Hi! I have a problem with this puzzle. It’s not a coding problem, there is one test case that I just don’t understand the answer. In test case xxx-3 there are those two syllogisms :
all squares are rectangles and all squares are rhombuses therefore some rhombuses are rectangles VALID
all squares are rectangles and all squares are rhombuses therefore some rectangles are rhombuses INVALID
I really don’t understand why they are not both VALID (or at least both INVALID to be coherent) They look symetrical to me how could one be valid and not the other.
Thanks for your answers
@Blackfich you can probably answer my question as you wrote the puzzle !
4 Likes
Hi ! I was just wondering the same thing…
1 Like
I agree, and in fact, I pointed this out to the author in the comments a month ago:
Okay… But now I’m getting a failure on xxx-3:
all squares are rectangles and all squares are rhombuses therefore some rectangles are rhombuses
Your test says this is INVALID, but it should be valid. (MaP.MaS -> PiS, Darapti AAI-3)
This is one of the reasons that I did not approve this puzzle a long time ago. I don’t think that this is correct, as it stands.
- danBhentschel
3 Likes
This puzzle was wronly accepted. 3 (or 1) indians are racing for XP. I’m currently taking care of this.
2 Likes
Thanks for taking care of this. By the way, I think this is a fun puzzle, it’s just not ready. One wrong test case (and validation case) and maybe missing instruction that we assume there is at least one element of each kind.
It’s a good thing I looked at this post as I was about to attempt that community puzzle.
15 PX for having accepted a non finished puzzle… damn, they are hungry freaks.