|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 10:36 am: | 
|
Hello.
Most people contributing to these message boards seem to have a pretty good all round knowledge of the case.However we all have small "Gaps" concerning the finer details.There are of course also a few misconceptions flying around which doesn't help matters.
In fact,there is so much information available to consider,that sometimes we find ourselves following a line of reasoning that might actually make no sense at all if we had all the facts infront of us at the time.It is just impossible to juggle everything in ones head at once.
It was with this problem in mind that it recently occured to me that a logic puzzle style table might be useful.I'm not suggesting the case could be instantly solved using it,but it may throw up a few supprises.
For those who are not familiar with the logic puzzle format,it works like this: You are given a small amount of information regarding a situation.For example: Five people buy a different item of fruit from a grocery store.
The Object is to find out who bought what.
The facts that are given are the bare minimun needed to enable one to glean all the missing information.For instance you may be given the following statements: Andrew didn't buy a pear.Sarah didn't buy a peach,orange or banana.Debbie bought an apple.
The solution is found by using a table or grid.
The name of each person would be placed along one axis and the item of fruit along the other.
Logical states are established by cross referencing fruit with people using the statements given.Where a statement is true,eg.Debbie bought an apple,a tick would be placed in the box at the intersection of "Debbie" and "Apple".If a statement is false,a cross is placed in the appropriate box.So straight away we can place a cross against those who didn't buy the apple and against each item of fruit Debbie didn't buy.
Now,those crosses are very usefull because they allow us to establish true statements by a process of elimination.
Ok the example I have given is very simple and most logic puzzles are more complex but I am always amazed at the amount of information that can be established using this technique. Often,given the small amount of information,I find myself thinking "This is wrong,they haven't provided enough information" but there is always enough information of course.
Now,drawing up a table and filling it with Ripper facts,names and places is going to be hugely complex and would need to be done on a computer of course.
The idea itself is simple but if such a system could be made to work it would unearth a few supprises simply through its ability to rule certain aspects of the case either in or out.
Kane |
Nicholas Smith
Police Constable
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 6
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 2:04 pm: |
|
G'day Kane, I totaly agree with you, But at the moment I'm still trying to work out why it was that particular apple which decided to drop itself on Einstiens head, instead of another one.
It's bloody confusing isn't it.
Diddles
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 660
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 6:06 pm: |
|
Probably not, Kane. At least that's my view.
Phil |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 145
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 7:03 pm: |
|
Well, first of all we need to agree on what the facts are, and how to interpret them. That is not an easy thing.
Btw, it was Newton who got the apple..in that apocryphal story..not that it matters! 
Sincerely Helge
"Please, Spock, do me a favor ... don't say it's `fascinating'..." Dr. McCoy
"No... but it is...interesting..." Spock (The Ultimate Computer)
|
Nicholas Smith
Police Constable
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 8
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 9:48 am: |
|
G'day Helge,
Sorry about that mate. I thought Newton was the bloke who jumped in the bath with his partner and watched the water flow over the sides and discovered the theory of relatives.
Seriously though Kane, what's your point? And how does it relate to this case?
Sincerely
Diddles |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
