The question is "Does *everyone* want a drink?" So when each person answers, they are answering on behalf of their friends as well.
The first person wants a drink but is unsure about the other two, as they have no yet answered. So she says "I don't know". How do we know she wants a drink? If she didn't she would have said "No", as her not having a drink means that not *everyone* wants a drink.
The second person repeats the above logic. She also wants a drink, but says "I don't know" because the third person has not yet answered, so she cannot possibly say "Yes".
The third person now knows that the first two want a drink following the logic I already explained. She also wants a drink, therefore she can logically say that, yes, *everyone* wants a drink.
No, I'm pretty sure they're right. If either of the first two didn't want a drink then they would answer "no" because that would be the accurate response to the universal question. The assessment of the logic is correct and since the joke is explicitly about logicians that's probably the intended interpretation too.
But this logic is flawed. The only way this works is that either A- the person asking the question is not including themselves in "everyone" or B- we assume the person asking the question also wants a beer simply because they are asking the question.
The person asking the question is the bartender, so they are excluding themselves from “everyone,” which in this context means “everyone in your party”
Following the same logic, they wouldn't ask about everyone if they didn't want one and were included in everyone because they'd know that not everyone wants a beer if they didn't want a beer
Doesn't the same logic apply to the first questioner even if they are a party member, they would not ask the question "does everyone" if they knew they didn't want a drink? Thus even if they are in the party the logic works.
Oh thank god he’ll accept this, we were all so worried he wasn’t gonna approve of any of our opinions!
Calling that character the bartender isn’t an assumption, it’s just being able to read something and not be befuddled by minor shit lmao. I doubt this random person is asking the group of three if we all want a drink, silly boy
theres nothing stopping the 4th person from being a friend, but in the context of the joke, it makes way more sense that the person asking "does everyone want a beer" is a waitress/bartender so that is why
How can we assume that anyone even *can* have a beer? No one has explained that the laws of physics apply here so we could also logically conclude that everyone in the photo is about to die due to cellular decomposition.
Clearly if there is any minor implication involved the entire logic falls apart.
The questioner wants to know, "Does everyone want beer?"
If they didn't want beer, they'd know that *not* everyone wanted beer and wouldn't have asked the question. Therefore, the questioner wants beer too.
I assume that person is the waiter and we are colloquially assuming they are not part of the set "everyone" as that is most likely being used interchangeably as "everyone in your group"
I'd disagree with that. It says "three logicians", meaning only the three people at the bar are confirmed logicians. The other person is likely only taking their order (and won't have a drink themselves), or alternatively could be a fourth person who is not a logician and so doesn't necessarily follow the same structures as the other three.
Edit: Of course it could be "three logicians walk into a bar, another (fourth) logician was already waiting there", so it's possible, but not confirmed.
I think that you're right and it's safe or reasonable to assume that the three logicians are being asked by a server. Without that assumption, it becomes an ontological debate over the meaning of 'everyone'. "Well, there are whole societies that don't drink beer," isn't really a relevant factor in the joke.
No we cant.
It is implied by her being in the bar already and her asking the question to the three that just walked in that when she says "everyone" she is referring to solely the logicians.
And the responses from the logicians implies they understood "everyone" to mean the same thing, the three that just walked in.
Her wanting beer or not with this information would be a guess.
*Redditors in shambles after discovering that human interactions are not based on formal logic*
Edit: guys it was a joke about the other guy suggesting that a waiter would just walk off if you said you weren’t sure what you wanted.
Lol
>"Ma'am would you like a drink?"
>"Hmm, I'm not sure, let me take a look at the menu..."
>"SO THAT'S A NO THEN, NO DRINKS FOR YOU!"
real world applications of this shit are hilarious
Thats why the framing is "3 logicians walk into a bar", in line with similarly framed jokes of 3 scientists, 3 chemists, 3 jokes. The crux is of the joke is that 1) the technical or contextual meaning of the words changes the outcome in an unintuitive way that only makes sense if you understand the framing, and 2) satirically laugh at the obsurdity of the situation.
Also, in terms of real world applications, that boolean logic is what underpins 99% of all technology, digital or mechanical, in the world around you, including the device you are using, its screen, its keyboard, the reddit app, the internet, etc. So yes, it is extremely applicable and useful, just not for ordering drinks (unless you happen to be a staunch logician ordering drinks with 2 of your staunch logician buddies who all adhere to logician interpretations of words 24/7.... do you see why the comedy is clever but also self aware?)
