Ok, This question did not puzzle me for long. Much like the question... read my answer again! The deduction has already been done when the remaining two hats have been hidden! This is a question of deductive reasoning... "for the Genius" not for me! If you look closley... that's what the question states. If they wanted my deductive reasoning for how I know then the question would have been formed to me being involved in the line. 3 Stoners in a file line! Haha that's almost more interesting than the geniuses. What if my answer is I don't know? Why is it that it is perfetly OK for 2 of the geniuses to "not know" But I have to solve for the one who does? It doesn't make sense that way! The problem with this question is that it is a riddle. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? I want to give you a true example of deductive reason that comes in the form of a joke. It has an insulting punch line and if you are easily offended then delete this page and I appoligise to you sincerely. But if you can find humor in many things you will think it is funny. OK... so here we go. There are 3 neighbors. All living on the same side of the street. Neighbor 1 Neighbor 2 and Neighbor 3. Neighbor 2 (the middle Neighbor) moves out and a new guy moves in. So one day neighbor 1 is outside watering his lawn when neighbor 3 comes along and says " hey Bill ... have you met the new guy yet?" Neighbor 1 replys "No not yet... he still looks busy moving all his things in." Neighbor 3 then says "well let me know if you bump into him will ya?" Neighbor 1 says "sure thing" and then they both depart back into their houses. The next morning Neighbor 1 is back at it watering his lawn as the new guy comes outside and greets Neighbor one with a smile and says "hey My name is Ted! Im the new neighbor. Its a pleasure to meet you." Neighbor 1 returnes the greeting and says " hey Im Bill!... very nice to meet you!" Then he continues to say " So Ted what do you do for a living. Neigbor 2 replys " Im a proffessor down at the university. That's why I moved here." A proffessor of what Neighbor 1 asks. He says " I teach a course on deductive reasoning!" Neighbor 1 looks puzzled and says "deductive reasoning?. what on earth is that? So Neighbor 2 replys... "Let me give you an example... when I moved in I noticed you had a dog house in your back yard. So Im assuming you have a dog." Neighbor one says yeah that's right I have a dog" Neighbor 2 says "well since you have a dog I'm assuming you're the family type and that you have children." Neighbor 1 agrees and says "yup I have a boy and girl" Nieghbor 2 then replys "well since you have children Im assuming you have a wife" and neighbor 1 says "sure do... been married for 16 years." And neighbor 2 continues by saying " and since you have a wife I am assuming that you are heterosexual (strait)"... Neighbor 1 agrees and says "absolutley... I would not have it any other way. So then Neighbor 2 says "theres an example of deductive reasoning!" Neighbor 1 says " hey I like that thats very interesting. Then Ted Says to Bill... " Speaking of I got to run!. I have a class to teach in an hour... it was nice meeting you bill." Neighbor 1 says the same and they both depart. The next day N1 is out watering his lawn again when N2 comes out and says "hey Bill... have you met the new guy yet?" N1 Say "actually yeah I met him yesterday!" N2 says " you... so what's he do for a living?" N1 Says ... "He is a proffessor at the university!" N2 Says " you?. what's he teach?" N1 replys "A course on deductive reasoning!" N2 Looks Puzzled and says " deductive reasoning? What the hell is that?" N1 says "let me give you an example!. Do you have a dog?" N2 replys "no!" N1 says "you queer!"

Ok I rated this answer before and I left a negative mark. But Dark Crow I would like to appologise and rewrite my remark twards this answer. It is absolutley relevant. This answer is based upon the idea that the question in itself is stupid! So you are right! I thought about this question all night... and it turns out that it has absolutley nothing to do with deductive thinking what so ever! It's a puzzle a riddle. They tell you its deductive thinking so that you think you somehow have to solve for it. But I don't care what this question is labeled... the question states what the question states... and it has nothing to do with deductive reasoning!! So dark crow I appologise. I am in complete agreeance with you... this question is retarded!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

What you presented is not an example of deductive logic for the very simple reason that color is wholly subjective. Deductive logic is a sham.

