Logic masters, come in, hurry!! Very headache 30

Is there still 10 pieces left?

If you keep all the 30 yuan left over after buying shoes, then:

owes 500 to my father, 500 to my mother, plus 30 yuan and 1030 yuan to myself; Total: 30 more pieces!

If the remaining 30 yuan is all returned to Mom and Dad, then:

owed a total of 970 yuan to my father and mother; I don't have a cent here; So the total: 30 pieces less!

It can be seen that the "still missing" - or "lost" - how much depends on the "how much has been returned".

Set: borrowed from Dad: x;

Borrowed from mom :y;

It cost to buy leather shoes: z;

At this point there is left: w; w＝x＋y－z；

Return to Daddy: a;

Return to mom :b;

So: Finally, there is left: c; c＝w－a－b＝（x＋y－z）－a－b；

Still owed to Dad: x A;

Still owed to mom: y b;

Total: c (x a) (y b) x y a b c;

Lost money ":( x y) x y a b c a b c;

So: the money you lost" [the money you returned (a b)] the last money you left (c)];

And: the money you start to rest (w)] the money you pay back] [the last money you have left];

Therefore, when the values of a, b, and c are irregular:

You start the rest of the money" Lost money" You start the rest of the money];

Look Again: Lost Money "a b c (a b) w (a b) 2 (a b) w;

w is a constant value, so:

The more money you pay back, the more money you end up "losing"?

1) All changed: "Lost money" happens to be [the money you left at the beginning (w)];

2) Not a penny is exchanged: not only will the money not be less, but it will be more - the more happens to be [the money you left at the beginning (w)];

So: only half of it, i.e.: w 2;(For this question: 15 yuan), in order to ensure that it is just "not losing money and not much money"!

In this question, in the end, 10 yuan was "lost", and the "reason" was "repaid" 5 yuan more, resulting in:

Daddy more: 2 pieces of 5;

Mom more: 2 pieces of 5;

Less by yourself: 5 pieces;

This is where the "lost" 10 dollars goes.

1.The sentence "Only by recognizing mistakes can we correct mistakes" shows that "recognizing mistakes" is a necessary condition for "correcting mistakes", that is, "correcting mistakes" = > "recognizing mistakes".

There are three scenarios:

If it "corrects its mistakes", then it must "recognize its mistakes".

If it fails to "correct its mistakes", then it may "recognize its mistakes".

If it has not been able to "correct its mistakes", then it may not have "recognized its mistakes".

Therefore, D2Note: The two schemes are compatible!

There are three scenarios:

Xiao Zhang and Xiao Li are not sent" and "send Xiao Wang" is not established.

Xiao Zhang and Xiao Li are not sent" is not established, and "Send Xiao Wang" is established.

Xiao Zhang and Xiao Li are not sent" and "Send Xiao Wang" are both valid.

Only C is in line with the title (C satisfies the second possibility).

Not bad, I hope you do.

The question is understood like this:

You paid back 10 yuan to your father and 10 yuan to your mother. In fact, the money you borrowed is: 490 + 490 = 980

And the money you spent is 970 yuan.

This $10 is what you have left.

I borrowed 500 from my father, 500 from my mother, and 970 for a pair of shoes. 30 yuan left, 10 yuan for Dad, 10 yuan for Mom, 10 yuan for himself, 490 for Dad, 490 for Mom, 490 = 980The leather shoes I bought used 970, and the difference in the middle was 10 yuan, which was in my own hands.

Dad: 500-10=490

Mother: 500-10=490;

And I didn't have any money, but now I have 10 yuan left, and I have it: 0-10=-10 So the money is in my own hands

This problem is a problem with your thinking of arithmetic, and the remaining 10 yuan has been included in the "owe 490 to Dad, 490 to Mom, 490 490 = 980", because the 10 yuan is the remaining 1000 yuan borrowed, so it can not be accumulated with the arrears, the correct calculation should be: 10 yuan to pay back Dad, 10 yuan to Mom, 490 to Dad, 490 to Mom, 10 + 10 + 490 + 490 = 1000, not a penny less.

It's going to wrap you around in it Your algorithm is 490 + 490 + 10 = 990 The actual algorithm should be 490 + 490 - 10 = 470 (equivalent to your parents each giving you 490, and the remaining 10 yuan should be subtracted from the money you get for the shoes instead of adding) If you want to calculate the total price should be 490 + 490 + 20 (20 is the money you pay back to your parents).

You repay the money is equivalent to borrowing 980, you spent 970 on shoes, and you have 10 yuan left, so it is exactly 980

Ha ha! You've been deceived! There is a question in itself....The 10 yuan in my hand has nothing to do with that! Or in the money he borrowed....Or to put it this way, he doesn't pay back the money he has! 30 points! Thank you!

Categories: Leisure Hobbies >> brain teasers.

Problem description: Xiao Wang and Xiao Li both have sufficient reasoning ability, on this day, they are undergoing a reasoning interview, and they know that there are the following 16 playing cards in the drawer of the table:

Ace of hearts, Q, 4

Spades J grass flower K, Q

Ace, 5 cards The professor picked out a card from the 16 cards, and told Xiao Wang the value of this card, and told Xiao Li the suit of this card, at this time, Professor John asked Xiao Wang and Xiao Li Can you deduce what card this card is from the known points or suits?

Xiao Wang said: I don't know this card.

Xiao Li said: I know you don't know this card.

Kiyo Kiyo: Now I know this card.

Xiao Li: I know it too.

What kind of card is this?

