Category talk:Puzzles

Logic puzzles

Why is there a subcategory called Logic puzzles? By implication all other categories of puzzle do not require logic for their solution - an idea which is patent nonsense. Androstachys (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the subcategory exists because there are puzzles which can be solved using logic alone, i.e. without for instance mathematics or physics or..., but you seem to have removed the word alone from the category description. See also the discussion at Category talk:Logic puzzles. DVdm (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It is becoming tedious to point out that ALL puzzles need logic to arrive at a solution. However, I still breathlessly await the announcement of puzzles arriving at a solution by some other method. Androstachys (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, consider how tedious it becomes to have to point out that, following your line of reasoning, ALL puzzles would be logic puzzles, and there would be no way to categorize a puzzle involving a mathematical formula in one category, and a puzzle involving a syllogism in another category. Some puzzles can be solved with logic only, so we call them logic puzzles, whereas some puzzles need mathematics, which we call math puzzles. Similary we also have language puzzles and "physics puzzles" etc. DVdm (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all - the fact that ALL puzzles are LOGIC PUZZLES does not stop one from categorising them as Chinese puzzles, Fishy puzzles, Obvious puzzles, Puzzles for Morons, Geometry puzzles, Algebra puzzles, Number puzzles, Prime number puzzles, Crossword puzzles, Rude puzzles, Geography puzzles, Puzzles loved by parsons, Religious puzzles........... I'm sure by now you get the point. Androstachys (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. See for instance the classic grid example in logic puzzle. The actual subject (like, say, drinking habbits, smoking habbits, holiday plans, etc...) of this kind of puzzle has no influence on the type of puzzle. It is and remains a logic only puzzle. Hence the name "logic puzzle". DVdm (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Logic, yes - logic only, no. Androstachys (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Really cart before horse stuff - are you suggesting that because someone named it a logic puzzle there must be a category of puzzle called logic? That shows an innocent sort of faith in the infallibility of people. The grid puzzle you mention falls squarely in a branch of mathematics called Boolean algebra. This provides a way of solving such problems by number crunching (after using logic to master the maths). Try it, you might like it. Androstachys (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

O yes, sure, Boolean algebra belongs in logic and in math, and as far as I am concerned the 'logic grid' belongs in a category "logic puzzles", or "Boolean puzzles", or, if you like, even in "math puzzles". But a puzzle that is essentially an application of the circumference of a circle can be categorized as a "geometry puzzle" or a "math puzzle", but definitely not by any stretch of the imagination as a "Boolean puzzle" or as a "logic puzzle". I get the impression that where I see an implication (read, a subset), you see an equivalence (read, set equality). For some reasons unknown to me you clearly insist that logic and mathematics "are virtually synonymous". I don't think they are, that's all. Feel free to ask around, and, if you like, keep me posted. DVdm (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You're too kind...Androstachys (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)