Outwitters 20Q!

[TheQwertiest]

(01-19-2013 10:22 PM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  You are not the "One Man Left" logo (can be seen on the "Visit Our Site" button)?

YES. ive added another hint.

[Kamikaze28]

(01-19-2013 10:27 PM)Piko Wrote:  Are you the "Reset Tutorial" button?

Read query 24. in the most recent overview post. This is not helpful.

[TheQwertiest]

(01-19-2013 10:27 PM)Piko Wrote:  Are you the "Reset Tutorial" button?

NO

---

(01-19-2013 10:30 PM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  

(01-19-2013 10:27 PM)Piko Wrote:  Are you the "Reset Tutorial" button?

Read query 24. in the most recent overview post. This is not helpful.

its waaay helpful! XDDD

[Kamikaze28]

You are not the "Visit Our Side"-button?

[TheQwertiest]

(01-19-2013 10:32 PM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  You are not the "Visit Our Side"-button?

NO I'm not the "visit our side" - button

i was trying to find a way to counter your style of playing safe by putting "not" in your sentences.
look up "kramer and rawlins"

[Kamikaze28]

(01-19-2013 10:50 PM)TheQwertiest Wrote:  

(01-19-2013 10:32 PM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  You are not the "Visit Our Side"-button?

NO I'm not the "visit our side" - button

Read carefully. If you answer my query with 'No', then you are the "Visit Our Site"-button.

[TheQwertiest]

not sure if bluffing or actually understood that paper..

[Kamikaze28]

(01-19-2013 11:38 PM)TheQwertiest Wrote:  not sure if bluffing or actually understood that paper..

I've read the paper you are referring to. In my opinion, the paper states that language is illogical and therefore answering a negated question in the following manner is acceptable:

Q: Is Alfonso not coming to the party?
A: Yes, he is coming to the party!

From my point of view, the question is an inquiry about the state of something. It contains within itself a statement whose validity is being checked. The question in this case posits the statement "Alfonso is not coming to the party". Answering this question with "Yes" or "No" expresses the validity of this inherent statement. The answer given above (which is linguistically accepted as valid) is therefore illogical. If Alfonso is coming to the party, then the question must be answered with "No".

You can call this fencing at windmills, but the fact remains: if you as respondent claim to be able to answer any question (negated or not-negated) with 'no', then we can just change the rules to "You can only ask 20 questions." instead of "Only 20 of your questions may be answered with 'No'.".

[Gf!sh]

This reminds me of how French handles this. When a negative question is posed, the equivalent of 'No' actually cofirms the negative question. Say, the question "Is Alfonso not coming to the party?" is asked in French, and the question with answer is literally translated to English:

Q: Is Alfonso not coming to the party?
A: No.

The answer confirms the question, and Alfonso really isn't coming to the party.
Let's use this advantage French has as opposed to English, and implement the following rule:

Answer negative questions as if they were normal questions.

[Kamikaze28]

That's really pointless. I will just go on to ask "You are anywhere but in the help section?" instead of asking "You are not in the help section."

The whole point of this game is to find the solution through elimination of options. By posing a question you divide the space of possible solutions into two halves - being clever means formulating the question in such a way that you gain a higher insight without getting too many 'No's.
Asking "Are you Pizza?" as the first question is really counter-productive because the answer will most likely be 'No' and the only information you gained is that the solution is not 'pizza'. Asking "Are you not Pizza?" is still pointless, but no longer counter-productive since the answer will most likely be 'Yes' - and if it is 'No', then you would have won. It would however not be practical to go through every possibility and asking a negative question since the universe is bound to end at some point.