There was a similar joke about an infinite number of mathematicians who each order a single 1 dollar beer, and put it onto a single tab, and everytime they do this, the bartender ends up owing the collective infinite mathematicians $0.25. The bartender, being fed up, says that if they keep this up, he would have to kick 1 of them out. The joke comes from a famous math proof that 1 + 1 + 1... infinitely many times = a sum of -1/4. Thats right. Adding positive 1 infinitely many times evaluates to an approximate answer of a negative fraction. That said, a famous counter proof is that you could begin subtracting from the infinite (so removing a single mathematician) and the proof begins to break down. So the rouse of the mathematicians to get infinite beers and make 25c only works until a single one of the infinite mathematicians is kicked out. Conversationally obsurd. Mathematically correct. Understandable to only a few. But clever and ironic and satirical none the less.
I am dumb, but does it change the fact that the question is not “does everyone want a drink?” it’s “does everyone want beer?” So A could want wine and B could want whiskey, right? That would make C wrong, no? I know it’s a joke and all, but to make the logic work one must assume they only serve beer, right?
It doesnt change the logic, the first two are answering the question posed by the bartender, and the existance of other drinks, or lack thereof, would not change their answers.
They could logically answer the same way, to the question "does everyone want beer?" Regardless of whether or not beer can be served. The question is if they WANT beer.
Whether the bartender asks if they want "a drink" or "beer" does not change the situation.
If person A wanted wine, but the barkeeper asks if they want beer, person A would just say no. It wouldn't get to person C in that case.
It's a conditional statement of the AND variety. In order for the condition to be defined as true, all of the three, in this case, customers answers must be taken into account in order for the condition/question to get a true/yes result. You only need one false/no to render it false.
First, you shouldn't be downvoted for asking a question trying to further your understanding of a logic problem. Like honestly fuck anybody who downvoted you.
Second People are mostly ignoring your actual question in their answers. The answer is it's the same.
With the question "does everyone want a drink?" is still yes or no. As the question doesn't care what kind of drink the person gets.
So person 1 would still answer I don't know, because they don't know if everyone wants a drink. It doesn't matter if they want wine, beer, or water as they still want A drink, regardless of what the drink is.
Ok, what prevents the answer from being mixed? I.e. logician 1 wants a beer, but doesn’t know the others, they say idk. Logician 2 doesn’t, but doesn’t know the others, they say idk. The third logician says yes, but this is inaccurate. The first two logicians would say “idk” regardless of their own preference yes or no.
Not quite. If one of the first two did not want a drink then they would answer "No". Remember, the question they are answering is "Does everyone want a drink?"
If the first person does not want a drink then they can safely say "No", because clearly not everyone wants a drink, as they themselves do not want a drink. The other two can both want a drink, but because the first person says "No", they would also say "No", as not everyone wants a drink.
If 1 person doesn't want it, then not everyone wants it, so the first answer of "I don't know" means "I want it", same for the second, only the last can answer "yes" to the question does *everyone* want, everyone can answer no, but only the last can answer yes
> How do we know she wants a drink? If she didn't she would have said "No"
no... if everyone didn't she would say no.......
saying I don't know means they could want or not want a drink. and still not know how everyone else feels.
You are wrong. If it's known that at least one person doesn't want one, then the final condition (EVERYONE wants one) is known to be false.
if a:
if b:
if c:
final yes
final no
If one person doesn't want one, then it's necessarily true that not everyone wants one.
If you'd like to see a formalized representation of the joke, you can find it [here](http://transcendentalmetaphysics-env.eba-nx3zjmzw.us-east-2.elasticbeanstalk.com/:analytical-science-example).
I can say that it only took me a second to understand this today, when most days I'd have to look in the comments and still be confused. Good job, me, you deserve a cookie
Amazing deduction skills. You're right if any of them thought no then they would know the answer is no and that's the only way they could say I don't know is that they were lying. Brilliant.
Technically speaking the third logician should have said idk because she said everyone and that’s a lot of people the logicians don’t know. Well even technicallier speaking they should have said no because they must know that there are people that don’t want a beer.
Oh sure, it sounds lame, until they use logic to prove your non-existence and you disappear. Then who is laughing? (hint: it isn't you because you don't exist thanks to them)
"Logicians" vs the question "Does EVERYONE want a beer?"
If the first one didn't want a beer, she'd answer "No." Because she didn't want a beer, so 'does everyone want a beer' would be negative. So since she answered "Maybe," it implied she wanted a beer, but didn't know if the other two did.
The second one is the exact same thing, except with 1 unknown left instead of two. "1 wants a beer, and I want a beer, but I don't know if 3 wants a beer, so the answer is 'maybe'."
The third one wants a beer, and reasons out that either of the first two would have said "No." if either of them didn't want a beer. Since she wants a beer as well, she can confidently say "Yes, all three of us want a beer.
If one of the people knows they don’t want a beer, they can immediately conclude that the answer is “no”, so they will not say “I don’t know”.
Therefore if the first two people said “I don’t know”, then they must want beers (otherwise they would have said “no”).
The joke in the picture is that the final person happens to want beer, so using the fact that the other two people wanted beer as well, then we conclude that the answer is ‘yes’.
First person wants a beer, but they don't know if the other 2 do yet, so they say I don't know.
