I love how Alex uses Susie Dent as the authoritative expert just like in series 2. She must get some of the most random phones calls and inquiries ever.
I did get this right, and pretty quickly. The key to this type of puzzle is to treat it like a math problem, not a language problem: An odd number of negatives is negative, an even number of negatives is positive. There are six negatives, (opposite, no, not, avoid, not, not), so the instruction as a whole is positive: Ring the bell.
Thks so much🤣 english is my second language and I've been trying to figure out how there were 5 negatives in the original instruction.. missed the no circunstance part
Actually this logic is flawed! "Avoid" and "Make" aren't logically transitive verbs. So their meaning changes when you move the not around (the task masters are actually wrong - the correct interpretation of the task is that it doesn't really matter what happens to the bell)
You could see the sadness in Victoria's face when she lost. I'm sure she is usually so organized that you could set your watch to her bathroom schedule.
I was actually kind of happy for her when that happened, it prevented the heartbreak that she was about to receive when she DQ'd for not wearing the necklace.
If Desiree had rung the bell, she would have won the series. The way it was scored, rather than give points for the necklace task and then subtracting five, Desiree and Victoria just got a straight minus five. If they kept the necklace points then subtracted five, Desiree would have ended the series with 166 points, Guz (who would get one fewer point because of finishing behind Desiree) would end the series with 166 points, and Morgana (who would get two fewer points for coming in last) would end the series with 166 points. The series would end with a three-way tiebreak.
I mean, the point deduction was advertised clearly. If you really played to win taskmaster then stuff like that would be avoided at all costs, most contestants couldn't even bother trying here so it really was just a coin toss. And it was probably better television as a result.
@@doommarauder3532 I think how the scoring was described in the task was more ambiguous than that: the wording could be interpreted either as "you will be assessed a five point penalty at the end of the task" or "you will be disqualified and lose five points" But then again, I think that Joe Wilkinson didn't touch the red green, so what do I know? (And I agree that taking the scoring seriously is ridiculous, but i am a ridiculous person, so it is on-brand for me).
Some great quotes here: Alan - Y’know, I recently completed a master’s degree? Desiree - Is anything ever alright? Guz - This is gonna summon something Morgana - *literal hysteria* Victoria - What if I can’t do it? Do we all stay here forever?
This is a perfect task to trip up over thinkers (like Victoria) who would get so immersed in all the negatives that they miss the full instructions. Also, I knew Susie Dent would be consulted.
Couldn't you argue that to not avoid sth doesn't necessarily mean to do it? You just mustn't have the impulse to do it in the first place so then you wouldn't need to avoid the thing to not do it. For example i never played the piano but i didn't avoid it.
@@jonhohensee3258 Precedence obviously increases the likelihood of a third-party prediction of the same outcome in the future being an honest one. That's all I was saying.
I would argue that the opposite of avoiding the bell ringing is not "ring the bell" but rather "allow the bell to ring" so as long as you are not preventing it, you don't have to cause the ringing
@@canebro1 Bruh, that's called holding. Holding a necklace in your hand isn't wearing it any more than draping a towel over your head is being a woman.
Certified pedant here. The negation of "making the bell not ring" is NOT making the bell ring, it is simply allowing the bell to ring. No contestant prevented anyone or anything else from ringing the bell, at least not actively, and thus, no contestants should have lost points.
Technically, wouldn’t the “do the opposite of the following” also include saying “I did the right thing” three times and therefore make everyone lose five points?
For those of you who don't know, licking the thread, specially licking so much of it, makes it usually worse because the fibers become bendier and are more likely to just bend and deform as soon as they find resitance rather than pushing through the needle hole like dry thread will. She kept licking such big portions of it and making it harder for herself.
The trick to this one is to think "Sod the task, if I fail this 1 instruction, I lose points." Therefore, focus all effort on interpreting the correct instruction at the start to avoid losing points, then start the popcorn necklace in an attempt to gain some points for the task.
Personally, I would just ask Alex to borrow a pen, and then cross out pairs of negatives until there's only one or zero left. The task is written down - use it!
The real trick is being able to think of any strategy at all, knowing that said strategy is being filmed, timed, and scored on a point system where the quality of your notions will be placed on a leader-board in direct competition against your co-workers and friends. I suppose you get used to it, but having the ability to _focus on anything while on stage_ is impressive to me. particularly, focusing on a game, while remaining entertaining to your audience is a serious skill.
Couldn't you argue that to not avoid sth doesn't necessarily mean to do it? You just mustn't have the impulse to do it in the first place so then you wouldn't need to avoid the thing to not do it. For example i never played the piano but i didn't avoid it.
I didn't watch the video but I just wanted to comment about the brilliancy of the title. I sat for 5 minutes looking at it and breaking it up into pieces before I realized what it said. Do not avoid (=make sure) not making (=preventing) the bell not ring. Make sure to prevent the bell from Not ringing. So make sure the bell is ringing.
I think looking at it logically and not just as a mathematical challenge of how many negatives there are... It actually doesn't matter if they rang the bell or not. Making the bell not ring is to stop it from ringing, should it start ringing. Not making the bell not ring is to be uninvolved should it start ringing - it doesn't mean you have to actively make it ring - it just means you have to not be the reason it stops ringing. Avoiding doing so is to show hesitance towards the task and not avoiding it is to show no hesitance towards it - so as long as they don't hesitate to leave the bell alone while/if it's ringing, they're fine. And the opposite of "you must not" is just "you must", so that's a moot sentiment. This means that the challengers have to complete these 2 criteria to pass: 1. Don't stop the bell from ringing. 2. Don't question your decision to leave the bell alone once it's ringing. In other words, whether the contestants chose to ring the bell or not made absolutely no difference whatsoever and they all should have completed the challenge successfully.
