richard Foley (1990). Fumerton's Puzzle. Journal of Philosophical Research 15:109-113.
Christoph Kelp (2008). Classical Invariantism and the Puzzle of Fallibilism. Southern Journal of Philosophy 46 (2):221-44.
Robert C. Robinson (2007). S5 Solution to the Red Hat Puzzle. Disputatio 2 (22):1 - 7.
Tim Black (2002). RELEVANT ALTERNATIVES AND THE SHIFTING STANDARDS OF KNOWLEDGE. Southwest Philosophy Review 18 (1):23-32.
Added to index2011-10-14
Total downloads31 ( #45,008 of 754,609 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,000 of 754,609 )
How can I increase my downloads?