Have you ever taken a formal logic course, I feel like this is easier to explain to people who’ve taken a formal logic course
There is a search button magnifying glass push it.
Check the Posted by box and type Evil_ I should pop up
Then check search this thread then click ok or search or whatever
So basically, if we have two categories, A and B, and everyone has to be in exactly one of A and B, then if we want to show someone is in A we don’t have to necessarily show that they have lots of A-Ness, it’s sufficient to prove that they have some property incompatible with being in category B
Like if I’m sorting game pieces, and there’s either red plastic triangles or blue wooden circles, those are the only options, then even if I don’t know anything else, if I know a piece isn’t a circle, then it has to be a red plastic triangle.
For this to hold, there have to be exactly two categories, which there are assuming no neuts (town and scum). If green trapezoids are possible then it stops working.
1 Like
The different amounts of townie/scummy you think someone is aren’t really different categories, they’re estimates of the probability of finding someone in any given category.
My bad, i thought you mean you had two categories, blue wooden circles and red plastic triangles and you had to sort of a bunch of different objects. After all, does everyone exhibit only those 6 criteria?
It’s an analogy, for the analogy to work you have to have only those two options, which is why I used the example of sorting game pieces.
No, I think I get it. Each of us are actually red plastic triangles or blue wooden circles, but the person sorting it doesn’t know what we are.
We are hiding our piece and telling you what it is made of and what it looks like, but we dont want you to guess or else we are in trouble.
So how do you identify what is real and what isnt?
he asks you why you are so sure in your read rather than leaving chance of doubt obviously this doesnt work readwise because they can have same input but one can struggle faking other natural input
The exact details of the analogy aren’t really the point here, but it’s like, maybe I see one corner of your piece, so even though it’s dark and I can’t tell the color, and even though I only saw one corner, it has to be a red plastic triangle because circles don’t have corners.
To follow the analogy, Set did something a first-time-player who rolled scum would be incredibly unlikely to do, so even though I can’t see any of the rest of his piece I can see enough to know he isn’t scum.
I thought the same was true of Ginger but apparently he’s been playing for like a year so now I’m less sure.
I can find a way to work newness into the analogy if you all want but that’s really not the point of it.
On What do you base this
How can you be sure he is new(he can lie)
You also cant know that he cant be expection even if you can prove that other are 100% true
Wasn’t he one of Luxy’s friends who he recruited? Or am I mixing him up with all of Luxy’s other friends?
…I guess it’s theoretically possible Set could be scum if he’s getting coached? Not 100 percent sure who the people who might plausibly do that sort of thing are.