say something about ... yourself!
- Thread starter dreaming neon darkspot
- Start date
El Stormo
Member
Obviously, but the real challenge is explaining the logical fallacy that leads to the missing $1, since it all looks very logical, and still it doesn't add up. So what's wrong in the $14 reasoning?
Because strictly logically:
5 - 1 = 4 + 2 = 14
5 - 1 = 4
5 - 1 = 4
I think the thing is that we can't just subtract the $1 from the $5 everyone paid, but we need to reallocate the payments just after the one $5 bill is refused, and only then add the $1 per person:
5+5+5 becomes (5+5)/3, which becomes 3.3333333... per person paid. Then add the $1 back to the price per person, and you have 4.3333333... per person, equaling 13. Add the $2 from the waiter and you've got 15.
Then again, everyone did pay 4, and not 4.333333..., so it's still not clear for me.
Karmic
speedy meatmonger
haha yeah. it was a pretty great match in the end. could have gone either way. i heard there was alot of "if we win this its revenge for pearl harbor" comments circulating about again, which is pretty
Captain Beard
No longer active
- Sep 6, 2001
- 28,010
- 99
- 48
Revenge for Pearl Harbor was two nuclear weapons, the forcing of a clause in their constitution banning armed forces, generation after generation of indoctrination into pacifism to ensure they never try it again, and laws banning the use of weapons outside of tightly controlled circumstances. We already got our revenge, and we got it in ways I would NEVER have thought the US was capable of pulling off.haha yeah. it was a pretty great match in the end. could have gone either way. i heard there was alot of "if we win this its revenge for pearl harbor" comments circulating about again, which is pretty
Det Som Engang Var
Viking Bastard
Funny how things change. Before I couldn't get women now I can't get them to leave the next morning. 
Mr.Sister
Member
- Jun 5, 2010
- 446
- 0
- 16
Though I once studied mathematics: this is a pretty tough one.
The logical fallacy is the wrong assumption, that the sum after paying the 3 bucks back has still to be 15 $, which is simply wrong. By getting 3 dollars back, we're not talking about 15 dollars anymore at all. We're now moving in a new mathematical case, in which not 15 dollar were paid, but 12. These 12 dollars are split up to 2 dollars for the waiter and 10 for the owner (Mistake done here: adding the 2 $ of the waiter to the 12 dollar ending up with 14$, but the 2 dollars of the waiter are part of the 12 dollars paid by the men)
El Stormo
Member
Enemy242
Member
Yeah originally I tried just going off of it but then I thought about it and it completely changes. The $15 goes to the owner, the owner gives back $5, the waiter takes the $5 and uses 1 dollar bills to give them each 1 making them get $3 back, but in the end the total money is sitll there as it's not talking about that money going into the payment again like now they have $4 each and you add the extra 2 to be forced to equal 15; it's a completely new thing now as if you wanted it to still be 15 and be in that realm, it would've been after he gives them each $1 there is still $15 as they each have $1 which equals 3, the waiter has 2 which equals 5 and the owner has 10 which equals 15. When he divides the money up in a different way than what the owner said it becomes a completely new circumstance and isn't about them paying again with the money they have now because the 15 is finished.
However I have another solution that could be right. It could actually be about reading comprehension as when you read the problem after the men give the money and the owner gives back 5, it says the waiter is bad at math and dishonest. It could be that they actually gave a total of $20 because they thought the bill was $20 or were expecting change (one guy giving the $20 bill and each of them giving him $5 which would be 10 from them, 5 from him and then expecting the 5 back which he keeps) and when the owner reveals it wasn't the price and he owes them $5 in change and he gives them the money back, the waiter pockets it OR it could be that the extra $5 was actually the tip for the waiter , so instead of taking the tip he brings it to the owner, the owner just tells him to give it back instead of implying its his tip and then he pockets it from there.