I agree in almost everything. For me it's easier to think of it as "making the bell not ring" = "muting the bell", then all else is easier. However, after ringing the bell, Guz was the only one who muted it. So I would say that should make him fail, as he did stop the bell from ringing.
Well, logic is a branch of math, and you can think of it as a mathematical challenge as long as your definitions are expressive enough! TL;DR: I am getting the same result as @SamuraiPipotchi. Let me introduce a few logic operators (inspired by computation tree logic, you can google that if interested): ¬: logical negation A: under all circumstances E: there exists a circumstance You could think of a circumstance as a possibility, or as a branch of the multiverse (if it even exists). Here is how you would translate these English formulations in a mathematical form: "not x" = ¬x "must do x" = Ax "can do x" = Ex Here are some more: "do the opposite of x" = ¬x "under no circumstances x" = ¬Ex (equivalent to A¬x) "avoid x" = ¬Ex (equivalent to A¬x) If you transform the task into logic symbols, apply some logic rules, then transform it back to English, you get the following: (do the opposite of the following:)(you must)(under no circumstances)(not)(avoid)(not)(making the bell not)(ring) (¬)(A)(¬E)(¬)(¬E)(¬)(¬)(ring) ¬A¬E¬¬E¬¬ ring ¬¬EE¬¬E¬¬ ring EEE ring E ring (you can)(make the bell ring) It means that they are allowed to make the bell ring (but they don't have to).
Okay, so I absolutely love this! I had something vaguely in this direction but you guys formalized it and found more inconsistencies. I love that there is a rigorous way to do this. God, I should get out more, shouldn't I?
1:17. Double negative equals positive. Therefor it follows that if the negatives equate to an even number, its positive. Thus, i suspect that the task directs one to ring the bell when they are done. Will update when video ends. Update: apparently I need to get out more. I mean, they're not wrong. XD
Did anyone else notice that Victoria made but did not wear the necklace? Unless I missed her putting the necklace on at least briefly, she actually failed the task twice
@@muskanpaints It does actually state in the rules that you have to wear the necklace, but it did not specify that you had to wear it around your neck. You can wear a lot of things without them being affixed to your body so technically I don't think she broke the rules.
Ok so they’re using the word “avoid” as another negative in the chain, but you could argue that’s it’s a fuzzy enough word to justify ringing or not ringing the bell: “I didn’t AVOID the conversation, I just didn’t have the time to talk to you.” “I may not have rung the bell, but I didn’t AVOID it. You know honestly I just didn’t think about the bell, what with all the nun ghosts.”
They didn't account for "mustn't" as the opposite of must... It's a tricky one, too much left open for interpretation, I broke it down to +'s and -'s as an equation and deduced to not ring the bell... They could've argued either way considering the usual context of "everything you need to know is on the card"
@@nicholascrow8133 There wasn't a mustn't in the written directions. Do the opposite of the following: You must under no circumstances not avoid not making the bell not ring. If you cross out the 4 no(t)s: you are left with doing the opposite of "avoid making the bell ring"
@@CueyTKD There was a must, which the opposite is mustn't. I guess is comes down to interpretation of the conditions, whether you do the opposite of the sentence as a whole, or the opposite of each individual word...
To all those who struggle threading a needle... All you need to do is fold the thread so you have a loop, hold it close to the end so the loop is small and then thread the needle... Since it is now in a loop, the cut end of the thread with it's imperfections will not get stuck 😊
loop the thread around the needle, hold the thread with your thumb and index finger right next to the needle, pull the needle out, pinch your fingers a little bit more, and you can thread the now pointy end of the loop through the hole without any problems even though it being two threads
The part that I was constantly wondering about was whether or not the "do the opposite" applies to the "the fastest wins" part as well and the person who waited the longest to say "I did the right thing" after ringing the bell (or who took the longest making the necklace) would be the winner.
I'm sorry to say this, but Ms. Dent is wrong. The sentence ends with "...make the bell not ring." But you can't make the bell not ring. It's already not ringing. Not ringing is the default state, and you can't make it not ring more. So after all negations, the sentence is telling you either to make the bell not ring, which is impossible, or to not make the bell not ring which everyone is doing already. Doing the opposite doesn't change this logic at all, and there is no possible interpretation of the challenge which instructs you to ring the bell.
You can solve multiple negatives by simply cancel out every two of them and if it's a even number it's a positive sentence and if odd it's a negative sentence. You do what the sentence says if positive and don't do it if negative.
Thank Christ I got the double negative question right. An even number of negative qualifiers ie. 6 = a positive statement. And then Greg destroyed all my happiness by (justifiably) tearing strips off me
@@yourmum69_420 It's common enough knowledge that a 1993 Whoopi Goldberg film used it in its title - Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit I don't expect young people or non-native speakers to know it, but the panel certainly should have.
~(for all ~ Circumstances (~avoid (~making (~ ring (bell))))) = there exists a circumstance in which you avoid making the bell ring. Some people not ringing the bell is is at least one circumstance of avoiding making the bell ring, so they're safe. And some ringing the bell is fine too since the sentence is satisfied by the existence of some not ringing it. Technically everyone wins.
