Conditional Rule

Comments

• 1 Like

  BinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  June 2018 edited June 2018 8716 karma

  Working from memory, isn’t there a rule here where there cannot be two purples in a row? Meaning if there is a purple in 4 there must be a purple in 6?

  Meaning we are fulfilling the three given conditions:
  No consecutive colors
  Must be a purple in 5 or 6
  Purple in 4 forces a purple in 6

  Again, I’m doing this from memory so I could be wrong. Not 100% sure what you mean by “diminished from the game.”

  David

  Edit spelling*
• 1 Like

  BinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  June 2018 8716 karma

  I'm not aware of a situation where all the rules would ever be "wiped out." The rules are our conditions we must abide by in the construction of our game.
• 1 Like

  keets993 Alum Member ⭐ ⏰ 🍌

  June 2018 edited June 2018 6050 karma

  I agree with Dave. I'm not sure what you mean by 'diminished' but when they tell us purple is in 4, the rule about purple must be in 5 or 6 is triggered alongside the rule about no consecutives. So purple must be in 6 because putting it in 5 would contradict the no consecutives rules and I believes there's only 2 purples available. So that's the inference the game wants you to make. Similarly, if we know there's a purple in slot 5, it means that 4 and 6 cannot be purple. Furthermore, all the other rules are still in play.

  The only time a rule can be gotten rid of is if the question directly tells you that the rule 'x - y' is no longer in effect.
  Rules can become irrelvant because of conditional logic though when the sufficient condition is failed/necessary condition is satisfied. However, a rule becoming irrelevant in a given question/situation is not the same as a rule being eliminated.
• 1 Like

  ColinTurner610 Member

  June 2018 381 karma

  Ahhh ok. Yeah I was interpreting it as since the original rule had purple must be in 5 or 6, I took this question as that rule doesn't apply anymore since the question is now saying it can be in 4.
• ColinTurner610 Member

  June 2018 381 karma

  I guess I have to think of conditional rules in questions adding to the original set of rules and not wiping them out?
• keets993 Alum Member ⭐ ⏰ 🍌

  June 2018 6050 karma

  @ColinTurner610 yes think of these conditionals as limiting the worlds available to us.
• 2 Likes

  BinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  June 2018 8716 karma

  Yeah, @ColinTurner610 backing up on what we are doing on LG, in a nutshell:
  we are given a set of conditions that have embedded in both the condition itself and how that condition relates to the other conditions, inherent constraints for our game board.

  So take this game:
  we have 6 spots. We are putting particular things in order.
  given no rules whatsoever, that is like 720 different combinations of these color cars.

  add in the first rule and we have X amount of combinations: notice here that the rule constrains or lowers our number of allowable combinations.
  add the second rule and we have a smaller pool of combinations to draw from.

  add in how rule 1 and rule 2 interact and we have an even smaller amount of possible arrangements:
  meaning, we have a smaller amount of arrangements that "pass" the figurative test of each of those rules.
  We do this for all of the rules.

  We are eventually left with say 10 or 12 different combinations: these are all the valid gameboards. Gameboard that pass every "test." Sometimes this number will be say 5 and we can draw out all of the valid gameboards (gameboards that pass all the "tests" of our rules) and answer the questions directly with reference to our gameboards in front of us. This is called "splitting." AND. IT. IS. AWESOME.

  Now, what exactly are we being tested on here? We are being tested on (the way I see it) our ability to:
  understand the rules
  understand how the rules interact
  understand the constrictions of our gameboard (so for instance here, a total of six spots)
  understand when a particular construction fails or violates our rules
  and finally, understand what happens when a question gives us something additional to work with, like in question 22.

  By giving us something additional to work with, the test writers are (by the forces of the logic inherent in the game) compelling us to look at a specific construction/arrangement of pieces. This arrangement must still "pass" the test of all the rules, in other words, it must be valid.

  Yes to your last question: look at new conditions as adding to the original set of rules, not wiping them out. They are adding something that must cohere with the original rules in such a way that the new construction is valid (i.e. it passes the figurative test of all the rules.)

  *note an exception, every once in awhile we are going to get a question about what could happen that would not allow us to form a valid construction. These are rare.

  Note another exception: rule substitutions, table these for now.

  I hope this overview helps. Please feel free to reach out for additional clarification.

  David
• ColinTurner610 Member

  June 2018 381 karma

  Yes it totally helps David! Thank you so much for the clarification and I will be sure to reach out with any other questions I may have. That question #22 made me put the game down and come back 2 hours later and got me so frustrated because of not knowing about what you said above with "ew conditions adding to the original set of rules!"Thank you!!!!
• KeepCalm Alum Member

  June 2018 807 karma

  Hi @ColinTurner610 ! Unless otherwise stated, never disregard a given rule. On a conditional question, just as @keets993 said, you have to consider the information given as temporarily limiting the world of the game. Temporarily (as the limitations are just for that particular question.)

  I quote @BinghamtonDave "look at new conditions as adding to the original set of rules, not wiping them out."

  
• 1 Like

  ColinTurner610 Member

  June 2018 381 karma

  Yeah that clarifies things. Thank you so much!