But then, do you think the way it is presented—that is, the paragraphs of flowing conversations, of Hermione’s guesses and Harry’s answers—did its part in molding our thinking toward her reasoning? In other words, we (OK, I) were biased by the very literature we were reading and thus couldn’t think straight?
I read these comments first, so I knew that the assumed pattern would be incorrect (without which, it would still be naive of me to expect a non-lateral question from Eliezer). However without being able to test my own inputs I’m not able to reason with any more evidence, so I still couldn’t say if I would have been capable of getting any further. (1 2 5, .3 .2 0 were my reasonable test cases, before I would start being a jackass about complexes and infinities (and indefinities? undefinities? Towers of Babel*)
But I did indeed notice that without a single negative case, she would have been incapable of eliminating “all sets valid”, and am delighted that the next paragraph addresses that.
I believe that the test is hard because of the fact that the pattern involves increasing numbers, not decreasing. I feel that our brains are just primed for increasing numbers since childhood, like if the pattern was decreasing numbers, most people would say “1,2,3” and immediately solve it.
Wow, I failed the 2-4-6 test.
But then, do you think the way it is presented—that is, the paragraphs of flowing conversations, of Hermione’s guesses and Harry’s answers—did its part in molding our thinking toward her reasoning? In other words, we (OK, I) were biased by the very literature we were reading and thus couldn’t think straight?
I read these comments first, so I knew that the assumed pattern would be incorrect (without which, it would still be naive of me to expect a non-lateral question from Eliezer). However without being able to test my own inputs I’m not able to reason with any more evidence, so I still couldn’t say if I would have been capable of getting any further. (1 2 5, .3 .2 0 were my reasonable test cases, before I would start being a jackass about complexes and infinities (and indefinities? undefinities? Towers of Babel*)
But I did indeed notice that without a single negative case, she would have been incapable of eliminating “all sets valid”, and am delighted that the next paragraph addresses that.
I believe that the test is hard because of the fact that the pattern involves increasing numbers, not decreasing. I feel that our brains are just primed for increasing numbers since childhood, like if the pattern was decreasing numbers, most people would say “1,2,3” and immediately solve it.