so either it's the first one which is the change in the numbers into an entirely separate thing, or 2 situations involving mistakes on the waiters part in him getting too much money for the meal and having to give it back, or getting the $5 in tip and bringing it up not realizing what they're doing and giving it back. this one could be totally wrong but oh well, gotta think outside the box haha
However I have another solution that could be right. It could actually be about reading comprehension as when you read the problem after the men give the money and the owner gives back 5, it says the waiter is bad at math and dishonest. It could be that they actually gave a total of $20 because they thought the bill was $20 or were expecting change (one guy giving the $20 bill and each of them giving him $5 which would be 10 from them, 5 from him and then expecting the 5 back which he keeps) and when the owner reveals it wasn't the price and he owes them $5 in change and he gives them the money back, the waiter pockets it OR it could be that the extra $5 was actually the tip for the waiter , so instead of taking the tip he brings it to the owner, the owner just tells him to give it back instead of implying its his tip and then he pockets it from there.
so either it's the first one which is the change in the numbers into an entirely separate thing, or 2 situations involving mistakes on the waiters part in him getting too much money for the meal and having to give it back, or getting the $5 in tip and bringing it up not realizing what they're doing and giving it back. this one could be totally wrong but oh well, gotta think outside the box haha
derek
Grey Eminence
It's the direction of looking at it that causes the problem. You need to consider where all the money is, not what each man paid individually. The 10 is gone because the chef has it, and the men each have a dollar and the waiter has two, so it's 15.
El Stormo
Member
Yes, I know that, and simply adding up all the money makes 15, everyone agrees on that. The point is not to explain the right way to look at it, because that is obvious. The point is to look at the wrong way of seeing things and figuring out why that way is so logical, and yet wrong. Where exactly is the logical fallacy in the $14 reasoning?
derek
Grey Eminence
I've just said it, dude. It's in considering what each man paid as opposed to what where the money is.
I suppose I'd look at it as the 15 bucks being the wrong starting point. With the men each keeping three bucks it puts the total at 12, which is made up of two to the waiter and ten to the chef.
I suppose I'd look at it as the 15 bucks being the wrong starting point. With the men each keeping three bucks it puts the total at 12, which is made up of two to the waiter and ten to the chef.
Lord Foul
I don't spank men
Derek has the right of it, but perhaps another way to explain the fallacy is to look at it as money paid into a pool and money taken out of the pool. Money paid in is $5 + $5 + $5 = $15. Money taken out is $15 -$10 -$2 -$1 -$1 -$1 = $0. The logical fallacy comes from trying to combine terms from both sides of the balance sheet incorrectly. The two somehow gets moved to the plus side of the equation and the ten is simply ignored. You end up with $14 thinking you are short one when you should be ending up with $0 at the end.
Chromatose
Squid pro quo
My difficulty is in figuring out how anyone would reason it actually adds up to 14 
edit: oh I guess that's what we're talking about. Other than shoddy math, I mean, but I guess that's the only possibility anyway.
edit: oh I guess that's what we're talking about. Other than shoddy math, I mean, but I guess that's the only possibility anyway.
Captain Beard
No longer active
- Sep 6, 2001
- 28,010
- 99
- 48
El Stormo
Member
God forbid there should be something meaningful said in this thread!
Also, Lord Foul's on the money (groan!). The fallacy makes sense now
Captain Beard
No longer active
- Sep 6, 2001
- 28,010
- 99
- 48
EXACTLY, this is the say something about yourself thread! Coherent discussion is not permitted for more than 2 posts!
Edit: SHIT!
Edit: SHIT!
El Stormo
Member
Brooks
Eyes Wide Open
El Stormo
Member
Jace_Mereel
Freakame, Freakayou!
Friend is having another baby. She's my age. At least she's got a great family, loving husband, blah blah blah blah (the kind of people that are stable enough to have kids) but man. Lots of babies. Another high school friend just had a kid. And two of my friends are engaged. Is it weird to think 24 is still too young for kids? Each his own, blah blah blah, kids. Looooots of kids. Everywhere.