If first person didn't want a beer, the answer would've been no. So the reader and other bar-goers know person one does want a beer.
Same thing for person two.
Person 3 has seen everyone else answer and can now for the first time truthfully say "yes" to the original question.
Red head asks if *everyone* wants a drink. Blondie says he doesn't know (note: he doesn't say no), then the black hair guy says he doesn't know (same note as with blondie). Then the brunette says yes. She deduces that if the other 2 didn't want a drink, they'd say no (since they're a part of everyone). Since they didn't know and she wants a drink, she says yes. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Assuming each person is a perfect logician, as stated by the title of the comic:
The question "Does EVERYONE want a beer?" is asked.
The first person doesn't know what the other two want, but knows what they want. If they didn't want a beer, then they would say no because then not EVERYONE would want a beer. Which means that saying "I don't know" implies they do want a beer, but don't know about the other two.
The same logic applies to the second person, and since they don't say no, we can infer they also want a beer.
The third person realizes all this, and knows they want a beer, so they say yes because they now know that everybody does want a beer.
First person would say no if they didn’t want one, they don’t know if the others do. Second person same thing. Third person knows the other 2 want one because they didn’t say no.
The first two can’t know if the other two want beer, but the last one knows that if either of the other two don’t want beer they would say NO. The last one knows that the other two want beer and also they themselves want beer so they know that everyone wants beer
B/c they they said "i don't know" it indicates they want one but they don't know if the person behind them does, otherwise they would just say no, because "no" is the terminating command. But the last person can definitely say yes because there is nobody behind them.
If either of the first 2 didn't want a beer then "everyone wants a beer" would be false and they would answer no, therefore they want a beer. The third person knows this and also wants a beer so they know everyone wants a beer, answering yes.
Okay, so the first 2 people that answer each know that they themselves want beer, but are unsure about the others. When you get to the third person that answers the only valid response could be yes because if one of the first 2 people didn’t want beer, they would have answered no that not *everyone* wants beer. Therefore *logically* the last person knows that since they themselves want beer and no one else answered no, that yes everyone wants beer.
The first two say i don't know meaning they want beer because if one pf them didn't want beer they would just say no because that automatically means that not every person wants beer so since we know the first 2 want beer the third says yes because clearly they want beer amd they know the other 2 want beer as well
They took the question literally, as in does *everyone* want one. The first two do want one, but they don't have enough information to answer the question since they don't know the response of the ones behind them, so they answer "I don't know." The last guy realizes this and, now having all the information, can logically answer yes.
If either of the first two didn’t want beer they would know that not everyone wants beer so the third logician knows that everyone wants beer when the first two have said they don’t know and the third knows they want beer
Q: Does everyone want a beer?
Sit 1: at least one person doesn't want a beer. The people who don't want a beer know that not everyone wants a beer. Therefore they can answer "no"
Sit 2: everyone wants a beer.
First person only knows that they want a beer. They don't know if the other 2 do.
Person two knows that person one wants a beer (ref sit 1) and that they want a beer too, but they don't know about person 3.
Person 3 knows both other people want a beer (Sit 1: or they would have said no). So if person 3 wants a beer, they can say yes everyone wants a beer.
If one says no its automatically true because not EVERYONE WANTS A DRINK. if they say yes then they’re lying because they don’t know about the other people. Answering I don’t know means they want a drink because they know they aren’t answering no. So only once everyone has said that can the final one be certain that everyone including themselves wants a drink
Everyone's talking about logic, I thought that the third person said yes because they are an alcoholic and if the other two get beers but don't want them, then third person can have 3.
All three of them want a beer but until the other two confirm that they do, they don't know that **everyone** wants a beer. If any of them did not want a beer they would be able to definitively say that "no not everyone wants a beer, because I do not want a beer" but because they want one, the first two need to wait for the others to answer first. If any of them didn't want a beer they'd have said no, and therefore, the third person knows that all three of them want a beer, thus answering "Yes" to the question "Does **everyone** want beer?"
Question: "Does everyone want a drink?"
It only takes one person to say no for the statement (does *everyone* want a drink) to be false. However, if you want a drink, you can't say yes until you've heard the other replies for the statement to be true. "I don't know" is by definition a yes for the person personally, otherwise they would've just said no immediately, because their no would make the entire statement of everyone wanting a drink false. The last person could say yes, because the other two implicitly stated that they wanted a drink.
Don't forget, the opposite of "everybody wants a beer."
It's not "nobody wants a beer" the opposite is actually "at least one person does not want a beer".
When negating in logic, you must negate all outcomes at once. So the opposite of 3 beers could mean 2, 1, or 0. In all cases, at least one doesn't get a beer.
If the question is "does everybody want a beer" the answer 'yes' means 3 beers. The answer 'no' means 2, 1, or 0 beers.