You must under no circumstances, not avoid not making the bell not ring -> opposite -> You must always avoid making the bell ring -> So the bell shouldn't be rang right? What they did in the show is take out the "not avoid" part, but it is part of the statement so it can't be taken out. Doing the opposite of "not avoid" (do) is "don't" or "avoid".
As phrased, either action is fine. Under all that, the action you're supposed to do is "not make the bell not ring", which is a double negative that doesn't cancel out entirely. If you ring it, you didn't make it not ring, sure. But if you don't ring it, you aren't the cause of it not ringing. That's what it was going to do anyway.
Unfortunately it is more complicated than simply counting the negatives, this is why double negatives are recommended to be avoided. Even single negatives can be confounding such as the difference between "not trying to" and "trying to not." The former demanding inaction or lack of intent and the latter demanding specific action against. Incidentally there is also no "Fastest to not do the wrong thing" as, unless they were already doing it, they were successfully not doing it immediately. It could be, "Fastest to do the not wrong thing," but even that would allow for doing any thing except the wrong thing and not necessarily the right thing. "Fastest to complete the task without doing the wrong thing." Fortunately generally we are able to distinguish what a person meant and no correction is needed, but as sorting out a series of negatives is the premise of the task I found this comment necessary. Making the bell ring -> Ring the bell Making the bell not ring -> Stop the bell from ringing Not making the bell ring -> Inaction or Any action except ringing the bell Not making the bell not ring -> Inaction or Any action except stopping the bell from ringing You must under no circumstances -> Do [the following] without circumstances -> Impossible You must under no circumstances (Should be either "You must not under any circumstance" or "Under no circumstance should you") -> Never do [the following] Never not -> Always You must under no circumstances not avoid not making the bell not ring -> Always avoid any action except stopping the bell from ringing -> then do the opposite: -> Take any action except stopping the bell from ringing. 4:16 That whole Guz thing seems a bit more important.
I came to the comments to write (almost) the same thing, but you said it better than I would have :P The final sentence I got was: "Be indifferent about the bell ringing."
@@Phlarx Thank you. There are certainly other valid conclusions. I ended up trimming down because it quickly gets out of hand when exploring the potentials.
Well actually time was supposed to be stopped when "you either rung the bell or not rung the bell" which sounds like an OR gate of A and !A to me which is always true; Therefore the whole inverter chain is pointless and you should just stop the clock whenever one's done
Guz is the only one to complete the task. The sentence resolves to not making the bell not ring, the opposite of which is to make the bell not ring. The bell must be ringing, or else you cannot make it not ring. And Guz is the only one who made the bell not ring.
To do the opposite of the given instruction, "You must under no circumstances not avoid not making the bell not ring," we need to simplify the statement first by removing the double negatives: "Not avoid not making the bell not ring" simplifies to "make the bell ring." "Under no circumstances" implies a prohibition, so doing the opposite would be to allow or ensure the action happens. So, the opposite instruction would be: "You must ensure to make the bell ring." Regarding the second part of the task, "The task is over when you have either rung the bell or not rung the bell and said I did the right thing 3 times," doing the opposite would mean: You don't need to declare "I did the right thing" at all. Since the original task ends with either action (ringing or not ringing the bell), the opposite would be that the task does not end with just the action of ringing or not ringing the bell. However, since this creates a paradox (as the task must have an endpoint), we can interpret it as the task simply ends when you ring the bell, without any further action required. Therefore, to follow the opposite of the original instructions, you should ring the bell and there is no need to say anything afterwards.
Symbolic logic is useful for parsing these kinds of sentences. The rule is that two negations are the same as nothing ("not not X = X"). So you count the number of negations, if it's even then they all cancel out (as was the case here), and if the total number of negations is odd then it's just like having one negation.
There's an easy trick to that riddle. Count the negatives in the statement, if it's an odd number then it's negative, if it's an even number then it's positive.
In my opinion, the OPPOSITE of "under no circumstances do not avoid not making the bell not ring" is "under every circumstance, do avoid making the bell ring." Essentially, the "Do the opposite of the following:" could be taken to mean "whatever that equation comes to, do the other thing", but it could also mean simply to take every element of the sentence and invert it, in which case, you should not ring the bell.
So basically Under No Circumstances not avoid -> 2 no's negate -> Avoid not making the bell not ring -> 2 no's negate -> Making the bell ring -> Avoid making the bell ring And as it's the opposite -> Ring the Bell
I can live with making the same mistake as Victoria :D Like her, I thought the double negatives were the easy part, then forgot the very first negative (do the opposite).
I prefer solving these problems by taking out chunks of the sentence in reverse, rewording them to be easier to understand, then replacing them in the original sentence. Original sentence for reference: "(7:) Do the opposite of the following: (6:) You must (5:) under no circumstances (4:) not (3:) avoid (2:) not (1:) making the bell not ring." Step 1: Making the bell not ring (singular negative) --> Not making the bell ring. Step 2: Not not making the bell ring (double negative) --> Making the bell ring. Step 3: Avoid making the bell ring (singular negative) --> Do not ring the bell. Step 4: Do not not ring the bell (double negative) --> Ring the bell. Step 5: Under no circumstances ring the bell (singular negative) --> Do not ring the bell. Step 6: You must not ring the bell (singular negative) --> Do not ring the bell. Step 7: Do the opposite of not ringing the bell (double negative) --> Ring the bell. notes: "Making the bell ring" is just a wordier way of saying "ringing the bell". This adds a layer of difficulty. Without this analysis, I got it wrong on my first read, and I would have not rang the bell.
