VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 00:44:00 April 28 2003, Monday
Author: Albert
Subject: Feinting

The logical flaws in your argument are so huge, Ben, that I could fly a [metaphorical] star destroyer through them.

At this point, the reader may be thinking, "But that logic is flawed. You could use a similar proof by contradiction to get the opposite result, simply by assuming the premise that it was a feint." Not true. Even assuming that it wasn't a feint in the sense of going against what he verbally announced, there could be other feinting aspects to the attack. In fact, logically speaking, there must be.

Circular reasoning here. You say that, 'logically speaking', there must be non-verbal feinting aspects to the attack. However, the only logical basis you have for that is your assumption that the attack is a feint. It is possible that there were other feint-like attributes of the attack, but they are not given as premises of your logical argument. If the above-quoted argument is valid, then your original proof by contradiction (and indeed, all proofs by contradiction) are invalid.

One of the problems with this situation as given is the ambiguity. You never define whether both of the two discrete actions are included in the attack. Is the 'attack' merely the act of stabbing with the sword, or does the preparatory announcement count as part of the 'attack' action?

Following is my analysis of the situation:

Assumption: the announcement applies to the duelist's next action with a sword. Otherwise his status as a liar is not possible to determine given the premises (he would only be technically lying if he never used a feint of any kind after saying the statement)

If the announcement [ann.] is considered part of the attack, then the attack consisted of a feint. The ann. is certainly "A deceptive action calculated to divert attention from one's real purpose."

If the ann. is not considered part of the attack, then the attack did not consist of a feint. A feint was executed before the attack began.

However, in either case, the duelist was a liar. He states that "he's going to use a feint." This is future tense. He is going to use a feint in the future. The act of saying it is a feint, but in the future (relating, remember, to his next action with a sword) he does not use a feint.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Re: Feinting -- Mike, 13:31:01 April 28 2003, Monday

I made the following points about 10 minutes after reading the post, to Ben. He requested I not post the answer, as that would ruin it for everyone else. You have made some good points, including the first one I made.

Given that a feint is "A deceptive action calculated to divert attention from one's real purpose", the only part of that exchange that could possibly constitute a feint was him talking, as the "real purpose" is him actually attacking the person.

Since he said "I am going to use a feint", not "I am using a feint", he was lying, as the only other action we see following this annoucement is clearly not a feint. My first point was pretty much exactly what you said.

After I made this point, Ben decided to up the challenge rating by changing the statement to "At some point in this duel, either in the future, or presently, I am going to feint".

My second point in response to that was that he wasn't lying, as him saying that was feinting, unless he was really dumb, and DIDN'T do it to try to confuse his opponent.

So, Albert, congrats. You solved it as well, though after I did, because frankly, I seriously doubt that you were talking to Ben when he updated.


[ Edit | View ]


Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.