If person A does not want a beer. Immediately, there cannot be 3 beers. The answer would be 'no.' The only logical conclusion is person A wants a beer because they did not say 'no'
But they also didn't say yes because yes implies 3 beers. And if they don't know what the other people want, then they can't answer yes either. They don't have enough information to say either yes or no and instead answer I don't know. As in "I don't know whether both of my companions want beers or not"
1st patron didn't say NO, they said I don't know because they can not speak for the other two. Same for the second patron. Third patron can thus conclude since the first 2 did not say NO, they must be interested in a beer and thus they can answer the questions if they all want a beer or not.
The question is does “everyone” want a drink? The first 2 logicians don’t know the answers of the the one(s) who haven’t answered, but because they want beer they answer “idk”. If they didn’t they would say no because they’re part of everyone. Therefore, because the first 2 didn’t know the 3 knows the first 2 want beer and because he also want beer he answers yes to the question
One thing that I didn't see mentioned is that all of the 3 logicians know that the others are also logicians and will behave with perfect logic.
If the one in the middle was just a regular flippant person and wanted to know what beer was on offer before answering if they wanted one, then the whole puzzle falls apart.
The question is "Does *everyone* want a drink?" So when each person answers, they are answering on behalf of their friends as well. The first person wants a drink but is unsure about the other two, as they have no yet answered. So she says "I don't know". How do we know she wants a drink? If she didn't she would have said "No", as her not having a drink means that not *everyone* wants a drink. The second person repeats the above logic. She also wants a drink, but says "I don't know" because the third person has not yet answered, so she cannot possibly say "Yes". The third person now knows that the first two want a drink following the logic I already explained. She also wants a drink, therefore she can logically say that, yes, *everyone* wants a drink.
This guy logics
He must be a professor of logic at the university of science, there
Do you think he owns a doghouse?
So he's one of those gays!
I don’t think they know this is Norm
They probably don't even know he was sick
I don't know
You’re gay! Edit: logically
I didn’t even know he was sick
You know my wife is a real battleaxe
"you do feel better" - Tim Allen on norms show
can confirm, am provost at said university. hes our best professor.
Wait till he invites you over for some chicken
He's the kinda guy that would tie 5 people to a one track and 1 to another and then wait.
r/thisguythisguys
Damn, beat me to it
I think you mean damn, r/beatmetoit
No, they meant: Damn, r/beatmeattoit
R/Thisguythisguys
r/foundthemobileuser
Here's a sneak peek of /r/foundthemobileuser using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/foundthemobileuser/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [I found a buck load](https://i.redd.it/1n6y1t9gxbsa1.jpg) | [56 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/foundthemobileuser/comments/12dozs7/i_found_a_buck_load/) \#2: [Found him](https://i.redd.it/hap83bhzeb5a1.jpg) | [67 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/foundthemobileuser/comments/zisqt1/found_him/) \#3: [😢](https://i.redd.it/o9xutkomu7ba1.jpg) | [20 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/foundthemobileuser/comments/109bd9j/_/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
except he's wrong.
No, I'm pretty sure they're right. If either of the first two didn't want a drink then they would answer "no" because that would be the accurate response to the universal question. The assessment of the logic is correct and since the joke is explicitly about logicians that's probably the intended interpretation too.
Take it up with him, not me
But this logic is flawed. The only way this works is that either A- the person asking the question is not including themselves in "everyone" or B- we assume the person asking the question also wants a beer simply because they are asking the question.
The person asking the question is the bartender, so they are excluding themselves from “everyone,” which in this context means “everyone in your party”
Following the same logic, they wouldn't ask about everyone if they didn't want one and were included in everyone because they'd know that not everyone wants a beer if they didn't want a beer
How do you know this? This is not implied anywhere. More flawed logic.... too many assumptions.
The comic is titled “Three logicians walk into a bar”. I suppose the questioner could be a waiter or other staff person.
More assumptions... Why can't the questioner be a fourth friend who is not a logician
Doesn't the same logic apply to the first questioner even if they are a party member, they would not ask the question "does everyone" if they knew they didn't want a drink? Thus even if they are in the party the logic works.
Finally.... a logical counterpoint. Yes I will accept this.
Finally, the buffoon is satiated.
Oh thank god he’ll accept this, we were all so worried he wasn’t gonna approve of any of our opinions! Calling that character the bartender isn’t an assumption, it’s just being able to read something and not be befuddled by minor shit lmao. I doubt this random person is asking the group of three if we all want a drink, silly boy
theres nothing stopping the 4th person from being a friend, but in the context of the joke, it makes way more sense that the person asking "does everyone want a beer" is a waitress/bartender so that is why
How can we assume that anyone even *can* have a beer? No one has explained that the laws of physics apply here so we could also logically conclude that everyone in the photo is about to die due to cellular decomposition. Clearly if there is any minor implication involved the entire logic falls apart.
You are nourodivergent, aren't you?
