2536: It Doesn't Matter
There are some things I want to talk about, but talking about them is the last thing I should do, especially by virtue of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy effect [besides the general courtesy of anonymity when involving other people and that, in this case, anonymity will NOT excuse saying things I shouldn't]. Some of you already know or will know about them soon enough anyway, and everyone else likely won't notice a damn thing.
It's a kind of self-Catch-22: I can't get noticed unless I work harder, but working harder is what I don't want to do. That is, I want to be able to book it when I say I need to go, same as everyone else, but I feel like I won't be respected that way. Yet I feel disrespected when I'm the only one staying until Miserable o'clock doing work that could have been finished before everyone beat feet. When this job was all I had, basically, I didn't mind it as much--or, rather, I put up with it because I knew I had to do it--but available options = growing discontent. It's tougher getting motivated, now that my candle burning at both ends is running out of wick.
Vaguely related:
One of my favourite books when I was in my tweens [as loathe as I am to use that word, it is accurate] was Raymond Smullyan's Alice's Adventures in Puzzle-Land. The problem with sharing puzzles out of it is that each chapter pretty much sets up a world with its own rules, however similar they might be, and is basically a rundown of various scenarios within that setting.
For instance, the basic setting of the Truth-Tellers and Liars, where every Truth-Teller tells 100% true statements and no lies while Liars are exactly the opposite: This varies into Knights and Knaves [simplified names for each, respectively], sane and mad people [who are honest about their beliefs although the latter grossly mistaken], Red and Black/Orange and Purple [card-related games with Tweedledum and Tweedledee], Type A and Type B [believes only the truth while awake but believes only falsehoods while asleep and the respective opposite], and Looking-Glass logicians [who believe all false statements]. The most complicated problem in the book relies on making a table of who could be telling the truth or lying and deducing from the possibilities [since the recorded statements have been forgotten!] what the outcome has to be depending on whether a person who asked something about the trial was able to figure out the answer =p
Needless to say, my favourite chapter was Humpty Dumpty's one on paradoxes, though some of the scenarios baffled me for a long time. For instance, the Knight [100% truth-teller] saying, "You do not and will never know that I am a knight!"
This is a much-simplified variant on the "surprise test next week such that you will not know when it will be until the day of the test" problem.* Given the parameters of the world [Knights always tell the truth], there is no way to truly KNOW that the person making the statement is, in fact, a knight, because the logic required is too black and white to make an absolute deduction.
*For those who missed it:Professor: There will be a surprise test one day next week. You will not know what day it will be until the morning of the test.
Student: Ah, but the test can't be Friday, because if he hasn't given the test by Thursday, I will know then that it will be Friday. Subsequently, it can't be Thursday for the same reason, nor can it be Wednesday, Tuesday, or Monday. Therefore, the test will not be given at all, and I don't have to study!
[Tuesday next week]
Professor: Today is the test!
Student: ...!!!
The flaw in the student's reasoning is believing that his deduction has anything to do with when the test will be. However, the professor did not lie: The student did not know when the test would be and could never have deduced it. In fact, he could not have known the test would be given even if the test was to be given a set date, because for all anyone knew the professor could call in sick that morning.
...yes, that's my daily riddle =p As an aside, I'm a little annoyed that Louis Sachar included it in More Sideways Arithmetic from Wayside School in its "there must be no test" form, but I guess it's a little out of the range of the intended age group to go further than that.
I guess.
It's a kind of self-Catch-22: I can't get noticed unless I work harder, but working harder is what I don't want to do. That is, I want to be able to book it when I say I need to go, same as everyone else, but I feel like I won't be respected that way. Yet I feel disrespected when I'm the only one staying until Miserable o'clock doing work that could have been finished before everyone beat feet. When this job was all I had, basically, I didn't mind it as much--or, rather, I put up with it because I knew I had to do it--but available options = growing discontent. It's tougher getting motivated, now that my candle burning at both ends is running out of wick.
Vaguely related:
One of my favourite books when I was in my tweens [as loathe as I am to use that word, it is accurate] was Raymond Smullyan's Alice's Adventures in Puzzle-Land. The problem with sharing puzzles out of it is that each chapter pretty much sets up a world with its own rules, however similar they might be, and is basically a rundown of various scenarios within that setting.
For instance, the basic setting of the Truth-Tellers and Liars, where every Truth-Teller tells 100% true statements and no lies while Liars are exactly the opposite: This varies into Knights and Knaves [simplified names for each, respectively], sane and mad people [who are honest about their beliefs although the latter grossly mistaken], Red and Black/Orange and Purple [card-related games with Tweedledum and Tweedledee], Type A and Type B [believes only the truth while awake but believes only falsehoods while asleep and the respective opposite], and Looking-Glass logicians [who believe all false statements]. The most complicated problem in the book relies on making a table of who could be telling the truth or lying and deducing from the possibilities [since the recorded statements have been forgotten!] what the outcome has to be depending on whether a person who asked something about the trial was able to figure out the answer =p
Needless to say, my favourite chapter was Humpty Dumpty's one on paradoxes, though some of the scenarios baffled me for a long time. For instance, the Knight [100% truth-teller] saying, "You do not and will never know that I am a knight!"
This is a much-simplified variant on the "surprise test next week such that you will not know when it will be until the day of the test" problem.* Given the parameters of the world [Knights always tell the truth], there is no way to truly KNOW that the person making the statement is, in fact, a knight, because the logic required is too black and white to make an absolute deduction.
*For those who missed it:Professor: There will be a surprise test one day next week. You will not know what day it will be until the morning of the test.
Student: Ah, but the test can't be Friday, because if he hasn't given the test by Thursday, I will know then that it will be Friday. Subsequently, it can't be Thursday for the same reason, nor can it be Wednesday, Tuesday, or Monday. Therefore, the test will not be given at all, and I don't have to study!
[Tuesday next week]
Professor: Today is the test!
Student: ...!!!
The flaw in the student's reasoning is believing that his deduction has anything to do with when the test will be. However, the professor did not lie: The student did not know when the test would be and could never have deduced it. In fact, he could not have known the test would be given even if the test was to be given a set date, because for all anyone knew the professor could call in sick that morning.
...yes, that's my daily riddle =p As an aside, I'm a little annoyed that Louis Sachar included it in More Sideways Arithmetic from Wayside School in its "there must be no test" form, but I guess it's a little out of the range of the intended age group to go further than that.
I guess.