Riddle

[Kevin1211]

Given the following statements:

1. No strategist, if he is a good tactician, can lose a battle.
2. An audacious strategist does not fail to have the confidence of his troops.
3. No bad tactician has the confidence of his troops.
4. Women despise only the vanquished.

If the preceding statements are taken as true, can an audacious strategist be despised by women?

 

[TheNinja]

If A+B=C then Ninjas>Pirates ---- so I say yes, it's true.

 

[Schadenfreude]

So is there a presumption that not bad = good?

 

[Agnostos Insania]

Trick question. It implies that women have some sort of logic or pattern in their thought processes.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: Agnostos Insania
Trick question. It implies that women have some sort of logic or pattern in their thought processes.

WINN4R!!!11!!oneoneone

 

[Kevin1211]

Originally posted by: Agnostos Insania
Trick question. It implies that women have some sort of logic or pattern in their thought processes.

its not a trick question. just pretend that the statements are actually true.

 

[kstu]

4. Women despise only the vanquished.

so no

 

[GuitarDaddy]

no

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

Originally posted by: Kevin1211
Given the following statements:

1. No strategist, if he is a good tactician, can lose a battle.
2. An audacious strategist does not fail to have the confidence of his troops.
3. No bad tactician has the confidence of his troops.
4. Women despise only the vanquished.

If the preceding statements are taken as true, can an audacious strategist be despised by women?

It's quite simple, really.

By clue 4, only the vanquished (i.e. battle losers) can be despised by women. Therefore, a strategist, by clue 1, who is a good tactician can not be despised.

Now, clue 3 implies that a good tactician has the confidence of his troops. An audacious strategist also has the confidence of his troops by clue 2.

Therefore, audacious strategists are also good tacticians, and as such they cannot lose a war, and therefore are not despised by women.

 

[Agnostos Insania]

Ignoring the real-world problems of assuming a leader cannot ever fail, an audacious leader cannot be despised by women.

 

[jimbob200521]

no?

 

[Gamer X]

pics ?

 

[dxkj]

Originally posted by: Kevin1211
Given the following statements:

1. No strategist, if he is a good tactician, can lose a battle.
2. An audacious strategist does not fail to have the confidence of his troops.
3. No bad tactician has the confidence of his troops.
4. Women despise only the vanquished.

If the preceding statements are taken as true, can an audacious strategist be despised by women?

strategist + good tactician = cant lose
audacious strategist = confidence of troops
bad tactician != confidence of troops
Women = despise vanquished

audacious strategist != bad tactician

audacious strategist = good tactician

audacious strategist = cannot lose a battle

Women despise vanquished, audacious strategist are never vanquished, so

An audacious strategist cannot be despised by women

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: Gamer X
pics ?

Idiot.

 

[Kevin1211]

thanks giantpinkbunnyhead and dxkj! 🙂

 

[NiteWulf]

The audacious strategist could be a mediocre tactician, having the confidence of his troops but still being vanquished. Women despise the vanquished, so yes

 

[SilentZero]

I conclude that it means Chuck Norris > audacious strategists

 

[Fenixgoon]

yes - no matter how good you are, you can always lose.

 

[Howard]

How is this a riddle?

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Howard
How is this a riddle?

Dunno, but lots of people are getting it wrong.
A implying B is not the same as A therefore with certainty B.
Just because A is true in this riddle does not make B true, which many people seem to take it as doing.

Now, clue 3 implies that a good tactician has the confidence of his troops.

Implies.

audacious strategist != bad tactician

audacious strategist = good tactician

That's quite a leap.

Other people win:

The audacious strategist could be a mediocre tactician, having the confidence of his troops but still being vanquished. Women despise the vanquished, so yes

 

[Agnostos Insania]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
yes - no matter how good you are, you can always lose.

Originally posted by: NiteWulf
The audacious strategist could be a mediocre tactician, having the confidence of his troops but still being vanquished. Women despise the vanquished, so yes

I think you guys are letting real-world common sense dictate your judgement. This is a riddle and the information given is in effect "true". Hence why I added "Ignoring real-world problems" to my answer to the riddle.

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Dunno, but lots of people are getting it wrong.
A implying B is not the same as A therefore with certainty B.
Just because A is true in this riddle does not make B true, which many people seem to take it as doing.

I think you're over-analyzing it. Yes, in reality there's a lot of grey area between "good" and "bad", but in simple riddles like this I don't think it's included. Think of it as similar one of those riddles where there are 5 racers and you have to figure out the order they finished. Just because you're given the fact "Jessica loses 20 seconds on harsh turns" doesn't mean you're supposed to debate what a harsh turn is unless the criteria is given.

 

[yosuke188]

Anything is possible

 

[Jittles]

Yes.

An audacious strategist has the confidence of his troops, but having the confidence of the troops does NOT mean they are a good tactician. A bad tactician has no confidence from troops but it says nothing to the effect that a good tactician could also not have confidence of his troops.

Therefore, the audacious strategist can be despised by women because he is not necessarily a good tactician even though he has the confidence of his troops.

 

[NiteWulf]

Originally posted by: Agnostos Insania
I think you guys are letting real-world common sense dictate your judgement.

Sorry, I'm not going to let this one slide. That's a beautiful statement that's almost perfect for AT forums. 😀