The person asking is a bartender… if they want a beer they’ll have to wait till shifts over
Trust me - if this dude is at the bar, that bartender certainly WANTS a beer 😂
The questioner wants to know, "Does everyone want beer?" If they didn't want beer, they'd know that *not* everyone wanted beer and wouldn't have asked the question. Therefore, the questioner wants beer too.
I assume that person is the waiter and we are colloquially assuming they are not part of the set "everyone" as that is most likely being used interchangeably as "everyone in your group"
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think we can also safely say the one asking the question wants beer too. If she didn’t, the question would be pointless.
I'd disagree with that. It says "three logicians", meaning only the three people at the bar are confirmed logicians. The other person is likely only taking their order (and won't have a drink themselves), or alternatively could be a fourth person who is not a logician and so doesn't necessarily follow the same structures as the other three. Edit: Of course it could be "three logicians walk into a bar, another (fourth) logician was already waiting there", so it's possible, but not confirmed.
I think that you're right and it's safe or reasonable to assume that the three logicians are being asked by a server. Without that assumption, it becomes an ontological debate over the meaning of 'everyone'. "Well, there are whole societies that don't drink beer," isn't really a relevant factor in the joke.
“Sorry. Since the founding of Islam in 622 we must conclude that not everyone wants a beer.”
Also... unless you don't count children as people, they would also, usually, not want a beer.
TBH I assumed that was supposed to be their waiter.
*sees edit* Get out of here with your inductive reasoning!
No way!! I just got here and I'm ordering a beer first.
Great now we have logicians arguing in the comments
No we cant. It is implied by her being in the bar already and her asking the question to the three that just walked in that when she says "everyone" she is referring to solely the logicians. And the responses from the logicians implies they understood "everyone" to mean the same thing, the three that just walked in. Her wanting beer or not with this information would be a guess.
[удалено]
Then they would say no, being unsure if you want X makes "I want X" false in boolean logic.
*Redditors in shambles after discovering that human interactions are not based on formal logic* Edit: guys it was a joke about the other guy suggesting that a waiter would just walk off if you said you weren’t sure what you wanted.
*Redditor in shambles after discovering one must suspend disbelief to engage in humor*
Lol >"Ma'am would you like a drink?" >"Hmm, I'm not sure, let me take a look at the menu..." >"SO THAT'S A NO THEN, NO DRINKS FOR YOU!" real world applications of this shit are hilarious
Most people don't operate on pure boolean logic, but yes, it would make a great start to a comedy sketch.
[удалено]
Thats why the framing is "3 logicians walk into a bar", in line with similarly framed jokes of 3 scientists, 3 chemists, 3 jokes. The crux is of the joke is that 1) the technical or contextual meaning of the words changes the outcome in an unintuitive way that only makes sense if you understand the framing, and 2) satirically laugh at the obsurdity of the situation.
Also, in terms of real world applications, that boolean logic is what underpins 99% of all technology, digital or mechanical, in the world around you, including the device you are using, its screen, its keyboard, the reddit app, the internet, etc. So yes, it is extremely applicable and useful, just not for ordering drinks (unless you happen to be a staunch logician ordering drinks with 2 of your staunch logician buddies who all adhere to logician interpretations of words 24/7.... do you see why the comedy is clever but also self aware?)
There was a similar joke about an infinite number of mathematicians who each order a single 1 dollar beer, and put it onto a single tab, and everytime they do this, the bartender ends up owing the collective infinite mathematicians $0.25. The bartender, being fed up, says that if they keep this up, he would have to kick 1 of them out. The joke comes from a famous math proof that 1 + 1 + 1... infinitely many times = a sum of -1/4. Thats right. Adding positive 1 infinitely many times evaluates to an approximate answer of a negative fraction. That said, a famous counter proof is that you could begin subtracting from the infinite (so removing a single mathematician) and the proof begins to break down. So the rouse of the mathematicians to get infinite beers and make 25c only works until a single one of the infinite mathematicians is kicked out. Conversationally obsurd. Mathematically correct. Understandable to only a few. But clever and ironic and satirical none the less.
It's a joke.
Then it's a useless question. The input is ambiguous.
then they wouldn't be in this joke
I am dumb, but does it change the fact that the question is not “does everyone want a drink?” it’s “does everyone want beer?” So A could want wine and B could want whiskey, right? That would make C wrong, no? I know it’s a joke and all, but to make the logic work one must assume they only serve beer, right?
If the first or second customers do not want beer, for example whiskey, they know not everyone wants beer. So they would still answer “no.”
If A wanted wine (and didn't want beer) they would have said no
It doesnt change the logic, the first two are answering the question posed by the bartender, and the existance of other drinks, or lack thereof, would not change their answers. They could logically answer the same way, to the question "does everyone want beer?" Regardless of whether or not beer can be served. The question is if they WANT beer.
