Setup and Rule Diagrams

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Echx,

Great question. The problem here is that there are a LOT of possibilities. G has to be in either S or T (which means a GH block in one of those two), but the other one could have LP, LH, or GH, which means many combinations: one with GH in both S and T, one with GH in S and LP in T, one with GH in S and LH in T, one with LH in S and GH in T, and one with LP in S and GH in T. It starts to get pretty unwieldy, and so for most people I think it is going to be much faster to work without templates.

[Echx73]

Thanks! I misread the last rule thinking H could not go into the R column, but it can!

Eric

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello,

So I am going of of what it says in the LG bible.

So I understand the GH block, so either GH must learn either S or T or both, but neither L nor P can learn both S or T. So not understanding the both part. So L nor P cant learn both b/c there would be no room for the GH block?

pg. 320 LG Bible
Thankyou

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Sarah,

This is correct. Given that G H, we can conclude that G cannot learn Rundi (only one person does), and also that G cannot learn Yoruba (if he did, then neither L nor P can learn Yoruba, leaving us with only two people to learn it - in direct violation of the fourth rule). Thus, G - and consequently H - must learn either S or T (or both). Since neither L nor P can be in the same group as G, we can conclude that L cannot learn both S and T. The same is true for P. If they did, then the GH block would have nowhere to go.

Hope this clears things up!

[cboles]

This game really stumped because I dont believe I am making all the inferences I am supposed to be making. This is what I have:

_P__
___ ___ _L_
___ ___ ___ _H_
R S T Y

And then the added note that Rundi cannot be learned by the geologist or historian.

Please help!

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Cboles,

Actually, the historian can learn Rundi.

This game makes you question whether you should make your languages the diagram and researchers the variables or vice versa. To determine the answer, before you start writing and symbolizing, read all the way through the setup and restrictions. The last two restrictions answer your question.

What would be easier, to check to see whether L and G have none in common or to make L and G variables and symbolize this restriction as follows:

L G

Clearly the latter option gives you a more useful symbol.

Thus your diagram and variables will be as follows:

____|_____|_____|____| g h l p
R(1) S (2) T (2) Y(3)

at least 1 of each
at most 3 of each
l g
p g
g (g h)

Thus you derive the following:

____|_____|_____|hlp| g h l p
R(1) S (2) T (2) Y(3)
g

imagine g in R or Y; g implies h, ipso facto discounting g in R; g implies h discounts g in Y because it would violate glp rule, since either l or p would have to occupy the other space.

You can conclude that there are a max of 2 g. in the event that there are 2 g, then h cannot be in R because that would make 4 h.

Otherwise there is exactly 1 g, with g and h in S or T but not both and a combination of h, l, or p in the other of S or T. h, l, or p can be in R in this scenario.

I hope this helps.

[deck1134]

Hi Powerscore,

This game at my lunch.

I cannot figure out anything on it.

My setup was
R _
S _ _
T _ _
Y _ _ _

I concluded that Y had to be L,P, and H, and then had the rules. Are there other inferences that I should have made here?

[Adam Tyson]

Only that G cannot be in group R, because then H would also have to be, and that group is limited to just one variable. Since G has to go somewhere, that means there is a GH block in either S or T or both. From there, it's on to the questions!

[MaryAD]

Hello,

I am having some trouble understanding the set up of this problem. The answer in the book states that L and G is a "not block", and P and G is a "not block". However, my understanding of the 5th condition is that they are conditionals that would lead to
G L and G P. Looking at some of the questions on this forum some have L and G and P and G as "not blocks" while others have G L and G P.

Also, when I use the double not arrows, I am having trouble connecting G P and G L to G H.


Can someone please shed some light on which method is best or correct, with regard to the "not blocks" and how to connect the conditionals to G H?

Thank you!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Mary,

In a general sense, not-blocks and double-not arrows are functionally equivalent. Often, when we have a "base" to our scenario (as we have here with R, S, T, and Y), we'll default all double-not arrow rules to "not-blocks," because the visual representation is a bit more powerful in showing you what can't happen to an individual group. But the double-not arrow will not fail you, and is a perfectly fine way to represent the rules governing the relationships between G and P, and G and L. So, I'll leave it up to your personal preference. If you're comfortable with double-not arrows and used to using them, stick with them. But if you like the visual provided by the not-block, feel free to employ it in grouping games where there is a well-defined (diagrammed) "base" to the scenario.

When it comes to creating connections between double-not arrow rules and other rules in the scenario, the best way not to miss any connections (and to avoid making mistakes by connecting things that actually can't be connected) is to split each double-not arrow into its constituent parts.

1. For the G P rule, split it off into the two parts the rule implies, which are:

G NOT P
P NOT G

2. For the G L rule, split it off into the two parts the rule implies, which are:

G NOT L
L NOT G

That process of splitting the rules off shows me there's no connection to be made to the G H rule. To create a connection, we would need a rule that had "NOT G" in the sufficient condition, or "G" in the necessary condition. Without a rule structured that way, there's no connection to be made.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy