Anyone in Veeky Forums care to help me figure out a little ontological(?) issue?

Anyone in Veeky Forums care to help me figure out a little ontological(?) issue?
Take a look at [pic-related].
The correct solution is B, but I'm having trouble formulating exactly why it's B. An intuitive explanation would be that B is the odd one because it's the only one that doesn't have a unique visual property. However, the ability to visually determine that B is the odd one out necessarily implies that it does have a unique property, and that this property pertains to vision, therefore one could legitimately claim that B DOES have a unique visual property. B is clearly still the odd one, but one has to account for what makes the unique visual property of B different from, say, the unique visual property of C (i.e. being pink), and logically justify making a distinction between the (supposedly) different kinds of visual properties.

The best I was able to do is this: the unique property of B is the property of sharing every other property (except for itself) with at least one shape in the set, making B the only object with a self-referential unique property. Is this reasoning correct? What does philosophy have to say about different kinds of properties?

Tell me the page and the original reasoning.

>what is the odd one?
Garbage-tier test.

>the page and the original reasoning
What do you mean?

Where did you find this question?

Random post on a different board, a long time ago. No source was presented. Do you dispute the solution being B?

Define odd:
> Deviating from what is ordinary, usual, or expected; strange or peculiar: an odd name; odd behavior.
Observing what's commom/usual.
There are 5 elements on every subject.
-existence of snowflake (odd:D)
-existence of external layer (odd:F)
-border shape (odd:E)
-color (odd:C)
-size (odd:A)

We could make a meta-analisys which isn't necessary because the question is too ambiguous, so let's assume another characteristic:
-oddness (odd:B)

All of them are odd, but B is the unique one who shares the commom characteristics except oddness, in other words, B is also odd.

>let's assume another characteristic:
>-oddness (odd:B)
Is the assumption that one of the shapes can have the property of "oddness" not implied in the problem statement itself?

>All of them are odd, but B is the unique one who shares the commom characteristics except oddness, in other words, B is also odd.
Why does being the only one that shares the common characteristics except oddness more significant than being the only one that is pink?

It's actually not more significant.

The guy who told you the answer wasn't probably very strict with thought-planning so he just "felt" that B is the odd one because he spent more time figuring that characteristic (oddness) out.

All of them are odd. There is no given hierarchy of oddness. Maybe, if the question implied that meta-analisys give the conclusions a superior connotation, it would solve this problem, yet the text on the image is all what you got, though.

Also
>Is the assumption that one of the shapes can have the property of "oddness" not implied in the problem statement itself?
I just described my thought process; formally you could just list "oddness" directly as another characteristic, but you must admit that there must be a second plan and analisys to find it out.

Are you happy now?

>The guy who told you the answer wasn't probably very strict with thought-planning so he just "felt" that B is the odd one
Except it wasn't just one guy who "felt" it. I myself and at least a dozen other people all arrived at the same conclusion through different variations of the following intuition:
>B is the odd one because it's the only one that doesn't have a unique visual property
It's incorrect, but I think there may be a logically valid statement behind the basic intuition.

>formally you could just list "oddness" directly as another characteristic, but you must admit that there must be a second plan and analisys to find it out.
I get your point, but I'm not sure that it makes for a strong logical argument.

C is fucking pink, none of the others are pink.

You misses the point of my explanations.

Try again.

Try restating it more accurately.

It's B

A has 3/4 elements (snowflake+blue+outline / smaller circle)

B has all 4 elements (snowflake+blue+regular sized circle+outline)

C has 3/4 elements(snowflake+regular circle+outline / pink colour)

D has 3/4 elements (regular circle+blue+outline / no snowflake)

E has 3/4 elements (snowflake+blue+outline / square)

F has 3/4 elements (snowflake+blue+regular circle / no outline)

You are making your own assumptions and try to justify them with the question ("the question assume x!").

Do you want me to find out which assumptions are you using?

I fucked up, shape should be included too so every symbol has 4/5, except B who has 5/5

But A os the unique one that has a small body.
A is also odd

and C is the unique one that has a pink colour

and D is the unique one that hasn't got a snowflake

and E is the unique one because it's a square

and F is the unique one because it doesn't have an outline

What's an "element" and why do you exclude B's special property from the list of "elements"?

>Do you want me to find out which assumptions are you using?
Yes.

An element is one part of the entire symbol

Each symbol is made from 5 distinct elements

The elements are these:

Snowflake

Body shape

Body size

Outline

Colour

I think it'd be easier to think of those elements as booleans, either it is true or false - for example if the Snowflake element is true, there is a snowflake, if it is false, there isn't one. Or if the Colour element is true, the colour is blue. If it is false, the colour is not blue.

B does not have a special property because for B, every element is "True".

Might be easier to think of them as variables than as elements now that I think about it.

>Each symbol is made from 5 distinct elements
>Snowflake
>Body shape
>Body size
>Outline
>Colour

I didn't ask you to enumerate the "elements". I asked you to define what an element is. Otherwise your logic boils down to this:
>it's special because only properties that "elements" are special
>a property is an "element" if it seems special to me.

Actually, this is easy as fuck to explain in programming terms

A symbol is an object(instance of a class)

The elements are the objects properties/getters and setters

B has 5 properties

All the other objects have 4 of their properties set to the same value as B, with the exception of 1 property, which is different for each object

An element/property is a characteristic of an object

>An element/property is a characteristic of an object
That doesn't explain anything. What's the difference between "characteristic" and "property" and why is B's special property not an element?

A characteristic and a property are the same thing

B does not have a special property because B is the base/original object.

>B does not have a special property
The OP explains why it does have a property. I'm not debating this.

a unique property*

It's irrelevant for the initial question you had.

