/story/34324/no-entry
No Entry | Penana
arrow_back
No Entry
more_vert share bookmark_border
info_outline
format_color_text
toc
exposure_plus_1
coins
搜尋故事、作者及社群
繼續閱讀全部清除
別人在看刷新
X
開啟推送通知以獲得 Penana 上的最新動態!
G
已截止
No Entry
挑戰者:
勝出方法: 出題者挑選
題目 參賽作品 留言 (13)



是次創作挑戰有兩個參加方式:

① 翻譯這一道謎題。

② 解答這一道謎題。

兩者可以同時進行,煩請分開為兩個章節。

​標題格式及字數不限。


A particular establishment has a very strict but twisted rule by which people are allowed to enter their premises. The following are allowed to enter:


1. those who are 18 and above and have firearms, wearing sleeveless tops and slippers;


2. those who aren't 18 and above and don't have firearms, wearing neither sleeveless tops nor slippers;


3. those who aren't 18 and above and have firearms, wearing neither sleeveless tops nor slippers;


4. those who aren't 18 and above and have firearms, wearing sleeveless tops and slippers;


5. those who are 18 and above and have firearms, wearing slippers but not sleeveless tops;


6. those who aren't 18 and above and don't have firearms, wearing slippers but not sleeveless tops;


7. those who aren't 18 and above and have firearms, wearing slippers but not sleeveless tops.


If a person satisfies any of these seven rules, they are allowed to enter.


However, people don't even read these rules as they are too much to read for anyone. We can simplify these seven rules further into a fewer number of rules.


What is the least number of rules that these can be rewritten into, such that, again, any person satisfying any of the resulting rules is allowed to enter?


Note: Each rule you write must be a conjunction of two of the four conditions "18 or above," "have firearms," "wearing sleeveless tops," and "wearing slippers," or their respective negations. Thus, for example, a rule like "those who wear slippers or sleeveless tops" is not valid because it's a disjunction.


謎題及解答來源將於此創作挑戰結束後公佈。

以上。

留言
書籤
預計閱讀時間: 3 分鐘
toc 參賽作品
bookmark_border 書籤 開始閱讀 >
×


還原至預設

X
×
×

在主頁加入 Penana 以更方便離線閱讀:按 然後按「加至主畫面」