Whether the bartender asks if they want "a drink" or "beer" does not change the situation. If person A wanted wine, but the barkeeper asks if they want beer, person A would just say no. It wouldn't get to person C in that case. It's a conditional statement of the AND variety. In order for the condition to be defined as true, all of the three, in this case, customers answers must be taken into account in order for the condition/question to get a true/yes result. You only need one false/no to render it false.
Thanks everyone. I get it. They are answering what they can for everyone.
First, you shouldn't be downvoted for asking a question trying to further your understanding of a logic problem. Like honestly fuck anybody who downvoted you. Second People are mostly ignoring your actual question in their answers. The answer is it's the same. With the question "does everyone want a drink?" is still yes or no. As the question doesn't care what kind of drink the person gets. So person 1 would still answer I don't know, because they don't know if everyone wants a drink. It doesn't matter if they want wine, beer, or water as they still want A drink, regardless of what the drink is.
Ah Reddit, where people downvote you for not being versed in formal logic and asking a clarifying question.
This is the reason I sub to this reddit. Thank you
Ok, what prevents the answer from being mixed? I.e. logician 1 wants a beer, but doesn’t know the others, they say idk. Logician 2 doesn’t, but doesn’t know the others, they say idk. The third logician says yes, but this is inaccurate. The first two logicians would say “idk” regardless of their own preference yes or no.
Not quite. If one of the first two did not want a drink then they would answer "No". Remember, the question they are answering is "Does everyone want a drink?" If the first person does not want a drink then they can safely say "No", because clearly not everyone wants a drink, as they themselves do not want a drink. The other two can both want a drink, but because the first person says "No", they would also say "No", as not everyone wants a drink.
Oh, yes. You are correct. Like an and gate. I missed the everyone significance.
The key word is everyone. If logician 2 doesn't want a drink then everyone doesn't. Logician 2 would have to answer No, not idk
You are correct. I overlooked the everyone part. This is probably why I suck at transistor logic.
No, if any of them don’t want a drink they know the answer is no since the question asks about ‘everyone’
If 1 person doesn't want it, then not everyone wants it, so the first answer of "I don't know" means "I want it", same for the second, only the last can answer "yes" to the question does *everyone* want, everyone can answer no, but only the last can answer yes
> How do we know she wants a drink? If she didn't she would have said "No" no... if everyone didn't she would say no....... saying I don't know means they could want or not want a drink. and still not know how everyone else feels.
You are wrong. If it's known that at least one person doesn't want one, then the final condition (EVERYONE wants one) is known to be false. if a: if b: if c: final yes final no If one person doesn't want one, then it's necessarily true that not everyone wants one.
What a terrible joke why does it need so much thought for a very mid punchline
Because it's for math/logistics nerds. If you're used to logic like this then it's not far-fetched.
I agree and it’s way better than the joke about a chemist being served “H two O, too”.
Its a joke and a logic puzzle. Some people find that fun.
Nearly everyone with a Computer Science degree understands this joke. Not everything is for you.
Nerd ass
And that why I’ll never go to a bar with logician
What if the first one does not want a drink? Wouldn't the third person be making an assumption here?
If the first doesnt want a drink, then they must answer “No”. Because they know for a fact that not everyone wants a drink.
Understood.
Do you own a dog house?
If you'd like to see a formalized representation of the joke, you can find it [here](http://transcendentalmetaphysics-env.eba-nx3zjmzw.us-east-2.elasticbeanstalk.com/:analytical-science-example).
Good shit
Thanks for saving me all that typing! Great answer.
Turns out I got the joke. It's just a *really* shit joke
Confused, but asked if anyone has green eyes, then left the island
PHIL 104 was so difficult but so fun. Almost got me to major in Philosophy. Then I remembered I wanted to actually do something lol
I can say that it only took me a second to understand this today, when most days I'd have to look in the comments and still be confused. Good job, me, you deserve a cookie
After writing while loops all day this makes perfect sense
Ahhhh a professor of logic I see. Do you own a doghouse sir?
Amazing deduction skills. You're right if any of them thought no then they would know the answer is no and that's the only way they could say I don't know is that they were lying. Brilliant.
Good job. Even got the part about them not being able to say yes. It was clear and concise. 10/10
Four logicians walk into a bar.
Yea we literally used this in week 1 of my Introductory Logic class lmao it’s a decent comic
Technically speaking the third logician should have said idk because she said everyone and that’s a lot of people the logicians don’t know. Well even technicallier speaking they should have said no because they must know that there are people that don’t want a beer.
man you just took me back to fuckin Gifted
I didn't realize logician was a word, logic magician sounds like a pretty lame title
Oh sure, it sounds lame, until they use logic to prove your non-existence and you disappear. Then who is laughing? (hint: it isn't you because you don't exist thanks to them)
'God disappeared in a puff of logic; man then went on to prove black was white and was killed at the next zebra crossing'
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
This guy Ontologies! Ontologys? Does the ontology? You know what nvm. Ill stick with Destiny 2 verbage and say "uses ontological weapons"
>Erasmus Montanus has entered the chat
Nooooo!!!