You can't validate your own conclusion due to its non-valid assumptions.

Fin.

>You can't validate your own conclusion due to its non-valid assumptions.
Non-valid assumptions which you apparently can't even point out.

We demonstrated you made up some assumptions because it's imposible to determine which one os odd with the information and poor conditions initially given.

>it's imposible to determine which one os odd with the information and poor conditions initially given
You have not proven that it's "impossible". In fact, I've demonstrated that it's possible in at least one way, and you have not offered any refutation of that.

B's special property is that it has all the properties?

Idk dude this is getting a bit over my head I think

>Demonstrated
You just asked in the OP what is the thought secquence because you can't put It on written words. Lmao

Grupo again

>B's special property is that it has all the properties?
Let's see what my original post said:
>the unique property of B is...
>the property of sharing every other property (except for itself) with at least one shape in the set

You clearly did not read the OP. It says:
>the unique property of B is the property of sharing every other property (except for itself) with at least one shape in the set, making B the only object with a self-referential unique property.

Also, the assumption that there exists a property that confers "oddness" is made not by myself, but rather by the problem statement. You have not disproved this assumption, and you have not disproved my argument for what this property may be and why it confers "oddness".

I'm confused as to what point you're trying to make

That B has a unique visual property, just like every other object in the set, but that intuition (as well as the problem statement itself) suggests it must be somehow different from the unique visual properties of the other objects. I provide one possible explanation, which may or may not be correct. You're free to challenge it, to provide a more elegant one, or to prove that there is no legitimate solution.

Because it's just an assumptions, brainlet.

I vive up. This autocorrector le spanish language is killing me.

>it's just an assumptions
To prove that the question is "invalid" you'd have to disprove my argument (which confirms the assumption using actual logic) and then to prove that the assumption is invalid. You have done neither, brainlet. You have nothing to contribute here, and I'm getting a strong impression that you're just incapable of the basic pattern recognition abilities that lead people to B, let alone to justify or refute it.

>Dude people do it, why don't cha do It too?
>My question os invalid
Gyahahahahaha are you for real?

What bothers you exactly? Yes, the presence/absence of a properties can also be defined as a property? A meta property.
Why is this a problem?

Ahhh the eternal cycle of brainletism...

>A meta property.
A meta-property would be a property of properties. It's not a meta-property.

>Why is this a problem?
It's a problem because there's a distinction to make, but the only way to express that I've found so far is using a rather awkward self-referential definition. I'm interested in knowing if it's correct at all, and if there's a more elegant way to express it (without just arbitrarily excluding the unique property of B).

B is the only one that isn't obviously different, therefore it's the odd one out.

The property of having/not having a unique property is a property of properties.
You can't help but use a self-referential definition when you are trying to answer a self-referential question.

>The property of having/not having a unique property is a property of properties.
It's a property about properties, not a property of properties. The property is of B. Also, you keep formulating it incorrectly.

>trying to answer a self-referential question
How is the question "self-referential"?

>How is the question "self-referential"?
It requires awareness that the presence/absence of unique properties can also be a unique property.
A property about properties is a property of properties is a meta property.
It's a property of all shapes - the property "unique property" which takes a value "no" in B and a value "yes" in the rest of the shapes.

>It requires awareness that the presence/absence of unique properties can also be a unique property.
That doesn't make the question self-referential. The question literally doesn't refer back to itself, and I'm not convinced the only possible answer must be self-referential either.

>A property about properties is a property of properties
>a property about X is a property of X
>a property about height is a property of height
>the property of being the tallest is a meta-property
Nice logic.

>It's a property of all shapes
No it isn't. You clearly don't have any valid input. Thanks for trying.

>the property of being the tallest is a property of the concept of height rather than of the tallest object*

>The question literally doesn't refer back to itself
The answer of the question is contained within the question.

>a property about property is a property of property
>the property of a property is a meta-property

>a property about height is a property of height
>the property of having height is a meta-property

What are you trying to achieve by denying the obvious?
How does it make a difference if the property is meta in the first place that you would go to such lengths to prove it wrong?

>The answer of the question is contained within the question.
No, it isn't.

>What are you trying to achieve by denying the obvious?
You're quoting something that didn't make sense and which I fixed here: >How does it make a difference if the property is meta in the first place that you would go to such lengths to prove it wrong?
Because the point is to figure how the property is different, and it's not different because it's "meta".

>You're quoting something that didn't make sense and which I fixed here
I didn't quote anything, I fixed it.
You didn't fix anything, you just stated the same in more words.

How does "tallest" relate to "height" in the same way that "possessing properties" relates to "properties"?
"Tallest" refers to a value the property "height" might take.
"Possessing a property" refers to the a property of the property and has no relation to the values it might take.

If we identify an object as the "tallest" we are stating that its property "height" possesses the highest value. The the task of identifying a tallest object presupposes that all of the given objects possess the property "height". All we have to do is compare their values.

The present question presupposes that one single object possesses a unique property. Then our task would be to identify the one property that takes a distinctive value for only one of the objects. As we can see there are multiple objects that fit that description. If multiple objects possess a property that takes a unique value then no single object can fit the description of "possessing a unique property".
We have to take the requirement of the original question which is "possesses a unique property" and define a property "possessing a unique property" with values "yes" or "no" that refers the existence/non-existence of a property that meets the condition of taking a unique value for that particular object.

The question is self-referential because it requires the definition of a property that specifically answers that question.
The property is a meta property because its value refers to a property of another property and not to its value.

Is this logical?

All are odd. I answered the OP in the first post. But he can't get the fact that he assume things without proving them.