Diagram

[yoohoo081]

PT1SEC2GAME1.png

(9.49 KiB) Downloaded 1179 times

Can you check to see if I could've done a better job with this game please?

PT1SEC2GAME1-2.png

(9.58 KiB) Downloaded 722 times

inference I made

[ohthatpatrick]

I definitely agree with most of what you did with that setup.

These circular games are off-putting at first, but we can construe them as normal horizontal ordering as long as we remember that spot 1 and spot 6 connect.

I might have drawn some line connecting 1 to 6 to visually remind myself or done something like this:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _
(6)1 2 3 4 5 6

I symbolize the rules about people needing to be together or not allowed to be together a little differently.

I just write the two letters and put a circle around them. The circle is like the cloud, so I'm saying to myself "P and N will be together in whatever order".

For the people who can't be together, I just cross out the circle.

Your way is perfectly fine; it just involves a bit more writing.

In terms of Inferences, I think this is a game that doesn't necessarily lend itself to making inferences. I would probably just go to questions if I were taking this in a timed setting.

I liked a lot of what you were doing, although I wasn't sure why you singled out the hypothetical cases you did.

You wrote:
OPN --> MLK
I think that's right on. I deduced the same thing, in a different way (I'll show you later)

You wrote:
PNL --> MOK
and then later
PNL --> KOM

To me, that's a little confusing. Those seem to contradict each other. If you have PNL, then you either have MOK or KOM, so I guess that's why you broke it up into two conditionals.

You also wrote:
OKP --> NLM
That's possible, but so is OKPNML.

Overall, I thought you were on the right track to simplifying the game, but I felt like you chose some arbitrary clusters of letters, so I couldn't follow how your thought process accounted for all possibilities.

I did something similar to what you were trying (I think). I first realized that even though the game is calling these seats 1 through 6, none of the questions actually refer to these seating positions by number. So ultimately, we can assign any of these people to any seat. The game is more about who can and can't be next to each other.

In any game that gives me a chunk, I start my deductive process with that. In this game, we have a PN chunk. One way to sketch out frames would be to consider who could be next to N. There's only 6 characters, so there are only 4 options for who could be next to PN.

frame 1: PNK
frame 2: PNL
frame 3: PNM
frame 4: PNO

Those frames account for all scenarios, because one of those four letters (k, l, m, o) will always be next to N.

What else can we narrow down in each one?

frame 1: PNK(OLM)
I'm putting O,L,M in a cloud, because they could still occur in a few ways. M can't be next to K, and O can't split up L and M, but there are still three legal ways: OLM, LMO, OML

frame 2: PNL k/m O m/k
We have to separate the K and M, so we know O has to be in the middle.

frame 3: PNM L(KO)
We have to put the L next to M, but then the O and the K are interchangeable.

frame 4: PNO m/k L k/m
We have to separate the K and M, so we know L has to be in the middle

That's as far as I went (and, I'll reiterate, that's already probably farther than we should be going with the setup for this game).

Let me know if this provokes any questions.

Nice work.

[matthew.mainen]

"frame 1: PNK(OLM)
I'm putting O,L,M in a cloud, because they could still occur in a few ways. M can't be next to K, and O can't split up L and M, but there are still three legal ways: OLM, LMO, OML"

I think LMO is actually out, because then you would have PNKLMO.

But the last rule tells us When O is next to P, M can't be next to O.

At any rate, for question 7 - is there a quick way to intuit the answer or is it more of a matter of referring the options back to the frames? In all of the frames, O can be next to K.

[mvonh001]

shouldnt the diagram you came up with consist of
frame 1: PNK
frame 2: PNL
frame 3: PNM
frame 4: PNO

and also
frame 1: NPK
frame 2: NPL
frame 3: NPM
frame 4: NPO

so, therefor, by using your method of notation:

frame 1: (PN)K
frame 2: (PN)L
frame 3: (PN)M
frame 4: (PN)O

[matthew.mainen]

What's the intuition behind framing around NP rather than LM/LN/MLN? The former works much better, but how could I know that upfront?