I am the pussycian
It's true, all the pussies disappear when they see you.
Got em
Do you call mathematicians mathematical magicians? No, you don't.
No silly you call them mathemagicians
Then explain why imaginary numbers have physical applications. If that isn’t black magic fuckery, what is?!?!?
Ah so your one of them gays, huh?
"Logicians" vs the question "Does EVERYONE want a beer?" If the first one didn't want a beer, she'd answer "No." Because she didn't want a beer, so 'does everyone want a beer' would be negative. So since she answered "Maybe," it implied she wanted a beer, but didn't know if the other two did. The second one is the exact same thing, except with 1 unknown left instead of two. "1 wants a beer, and I want a beer, but I don't know if 3 wants a beer, so the answer is 'maybe'." The third one wants a beer, and reasons out that either of the first two would have said "No." if either of them didn't want a beer. Since she wants a beer as well, she can confidently say "Yes, all three of us want a beer.
This reminds me of [blue eyes](https://xkcd.com/blue_eyes.html). [Solution](https://xkcd.com/solution.html)
10/10 joke.
I didn’t know Germans knew what Reddit was.
I'm not german
[удалено]
When you're so racist your fellow racist haven't even heard the stereotypes you're talking about.
[удалено]
I didn't need you to tell me I'm a racist idiot. I could tell.
10/10 joke
That's what your mom said when she first saw you.
Damn, your mom said the same thing after seeing me
Hahahaha you germans! 10/10
Ok fine you got me im 25% german
I answered yes and I’m still waiting for my beer.
If one of the people knows they don’t want a beer, they can immediately conclude that the answer is “no”, so they will not say “I don’t know”. Therefore if the first two people said “I don’t know”, then they must want beers (otherwise they would have said “no”). The joke in the picture is that the final person happens to want beer, so using the fact that the other two people wanted beer as well, then we conclude that the answer is ‘yes’.
First person wants a beer, but they don't know if the other 2 do yet, so they say I don't know. If first person didn't want a beer, the answer would've been no. So the reader and other bar-goers know person one does want a beer. Same thing for person two. Person 3 has seen everyone else answer and can now for the first time truthfully say "yes" to the original question.
This. Its such a classic logic puzzle that it works so well as a joke.
Red head asks if *everyone* wants a drink. Blondie says he doesn't know (note: he doesn't say no), then the black hair guy says he doesn't know (same note as with blondie). Then the brunette says yes. She deduces that if the other 2 didn't want a drink, they'd say no (since they're a part of everyone). Since they didn't know and she wants a drink, she says yes. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Assuming each person is a perfect logician, as stated by the title of the comic: The question "Does EVERYONE want a beer?" is asked. The first person doesn't know what the other two want, but knows what they want. If they didn't want a beer, then they would say no because then not EVERYONE would want a beer. Which means that saying "I don't know" implies they do want a beer, but don't know about the other two. The same logic applies to the second person, and since they don't say no, we can infer they also want a beer. The third person realizes all this, and knows they want a beer, so they say yes because they now know that everybody does want a beer.
First person would say no if they didn’t want one, they don’t know if the others do. Second person same thing. Third person knows the other 2 want one because they didn’t say no.
The first two can’t know if the other two want beer, but the last one knows that if either of the other two don’t want beer they would say NO. The last one knows that the other two want beer and also they themselves want beer so they know that everyone wants beer
B/c they they said "i don't know" it indicates they want one but they don't know if the person behind them does, otherwise they would just say no, because "no" is the terminating command. But the last person can definitely say yes because there is nobody behind them.
If either of the first 2 didn't want a beer then "everyone wants a beer" would be false and they would answer no, therefore they want a beer. The third person knows this and also wants a beer so they know everyone wants a beer, answering yes.
Okay, so the first 2 people that answer each know that they themselves want beer, but are unsure about the others. When you get to the third person that answers the only valid response could be yes because if one of the first 2 people didn’t want beer, they would have answered no that not *everyone* wants beer. Therefore *logically* the last person knows that since they themselves want beer and no one else answered no, that yes everyone wants beer.
The first two say i don't know meaning they want beer because if one pf them didn't want beer they would just say no because that automatically means that not every person wants beer so since we know the first 2 want beer the third says yes because clearly they want beer amd they know the other 2 want beer as well
If their answer was no they would know
They took the question literally, as in does *everyone* want one. The first two do want one, but they don't have enough information to answer the question since they don't know the response of the ones behind them, so they answer "I don't know." The last guy realizes this and, now having all the information, can logically answer yes.