If I got it wrong, I would argue that everything below the dash should still also be considered opposite, meaning that "If you do the wrong thing you gain 5 points in the end".
I think Suzie Dent is wrong, the opposite of "You must under no circumstances not avoid not making the bell not ring." would be something along the lines of "Myself must not above all non-events avoid making the bell ring." meaning that they could do either and it would be fine since the letter writer must not avoid making the bell ring.
I'm gone be really pedantic here: there is a difference between "you must not avoid" doing something and "you must" do something. You cannot remove the "not avoid" bit because it's not redundant, it changes the meaning of the sentence. So technically the only thing they had to do was to just do the task without avoiding ringing the bell. Whether they actually rung it is irrelevant.
Please do a Taskmaster fan favorite/redemption series where contestants that did not win but were well liked are voted upon by fans and can compete again. Maximum one person from a series. For example, my ideal lineup is: James Acaster Mel Giedroyc Nish Kumar Mike Wozniak Asim Chaudhry Please consider this!
"Don't do the wrong thing" isn't the same as "Do the right thing". If they didn't do anything and just walked away they wouldn't have done the wrong thing. Bingo bango free points.
It stopps the time when you have (not) ring the bell. After the necklace you should so be able to have directly won and the challenge is over and could have rang the bell after the Challenge. - or the challenge was going on, hence you have not rang the bell. That way you have accomplished it with ringing the bell.
Another interpretation of the card (assuming the capitalization in the video description is accurate to what was actually on the card) would be, "make and wear a popcorn necklace with at least five pieces of popcorn and then do the opposite of the following: [...]" where the next word, 'You', is capitalized, and is therefore the first sentence to be subject to the terms of the colon, while the sentence beginning with 'The' would also be subject to the terms of the colon, as would the sentences beginning with 'Fastest' and 'If'. Until there is a paragraph break, all of the antecedent sentences are subjected to the colon. By that undoubtedly correct linguistic interpretation, and with the parallel interpretation that the opposite of 'the following' is in fact 'the preceding', the task reads as follows: "make and wear a popcorn necklace with at least five pieces of popcorn and then do the preceding. This quite naturally means making the popcorn necklace again as described, upon which the card's instructions have been satisfied. I would explain that logic whilst making 2 popcorn necklaces, wearing each one as I completed it, and then walk out because the task is finished.
I would’ve rung the bell for the simple fact that it is more fun than not ringing it and I couldn’t be bothered to actually figure it out. 50% odds are 50% odds.
I ended up interpreting the task different in my weird autistic brain. So doing the opposite would implicitly cancel out the Do Not at the beginning, as the "Do Not" at the beginning applies to the entire sentence afterwards, so you'd read the task as "Avoid Not Making the Bell Not Ring". Now as the task says "Avoid", you can interpret that as just not getting involved rather than a negative, or "avoiding the bell". Therefore, regardless of whether the bell was rung or not by any event, by not getting involved, you have avoided the bell. Another interpretation would be; "Making the bell not ring" implies you're stopping the ringing of a bell which was going to be rung. Not doing that would mean you're not stopping the bell getting rung if someone else goes to ring it, so whether someone comes along to ring the bell or not, you meet this criteria. Then taking the avoid into account, you would avoid not doing anything when someone else comes to ring the bell, so as long as no one else comes along to ring the bell, if you ring it or not, you still meet the criteria, (and then as above the opposite and "Do Not" at the beginning would cancel out as there's not definition of an action tied to these parts of the sentence) TL;DR either interpret it as just ignore the bell, avoid getting involved with it and you'd win or Ring the bell, don't ring the bell, whatever, so long as no one else comes to "Make the bell ring", you win ...it makes sense in my head...
There are two aspects of the sentence that make "even/odd number of negations" strategy incorrect and makes the show incorrect. Working from the inside out: -"making the bell not ring": taking an action that causes the bell to not ring when it otherwise would. Simplified: preventing the bell from ringing -"[do ]not making the bell not ring": do not prevent the bell from ringing. -"avoid not making the bell not ring": making a best effort to take an action that prevents the bell from ringing. Simplified: try to prevent the bell from ringing -"[do] not avoid not making the bell not ring": do not try to prevent the bell from ringing. simplified: do not prevent the bell from ringing -"you must under no circumstances not avoid not making the bell not ring": you must prevent the bell from ringing -"do the opposite of the following: 'you must under no circumstances not avoid not making the bell not ring'": you may, if you choose, prevent the bell from ringing. This final result is indifferent to whether you or anyone else rings the bell. "making the bell not ring" is about whether ringing the bell is *acceptable*, so choosing not to ring remains an option no matter how many times the phrase is negated. Additionally, "must" creates a requirement, so the opposite of "must" isn't "must not" (which would be a different requirement). It's "may" -- a lack of requirement
not making the bell not ring could mean "don't do something that prevents the bell from ringing" avoiding that means "avoid not preventing the bell from ringing" which boils down to "prevent the bell from ringing" not avoiding therefore means "do not prevent the bell from ringing" under no circumstances should you "not prevent the bell from ringing" which means that you should prevent the bell from ringing doing the opposite of that means you shouldn't prevent the bell from ringing Not preventing the bell from ringing doesn't require you to ring nor not ring the bell. If someone put something in the way of the wall of the bell and the thing that hits it, that would count as preventing the bell from ringing and would be wrong. Since none of the contestants prevented the bell from ringing, I think they were all correct in their actions.
