zlacker

[return to "Secret Hand Gestures in Paintings (2019)"]
1. massin+kD[view] [source] 2024-06-07 15:00:14
>>Jaruze+(OP)
From the publication: “The speculation that the hand gesture herein presented is a freemasonry’s conveyed code is fascinating, but it is hard to accept.”

This sentence concluded a very short paragraph that apparently aimed to explore whether the hand sign could have a Masonic meaning. But instead of giving any explanation for their conclusion, the authors merely postulate the above without any given reasoning. I’m surprised to find this in what appears to aim to be a scientific analysis. Even more so would it surprise me if any conscious reader found this conclusion satisfactory.

Any thoughts?

◧◩
2. runjak+3E[view] [source] 2024-06-07 15:05:30
>>massin+kD
32° Freemason here. The images and descriptions do not match any masonic hand positions I am aware of.

However, there were numerous other fraternities and secret societies during that era, although they were typically gender-specific. Seeing both men and women using the same hand signals suggests these were likely common societal practices of the time. And since, presumably the hand positions are secret, they're not going to be immortalized in a painting.

◧◩◪
3. fidotr+dI[view] [source] 2024-06-07 15:36:22
>>runjak+3E
> 32° Freemason here. The images and descriptions do not match any masonic hand positions I am aware of.

Would you actually be able to say it if they were?

◧◩◪◨
4. flir+JI[view] [source] 2024-06-07 15:39:25
>>fidotr+dI
The other guard always lies.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. runjak+B11[view] [source] 2024-06-07 17:32:56
>>flir+JI
Link to the logic puzzle that flir is referring to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_and_Knaves

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. nosmok+iJ1[view] [source] 2024-06-07 22:22:36
>>runjak+B11
Ask what would the other do and do the opposite.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. m463+JP1[view] [source] 2024-06-07 23:33:33
>>nosmok+iJ1
I wonder if you could do that with tristate logic somehow. maybe with more guards or other variables.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. flir+Ni2[view] [source] 2024-06-08 06:48:59
>>m463+JP1
Solve for the general case.

Maybe you need num_guards-1 questions?

I doubt you could solve for 50 guards with 1 question.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. judahm+Zl2[view] [source] 2024-06-08 07:40:25
>>flir+Ni2
If you're allowed to create a hypothetical question that translates a hierarchy of guards into Boolean logic, then it doesn't matter how many guards there are.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. flir+3s2[view] [source] 2024-06-08 09:19:45
>>judahm+Zl2
What are you thinking? I was wondering about dividing them into sets.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. saghm+R13[view] [source] 2024-06-08 16:18:15
>>flir+3s2
"What would each of the other 49 guards would say the 49 guards other than them would do?" It would be a pain to do the deduction from all of that info, but it seems like it would be enough enough. Maybe it would make more sense to have that guard write down the answer (and throw in a pencil and a few extra sheets of paper)...
[go to top]