Analysis 70 (1):39-44 (2010)

Authors
Gabriel Uzquiano
University of Southern California
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
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/analys/anp140
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,079
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

A Reply to My Critics.George Edward Moore - 1942 - In Paul Arthur Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of G. E. Moore. Open Court.
The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever.George Boolos - 1996 - The Harvard Review of Philosophy 6 (1):62-65.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

On the Behavior of True and False.Stefan Wintein - 2012 - Minds and Machines 22 (1):1-24.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Some Thoughts About the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever.Tim S. Roberts - 2001 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (6):609-612.
On the Behavior of True and False.Stefan Wintein - 2012 - Minds and Machines 22 (1):1-24.
The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever.George Boolos - 1996 - The Harvard Review of Philosophy 6 (1):62-65.
A Pragmatic Solution to Ostertag’s Puzzle.Philip Atkins - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 163 (2):359-365.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-12-26

Total views
355 ( #28,852 of 2,506,031 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #102,822 of 2,506,031 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes