The King counted on the Jester making a deductive error in the second puzzle (namely inferring that the content of the boxes could be deduced from the inscriptions given what the King said), just like the Jester counted on the King making a deductive error in the first puzzle.
In this situation, it is still a correct deduction to say “if the statements are true or false, then the content of the boxes is....” With these contents, these statements aren’t true or false.
Sorry, it’s not clear to me why you wrote this reply. Are you trying to dispute something I said, or are you bringing up an interesting observation for discussion, or what?
It sounds like Jiro was saying that the Jester really does not assume that “The content of the boxes can be deduced from the the inscriptions.” He just assumes “The inscriptions are either true or false,” and it logically follows from what the inscriptions say that he can deduce the contents. So the problem wasn’t making an assumption about how the contents could be discovered, but making an assumption that the inscriptions had to be either true or false.
The king did, however, count on the Jester’s assumption that the content of the boxes could be deduced from the inscriptions.
The King counted on the Jester making a deductive error in the second puzzle (namely inferring that the content of the boxes could be deduced from the inscriptions given what the King said), just like the Jester counted on the King making a deductive error in the first puzzle.
In this situation, it is still a correct deduction to say “if the statements are true or false, then the content of the boxes is....” With these contents, these statements aren’t true or false.
Sorry, it’s not clear to me why you wrote this reply. Are you trying to dispute something I said, or are you bringing up an interesting observation for discussion, or what?
It sounds like Jiro was saying that the Jester really does not assume that “The content of the boxes can be deduced from the the inscriptions.” He just assumes “The inscriptions are either true or false,” and it logically follows from what the inscriptions say that he can deduce the contents. So the problem wasn’t making an assumption about how the contents could be discovered, but making an assumption that the inscriptions had to be either true or false.
Ok, thank you for that clarification.
That is correct.