this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2023
119 points (97.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43940 readers
672 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This sounds like something chatGPT could easily convert. Although that is computationally high.
It would also have the side affects of blocking all math illiterate people from creating accounts.
Based on the given statements:
We can deduce the following:
The box is yellow, and according to statement 2, if the box is yellow, it is good.
Now, according to statement 4, for the box to be awesome, it needs to be both good and happy. However, we don't have information about the box being happy. Statement 5 only mentions that if the box is red, it is happy, but we know the box is yellow and red, not just red.
Therefore, based on the given information, we cannot determine whether the box is awesome or not.