"get out more", i would, but i solved that as it was read, without even thinking about it. at this point, i'm pretty sure if i stepped outside i'd spontaneously combust.
I love how Alex uses Susie Dent as the authoritative expert just like in series 2. She must get some of the most random phones calls and inquiries ever.
@@Kernel15 Yeah, he's been in dictionary corner quite a few times over the years. If they aren't friends they're certainly close acquaintances.
It's amazing they still use her even after Joe's revelation that she has too much to drink. I discount all of her opinions immediately.
@@CueyTKD The drinking, the fornication, the underwear swapping ... it all builds up doesn't it?
@@CueyTKD this isn't a dig, but genuinely curious; do you also discount your own opinions when you're drunk?
@Ravenous Cadaver I only discount my own opinions when I'm not, not eating ass.
Guz's realization that he had in fact done it right, coupled with Morgana's dance of victory, delights me so much. I miss this crew.
guz is the best
At the end Guz seemed to still be waiting to be told it was the opposite again and he actually lost
@@nk-dw2hm Hahahaha, yeah, he was side-eyeing Alex like he expected the other shoe to drop.
They lowkey did do it right im here to debunk this now
ikr, best series imho.
Five points to Alex for his "nuns still inhabited the place" pun.
took me a moment to get it actually
Nun puns
I didn’t get it
@@Aaaaaaaaaaaaa558 in*habit*ed. as in a nun's outfit
I was wondering why no one caught that! Lol
I did get this right, and pretty quickly. The key to this type of puzzle is to treat it like a math problem, not a language problem: An odd number of negatives is negative, an even number of negatives is positive.
There are six negatives, (opposite, no, not, avoid, not, not), so the instruction as a whole is positive: Ring the bell.
Thks so much🤣 english is my second language and I've been trying to figure out how there were 5 negatives in the original instruction.. missed the no circunstance part
Actually this logic is flawed! "Avoid" and "Make" aren't logically transitive verbs. So their meaning changes when you move the not around (the task masters are actually wrong - the correct interpretation of the task is that it doesn't really matter what happens to the bell)
yeah, it's literally just counting to 6
You should get out more.
Do the opposite of "you must" and both answer are correct
The certainty in the delivery of “You’re going to summon something” is sending me!!
You could see the sadness in Victoria's face when she lost. I'm sure she is usually so organized that you could set your watch to her bathroom schedule.
Except when she's eating Crunchy Nut Cornflakes
I was actually kind of happy for her when that happened, it prevented the heartbreak that she was about to receive when she DQ'd for not wearing the necklace.
@@BrandNameBulletsDQ'd would mean 0 points. Instead she got -5.
If Desiree had rung the bell, she would have won the series.
The way it was scored, rather than give points for the necklace task and then subtracting five, Desiree and Victoria just got a straight minus five. If they kept the necklace points then subtracted five, Desiree would have ended the series with 166 points, Guz (who would get one fewer point because of finishing behind Desiree) would end the series with 166 points, and Morgana (who would get two fewer points for coming in last) would end the series with 166 points. The series would end with a three-way tiebreak.
Man that would have been awesome
As it stands, I still feel like five points was a big penalty
I mean, the point deduction was advertised clearly. If you really played to win taskmaster then stuff like that would be avoided at all costs, most contestants couldn't even bother trying here so it really was just a coin toss. And it was probably better television as a result.
Victoria would have got zero without the penalty anyway because she didn't wear the necklace.
That's the game! We don't make the rules, that's only the task masters call
@@doommarauder3532 I think how the scoring was described in the task was more ambiguous than that: the wording could be interpreted either as "you will be assessed a five point penalty at the end of the task" or "you will be disqualified and lose five points" But then again, I think that Joe Wilkinson didn't touch the red green, so what do I know? (And I agree that taking the scoring seriously is ridiculous, but i am a ridiculous person, so it is on-brand for me).
Some great quotes here:
Alan - Y’know, I recently completed a master’s degree?
Desiree - Is anything ever alright?
Guz - This is gonna summon something
Morgana - *literal hysteria*
Victoria - What if I can’t do it? Do we all stay here forever?
I loved Alan's "every time I touch it, it ties itself in a knot," and Alex' "I'm not not laughing."
"This is the future of television" really got me.
"I admire your choke" with the close up of desiree's necklace, cheeky backhanded compliment by alex
And Greg's "if you got this right at home, get out more"
I love how, upon learning he has won 5 points, he still just sits there confused
He?
@@jonhohensee3258 gus
@@jonhohensee3258 yes
@@bekindtopeople498 no
Guz won because he respected Ethel.
Alan Davies just always looks like he's having a good time
I swear he gets off on other people's diminished hopes and dreams.
unless a blue whale is involved
"If you got that right at home, get out more" 😂😂
it's raining
@@yourmum69_420put on a coat
That felt personal
Guz wins the task, gets the five points, and stonefaces it. Not even a smile while everyone else is applauding 😂 just completely owning his victory
I love how this task is actually incredibly simple since every double negative just cancels two out.
I was all proud of myself for getting it right until Greg put me straight on blast. I do need to get out more.
This is a perfect task to trip up over thinkers (like Victoria) who would get so immersed in all the negatives that they miss the full instructions. Also, I knew Susie Dent would be consulted.