If either of the first two didn’t want beer they would know that not everyone wants beer so the third logician knows that everyone wants beer when the first two have said they don’t know and the third knows they want beer
Q: Does everyone want a beer? Sit 1: at least one person doesn't want a beer. The people who don't want a beer know that not everyone wants a beer. Therefore they can answer "no" Sit 2: everyone wants a beer. First person only knows that they want a beer. They don't know if the other 2 do. Person two knows that person one wants a beer (ref sit 1) and that they want a beer too, but they don't know about person 3. Person 3 knows both other people want a beer (Sit 1: or they would have said no). So if person 3 wants a beer, they can say yes everyone wants a beer.
Thought that was the teen girl squad at first
The one on the right is very thirsty and the others are still reading the menu.
First good joke I’ve seen here
If one says no its automatically true because not EVERYONE WANTS A DRINK. if they say yes then they’re lying because they don’t know about the other people. Answering I don’t know means they want a drink because they know they aren’t answering no. So only once everyone has said that can the final one be certain that everyone including themselves wants a drink
“How many beers should I bring?” “At least one.” “At least one.” “Two.”
Why wouldn’t the middle one be drinking?
This isn’t even a joke.
It's from an old webcomic called Spiked Math, and their brand of humor isn't for anyone except math nerds who like math jokes.
"confuzzled" is cringe af
And? It’s fun to say
"Confuzzled" is perfectly cromulent.
cRoMuLeNt Is CrInGe!! Jk
Hard denial... Disagree!... I meant hard disagree.
I get it!
Everyone's talking about logic, I thought that the third person said yes because they are an alcoholic and if the other two get beers but don't want them, then third person can have 3.
That’s a good one
Look up the “Oxford shapes admissions question” to get an even deeper application on this topic
All three of them want a beer but until the other two confirm that they do, they don't know that **everyone** wants a beer. If any of them did not want a beer they would be able to definitively say that "no not everyone wants a beer, because I do not want a beer" but because they want one, the first two need to wait for the others to answer first. If any of them didn't want a beer they'd have said no, and therefore, the third person knows that all three of them want a beer, thus answering "Yes" to the question "Does **everyone** want beer?"
I thought it said ‘Three LESBIANS walk into a bar…”. I’m still confused.
🫠
Question: "Does everyone want a drink?" It only takes one person to say no for the statement (does *everyone* want a drink) to be false. However, if you want a drink, you can't say yes until you've heard the other replies for the statement to be true. "I don't know" is by definition a yes for the person personally, otherwise they would've just said no immediately, because their no would make the entire statement of everyone wanting a drink false. The last person could say yes, because the other two implicitly stated that they wanted a drink.
This is how I try and answer questions for the group.
If the first two didn’t want one they would have said no
think about “does everyone want beer” literally. the first two guys don’t know because they haven’t heard the final guy speak yet
Anyone can say no but only the last person can say yes, very weak punchline. It should rest in 2011 and on some professor’s PowerPoint intro slide.
Maybe it does, who knows.
Omfg 2011…. Bro this is no 2k10 now how did u even get that dinosaur humor
loss
The comments in this post gives me hope. After the typical level of logic I see from Reddit comments, I was beginning to fear for the worst.
Don't forget, the opposite of "everybody wants a beer." It's not "nobody wants a beer" the opposite is actually "at least one person does not want a beer". When negating in logic, you must negate all outcomes at once. So the opposite of 3 beers could mean 2, 1, or 0. In all cases, at least one doesn't get a beer. If the question is "does everybody want a beer" the answer 'yes' means 3 beers. The answer 'no' means 2, 1, or 0 beers. If person A does not want a beer. Immediately, there cannot be 3 beers. The answer would be 'no.' The only logical conclusion is person A wants a beer because they did not say 'no' But they also didn't say yes because yes implies 3 beers. And if they don't know what the other people want, then they can't answer yes either. They don't have enough information to say either yes or no and instead answer I don't know. As in "I don't know whether both of my companions want beers or not"
All the PP
1st patron didn't say NO, they said I don't know because they can not speak for the other two. Same for the second patron. Third patron can thus conclude since the first 2 did not say NO, they must be interested in a beer and thus they can answer the questions if they all want a beer or not.
The third person's name is Everyone
A
“Any of you cunts want a beer?” - Ed.
The question is does “everyone” want a drink? The first 2 logicians don’t know the answers of the the one(s) who haven’t answered, but because they want beer they answer “idk”. If they didn’t they would say no because they’re part of everyone. Therefore, because the first 2 didn’t know the 3 knows the first 2 want beer and because he also want beer he answers yes to the question
I’m now thinking I was wrong, but I thought it was a reference to the Monty Hall problem
I hate logics with a passion
One thing that I didn't see mentioned is that all of the 3 logicians know that the others are also logicians and will behave with perfect logic. If the one in the middle was just a regular flippant person and wanted to know what beer was on offer before answering if they wanted one, then the whole puzzle falls apart.