“Before the 17th century, science was mostly a process of deductive logic. Consider the following line of reasoning used by certain CAM proponents:
1. We know through scripture that God is the creator of the universe and that God is perfect.
2. Therefore creation must be perfect.
3. If illness were real, then creation would not be perfect.
4. Therefore, illness cannot be real.
This is the basic reasoning behind the denial of illness’s reality by Christian Science as well as some forms of New Thought. Before the 17th century, this type of deductive logic was science. Some characteristics of scientific principles under this definition are those of ‘immutable law’ and ‘absolute certainty.’ We know them by logical reasoning; empirical testing is superfluous. This approach reads like a bumper sticker: ‘My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with facts.’
Many opponents of CAM, while well educated in empirical science, are ignorant of metaphysics. They fall into the same trap but from the other side. Consider this line of reasoning:
1. We know through science that the only real powers in the universe are molecules in motion and the four forces of physics.
2. The mind and/or the spirit possess none of the four forces of physics.
3. If the mind and/or the spirit do not possess any of the four forces, they can have no aetiological effect on the physical universe.
4. Therefore, the mind and/or the spirit can neither cause nor cure disease.
Their basic modus operandi is the same as that of the Christian Scientists: logically deriving a conclusion on the basis of a metaphysical assumption. We don’t know that the forces of physics discovered to date are the only aetiological forces any more than we know that God is perfect. No experiment has ever been designed to test either proposition. Yet this seems to be the gist of Relman’s argument to Weil against mind-body medicine as cited earlier.”

Unsnarling the CAM-knot

---

This question was worded to puzzle you. Nothing more. To ask you to solve it is to assume that you are the front genius. Do you see what I mean? So can you use reasoning to solve the equation for the genius? Sure... in theory. But the question does not ask that. So what Im saying is that the question itself is "stupid" I don't want to say it was a mistake in use of words. Clearly the person who first thought up this riddle/ equation... knew what they were doing. However as the reader I have seen through what it was trying to do... and I will not be fooled. This is a question to see if you are paying attention. So to claim my answer is Strange, Weird, Or bizare is not quite fare. This has everything to do with philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iAMfromHuntersBar

Right, in case anyone else comes here with any doubts, or any strange answers, here is a conclusive, consice and very simple to understand!



Borrowed from this link!

---

well... logicly speaking... there is no possible answer to this question, if you have 3 geniuses and 5 hats, so the ratio would in fact be 3\5. so you have to take into consideration the possibility that at least 1 of the geniuses would be wearing a red hat. Now if you still are thinking of the possibility of the ratio of hats to geniuses, then you would understand there is 1 white on someone, at least to the best of our knowledge. Now you know someone has 1 red and 1 white hat, I've established that already. Now from here you can't have a logical answer because there is not enough information, *at random* suggests that the hats were chosen blindfolded. So you can't say if they picked white or red hats. So based on the information you can't fully answer this question. Also, based on the fact that this is a deductive reasoning question, deductability can only extend so far before you need inductive reasoning, and based on that there is not enough information to use inductive reasoning.

It is easy to test if a process of reasoning has been deductive. We apply negation to the conclusion and see if we end up with a contradiction.

For example,

Three hats, one red, one while and the last one blue.
Three people pick a hat at random.
(A) red
(B) white

What colour hat does (C) pick? If I think it is blue than I will test it by negating the answer. If I said that (C) did not pick a blue hat then I have come up with an impossibility. The chain of reasoning (if done correctly) must lead to the conclusion that (C) picked blue.

The same process can be applied to "The Genius Hat" experiment.

I think the answer is red. In fact I am sure it is because if I negate the conclusion then I end up with a contradiction.

What this also shows is that, "The Genius Hat" experiment is an example of deductive reasoning.