No you didn't.
@@jonhohensee3258 To be fair, it's not the first time Alex consulted Susie as part of the show
@@maxington26 - Um, okay.
Couldn't you argue that to not avoid sth doesn't necessarily mean to do it? You just mustn't have the impulse to do it in the first place so then you wouldn't need to avoid the thing to not do it. For example i never played the piano but i didn't avoid it.
@@jonhohensee3258 Precedence obviously increases the likelihood of a third-party prediction of the same outcome in the future being an honest one. That's all I was saying.
I would argue that the opposite of avoiding the bell ringing is not "ring the bell" but rather "allow the bell to ring" so as long as you are not preventing it, you don't have to cause the ringing
no.
They seem to have missed that Victoria did not wear the necklace. She held it up and set it down.
She wore it on her hands? It never specifically said neck.
well it becomes irrelevant since she didnt ring the bell and failed anyways
@@canebro1 Bruh, that's called holding. Holding a necklace in your hand isn't wearing it any more than draping a towel over your head is being a woman.
@@canebro1 NECK-lace.
I think she was already doing so bad at the show in general, they just didn't bother.
absolutely my favorite task from series 12, thank you for uploading taskmaster team 🙏
Oof- tough call.
It's up there for sure but 12 has some NICE ones.
Competition is thick- innit?
Certified pedant here. The negation of "making the bell not ring" is NOT making the bell ring, it is simply allowing the bell to ring. No contestant prevented anyone or anything else from ringing the bell, at least not actively, and thus, no contestants should have lost points.
Technically, wouldn’t the “do the opposite of the following” also include saying “I did the right thing” three times and therefore make everyone lose five points?
Yes, you're right!
I would also add that the opposite of losing five points is gaining five points :D
That was my thought as well. It would have been great if one had said "I did the wrong thing"
@@Drayconic13 E. :P
I just realised this as well.
For those of you who don't know, licking the thread, specially licking so much of it, makes it usually worse because the fibers become bendier and are more likely to just bend and deform as soon as they find resitance rather than pushing through the needle hole like dry thread will.
She kept licking such big portions of it and making it harder for herself.
"If you got that right at home, get out more". I've never felt more attacked in my life.
Working backwards: Ring, don’t ring, ring, don’t ring, ring.
Guz there in the end trying to figure out if he under no circumstances has avoided not winning or not 😂
4:58 I'm so sad no one reacted to Alex's joke
The trick to this one is to think "Sod the task, if I fail this 1 instruction, I lose points." Therefore, focus all effort on interpreting the correct instruction at the start to avoid losing points, then start the popcorn necklace in an attempt to gain some points for the task.
Personally, I would just ask Alex to borrow a pen, and then cross out pairs of negatives until there's only one or zero left. The task is written down - use it!
@@NYKevin100 That was my thinking as well!
Don’t avoid not losing points by not avoiding not to make the bell not ring, is that what you’re saying?
@@NYKevin100 why the fuck do you even need a pen for it? is your mind that tiny, that you can't cross out the "nots" in your thoughts?
The real trick is being able to think of any strategy at all, knowing that said strategy is being filmed, timed, and scored on a point system where the quality of your notions will be placed on a leader-board in direct competition against your co-workers and friends.
I suppose you get used to it, but having the ability to _focus on anything while on stage_ is impressive to me.
particularly, focusing on a game, while remaining entertaining to your audience is a serious skill.
I feel like they should've had to ring the bell and say "I did the wrong thing" three times.
The verbal part of this task is kinda like stoichiometry.
Alan and Victoria were on the same QI episode where there was a question on Double Negatives 😂
Couldn't you argue that to not avoid sth doesn't necessarily mean to do it? You just mustn't have the impulse to do it in the first place so then you wouldn't need to avoid the thing to not do it. For example i never played the piano but i didn't avoid it.
I got the riddle right at home, and I should indeed get out more.
I got it immediately (and should get out more as well) but it's because one of my brothers liked speaking in double negatives as a teenager 😆
I didn't watch the video but I just wanted to comment about the brilliancy of the title. I sat for 5 minutes looking at it and breaking it up into pieces before I realized what it said. Do not avoid (=make sure) not making (=preventing) the bell not ring. Make sure to prevent the bell from Not ringing. So make sure the bell is ringing.
I think looking at it logically and not just as a mathematical challenge of how many negatives there are...
It actually doesn't matter if they rang the bell or not.
Making the bell not ring is to stop it from ringing, should it start ringing.
Not making the bell not ring is to be uninvolved should it start ringing - it doesn't mean you have to actively make it ring - it just means you have to not be the reason it stops ringing.
Avoiding doing so is to show hesitance towards the task and not avoiding it is to show no hesitance towards it - so as long as they don't hesitate to leave the bell alone while/if it's ringing, they're fine.
And the opposite of "you must not" is just "you must", so that's a moot sentiment.
This means that the challengers have to complete these 2 criteria to pass:
1. Don't stop the bell from ringing.
2. Don't question your decision to leave the bell alone once it's ringing.
In other words, whether the contestants chose to ring the bell or not made absolutely no difference whatsoever and they all should have completed the challenge successfully.
I agree in almost everything. For me it's easier to think of it as "making the bell not ring" = "muting the bell", then all else is easier. However, after ringing the bell, Guz was the only one who muted it. So I would say that should make him fail, as he did stop the bell from ringing.
Well, logic is a branch of math, and you can think of it as a mathematical challenge as long as your definitions are expressive enough!