Why? Analysis:

Box 5 1, Xiao Wang:"I don't know about this card. \"

Explain that this is a card with repeated points.,In fact, this is also.,If you know, there's no such topic 2.、Xiao Li:"I know you don't know this card. \"

Xiao Li knows the suit, and is very sure that A can't get this card directly, possibility:

1- Hearts are all repeat points can be sure.

2- Spades have not been accompanied by repeated points can not be determined.

3- Grass flower There are no duplicate points can not be determined.

4-squares are all repeat points for sure.

Feedback to Xiao Wang: The suit is heart or diamond.

3, Xiao Wang:"Now I know the card. \"

From the above information, the remaining cards are:

Ace of hearts, Q, 4

Blocks A, 5

Xiao Wang can also know which card is by the point, indicating that it is impossible to have an A

The remaining cards fed back to Xiao Li are:

Hearts Q, 4

Block 5 4, Xiao Li:"I got it, too. \"

Explain the information that Xiao Li can give me from the information he gets and which card he knows before the suit is sure: the card is a diamond 5

In teamwork, it is not always possible to get things done, but the most important thing is to produce results, and everyone can be recognized for it.

Coming out of the parking lot that day, there was a white car horizontally, and the son immediately braked urgently and then honked the horn, and the other party also braked, and honked the horn back.

On the way home, my son kept scolding: Don't drive if you don't understand the principle of giving priority to the main line!

I know why he's angry because the other person doesn't follow the rules, because he has a point.

It's just, I'm really a little worried.

It would be a pity if we felt that life was based on right and wrong, and we could stick to it as long as it made sense.

Thirty years ago, I watched a movie called "The Nuremberg Trials."

I'll never forget the last dialogue of the film.

The old judge said to the young German lawyer

You're very smart and very good at using logical programs, but don't forget that logical things aren't necessarily right.

Logic is not necessarily right, what does it mean in life.

In fact, as long as you think back to the last time you quarreled with your other half, or saw other couples quarreling, it will be very clear, is it because you quarrel because it makes sense?

A family that makes sense in everything, everything is black and white, and never gives up until it is clear is not necessarily a happy family.

You can tell a drug-addicted kid for an entire night (he's probably heard it many times), and it's definitely true, but he'll continue to smoke amphetamines.

It's not that he doesn't understand that drug use is harmful to his body, so why do harmful things?

Because man is not a product of logic.

People need to be understood, to feel accepted, to be respected, to feel valued.

Logic or clarity rarely provides these indispensable elements.

How many marriages have broken down because of arguments about who is right and who is wrong, how many companies have rebelled and left their relatives and business because of "strict requirements", and how many associations have also been depressed.

People don't have many needs, such as health, home, clothes, cars, and being appreciated, but for some reason, the last item is very difficult to obtain.

In the future, we will find that our sense of accomplishment often comes from your care, dedication and affirmation of others, and others are willing to cooperate with you because of this. Like this article? Share it with other friends!

Let the logical variables l (Li) and z (Zhao). a：z =0；b: when l=1, z =0;c：l+z=1；d：l×z=1。。。Obviously, D contradicts both A and B. d is wrong, it can be seen that Lee is a murderer.

Question 1:

Step 1: From the title, we know that there is only one person from the honest country, so the words of the third person must be false, because if what he says is true, then there will be two people from the honest country. So the third man is the one who lies the country.

Step 2: Analyze the logical form of the third person, and it is not difficult to find that his answer is a hypothetical judgment with sufficient conditions. Since the words of those who lie are false, then the judgment of falsehood that is sufficient for this condition is also false.

Step 3: If a hypothetical judgment of sufficient conditions is determined to be false, then there is only one circumstance, namely: the situation asserted by the antecedent is true, and the situation concluded by the latter is false, i.e.:

The former "He (the first person) is a man of an honest country" is true, and the latter "I am also a man of an honest country" is false.

So, the first person is a man from the honest country.

Question 2: Step 1: From the conditions given in the question, we know that the testimony of the third person is false.

Step 2: Analyze the testimony of the third person. His testimony is in fact a compatible choice, and he concludes that at least one of the testimonies of the first and the second is true and can be the same.

Further, he concludes that A is innocent or B is innocent, or that both A and B are innocent.

Step 3: If one of the compatible choices is known to be false, then there is only one case: both choices are false, i.e., "A is innocent" and "B is innocent" are both false.

Thus, both A and B are criminals.

Question 1: This question is not rigorous, mainly in the third person said: "The third person said that he is from the honest country, then I am also from the honest country." The landlord here must have made a mistake, and this sentence can be understood as two meanings.

First, the third person said: "He said that he is a man of the honest country, then I am also a man of the honest country." ”

Second, the third person said, "If he is from the honest country, then I am also from the honest country." ”

If it is one, then the third person is from the honest country, because the third person heard the second person's answer "I am from the honest country", because for Tang Seng's question, the answer of the three people must be "I am from the honest country". Because the third person didn't lie.

So he is a man of the honest country.

If it is two, then the first person is a person from the honest country. From the inscription, it is known that what the three people in it said must be grounded, and it cannot be guessed. Because if it's speculation, then it's possible to make the honest man tell a lie, and the liar tells the truth. In this case, the third person must know the true identity of the second person! Since there is only one person from the honest country, then the third person must be telling a lie, and it can be concluded that the third person is a person from the country of lies. Because a person who lies cannot tell the truth, and both of his sub-bureaus are false, then the second person must also be a person who lies to the country.

So only the first person is a person from the honest country.

End of reasoning. The second question is to answer A and B. But if someone can't come up with a certificate of innocence, does that have to be a criminal? Obviously, this is not true.

Because the fourth person is correct, then the third person lied, and the evidence of the first and second people is false, and A and B have no innocence.

End of reasoning.