TL;DR: I am getting the same result as @SamuraiPipotchi.
Let me introduce a few logic operators (inspired by computation tree logic, you can google that if interested):
¬: logical negation
A: under all circumstances
E: there exists a circumstance
You could think of a circumstance as a possibility, or as a branch of the multiverse (if it even exists).
Here is how you would translate these English formulations in a mathematical form:
"not x" = ¬x
"must do x" = Ax
"can do x" = Ex
Here are some more:
"do the opposite of x" = ¬x
"under no circumstances x" = ¬Ex (equivalent to A¬x)
"avoid x" = ¬Ex (equivalent to A¬x)
If you transform the task into logic symbols, apply some logic rules, then transform it back to English, you get the following:
(do the opposite of the following:)(you must)(under no circumstances)(not)(avoid)(not)(making the bell not)(ring)
(¬)(A)(¬E)(¬)(¬E)(¬)(¬)(ring)
¬A¬E¬¬E¬¬ ring
¬¬EE¬¬E¬¬ ring
EEE ring
E ring
(you can)(make the bell ring)
It means that they are allowed to make the bell ring (but they don't have to).
@@danyboy86 I didn't notice him muting the bell afterwards. I suppose he would have failed if he did
@@jraph I always forget that mathematics can get that precise and varied with it's expressions
Okay, so I absolutely love this! I had something vaguely in this direction but you guys formalized it and found more inconsistencies. I love that there is a rigorous way to do this.
God, I should get out more, shouldn't I?
1:17. Double negative equals positive. Therefor it follows that if the negatives equate to an even number, its positive.
Thus, i suspect that the task directs one to ring the bell when they are done. Will update when video ends.
Update: apparently I need to get out more. I mean, they're not wrong. XD
Did anyone else notice that Victoria made but did not wear the necklace? Unless I missed her putting the necklace on at least briefly, she actually failed the task twice
The rules did not say that you were supposed to wear the necklace. They just had to make it.
@@muskanpaints It does actually state in the rules that you have to wear the necklace, but it did not specify that you had to wear it around your neck. You can wear a lot of things without them being affixed to your body so technically I don't think she broke the rules.
@@CosmicDeejay oh yes you are right. I guess i missed it at first.
Ok so they’re using the word “avoid” as another negative in the chain, but you could argue that’s it’s a fuzzy enough word to justify ringing or not ringing the bell: “I didn’t AVOID the conversation, I just didn’t have the time to talk to you.” “I may not have rung the bell, but I didn’t AVOID it. You know honestly I just didn’t think about the bell, what with all the nun ghosts.”
Don't think it would've mattered, but Victoria didn't WEAR the necklace. She just made it... after an excruciatingly long time.
Under no circumstances must you not prevent the video from not stopping when you're not watching it.
I don't not misunderstand this
Que?
You must stop the video when you're not watching it.
Please don't avoid not failing to subscribe, and remember, every comment on our video does not help our channel's failure!
I remembered the line, "Do the opposite of the following:" And I still decided that I would NOT have rung the bell. 😂 Guess I would've lost 5 points.
Same! I missed the fact that "avoid" counts as a negative because I was too busy focusing on all the "not"s. Whoops.
@@Verity58 same! I still don’t understand, if I was trying to not avoid a person I would be trying to run into them 🫠
They didn't account for "mustn't" as the opposite of must...
It's a tricky one, too much left open for interpretation, I broke it down to +'s and -'s as an equation and deduced to not ring the bell...
They could've argued either way considering the usual context of "everything you need to know is on the card"
@@nicholascrow8133 There wasn't a mustn't in the written directions.
Do the opposite of the following: You must under no circumstances not avoid not making the bell not ring.
If you cross out the 4 no(t)s: you are left with doing the opposite of "avoid making the bell ring"
@@CueyTKD There was a must, which the opposite is mustn't. I guess is comes down to interpretation of the conditions, whether you do the opposite of the sentence as a whole, or the opposite of each individual word...
I need to get out more. I counted those negatives and came to six and was so pleased when they said the same thing.
The moment it says to do the opposite just cross out the “not’s” and change “must” to “must not”.
I'm not sure Gus Khan understand how churches work, and I'm loving it.
I notice Victoria also failed to wear the necklace, which was the first part of the task.
Great job, you didn’t make my head not hurt 😵💫
I'm surprised the outcome wasn't meant to be "I have done the wrong thing, I have done the wrong thing, I have done the wrong thing"
To all those who struggle threading a needle... All you need to do is fold the thread so you have a loop, hold it close to the end so the loop is small and then thread the needle... Since it is now in a loop, the cut end of the thread with it's imperfections will not get stuck 😊
loop the thread around the needle, hold the thread with your thumb and index finger right next to the needle, pull the needle out, pinch your fingers a little bit more, and you can thread the now pointy end of the loop through the hole without any problems even though it being two threads
I love how the 2 things they were most worried about were not offending gods or ghosts.
The part that I was constantly wondering about was whether or not the "do the opposite" applies to the "the fastest wins" part as well and the person who waited the longest to say "I did the right thing" after ringing the bell (or who took the longest making the necklace) would be the winner.
Am I the only one who would have just tied the bucket to my neck and smashed the bell?
Translating it into a logic problem it can be rephrase as "you can ring the bell"
Both options were correct.
Are we all just overlooking the fact that Alex said that the place used to be in-habit-ed by nuns?
Who else spent 10 minutes analyzing the title before even clicking on the video?
I need to get out more.
Really happy with myself for solving the riddle then brought back to earth by Greg telling me to get out more 10/10
Guz: "Why do you have to get so specific?"
Also Guz: "Ethel"
It doesn't get much more specific than calling someone out by name xD
I'm sorry to say this, but Ms. Dent is wrong. The sentence ends with "...make the bell not ring." But you can't make the bell not ring. It's already not ringing. Not ringing is the default state, and you can't make it not ring more. So after all negations, the sentence is telling you either to make the bell not ring, which is impossible, or to not make the bell not ring which everyone is doing already. Doing the opposite doesn't change this logic at all, and there is no possible interpretation of the challenge which instructs you to ring the bell.
"If you got that right at home, get out more." We've been called out, fellas.
"If you got that right at home, get out more." I feel personally targeted by the Greg. What an honor!
You can solve multiple negatives by simply cancel out every two of them and if it's a even number it's a positive sentence and if odd it's a negative sentence. You do what the sentence says if positive and don't do it if negative.
I don't know why people get so confused with double negatives. Just count the negatives, if it's odd then it's a no, if it's even it's not a no.
Thank Christ I got the double negative question right. An even number of negative qualifiers ie. 6 = a positive statement. And then Greg destroyed all my happiness by (justifiably) tearing strips off me
Oh, come on, no one laughed at Alex "inhabited" pun? That was gold.
Can you explain it? I don't get the joke.
@@sjwimmel A nun's uniform is called a habit
@@paulpardee who tf would know that?
@@yourmum69_420 It's common enough knowledge that a 1993 Whoopi Goldberg film used it in its title - Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit
I don't expect young people or non-native speakers to know it, but the panel certainly should have.
My immediate thought was to place a piece of popcorn on the table for every negative, and then remove them in pairs
I’m going to text my friends and tell them that Greg Davies says I need to get out more so we’ll all just have to go to lunch this week.
~(for all ~ Circumstances (~avoid (~making (~ ring (bell))))) = there exists a circumstance in which you avoid making the bell ring.
Some people not ringing the bell is is at least one circumstance of avoiding making the bell ring, so they're safe. And some ringing the bell is fine too since the sentence is satisfied by the existence of some not ringing it.
Technically everyone wins.
You must under no circumstances, not avoid not making the bell not ring -> opposite -> You must always avoid making the bell ring -> So the bell shouldn't be rang right?
What they did in the show is take out the "not avoid" part, but it is part of the statement so it can't be taken out. Doing the opposite of "not avoid" (do) is "don't" or "avoid".
As phrased, either action is fine. Under all that, the action you're supposed to do is "not make the bell not ring", which is a double negative that doesn't cancel out entirely. If you ring it, you didn't make it not ring, sure. But if you don't ring it, you aren't the cause of it not ringing. That's what it was going to do anyway.
“You must under no circumstances” oh Alex 😂
Unfortunately it is more complicated than simply counting the negatives, this is why double negatives are recommended to be avoided. Even single negatives can be confounding such as the difference between "not trying to" and "trying to not." The former demanding inaction or lack of intent and the latter demanding specific action against.
Incidentally there is also no "Fastest to not do the wrong thing" as, unless they were already doing it, they were successfully not doing it immediately. It could be, "Fastest to do the not wrong thing," but even that would allow for doing any thing except the wrong thing and not necessarily the right thing. "Fastest to complete the task without doing the wrong thing."
Fortunately generally we are able to distinguish what a person meant and no correction is needed, but as sorting out a series of negatives is the premise of the task I found this comment necessary.
Making the bell ring -> Ring the bell
Making the bell not ring -> Stop the bell from ringing
Not making the bell ring -> Inaction or Any action except ringing the bell
Not making the bell not ring -> Inaction or Any action except stopping the bell from ringing
You must under no circumstances -> Do [the following] without circumstances -> Impossible
You must under no circumstances (Should be either "You must not under any circumstance" or "Under no circumstance should you") -> Never do [the following]
Never not -> Always
You must under no circumstances not avoid not making the bell not ring -> Always avoid any action except stopping the bell from ringing ->
then do the opposite: -> Take any action except stopping the bell from ringing.
4:16 That whole Guz thing seems a bit more important.
I came to the comments to write (almost) the same thing, but you said it better than I would have :P
The final sentence I got was: "Be indifferent about the bell ringing."
@@Phlarx Thank you. There are certainly other valid conclusions. I ended up trimming down because it quickly gets out of hand when exploring the potentials.
@@ademisc no
Well actually time was supposed to be stopped when "you either rung the bell or not rung the bell" which sounds like an OR gate of A and !A to me which is always true; Therefore the whole inverter chain is pointless and you should just stop the clock whenever one's done
No, because that only mattered for the timing. Correct completion depended on ringing the bell or not.
and you subsequently had to declare some words.
If there is an odd number of negatives it makes a positive but if there is an even number it makes a negative
Arguably, The oppositie of "you must" is "you must not". Therefore I must not do anything. Goodbye
With just the title I knew it was “don’t ring the bell.”
Guz is the only one to complete the task. The sentence resolves to not making the bell not ring, the opposite of which is to make the bell not ring. The bell must be ringing, or else you cannot make it not ring. And Guz is the only one who made the bell not ring.
what
To do the opposite of the given instruction, "You must under no circumstances not avoid not making the bell not ring," we need to simplify the statement first by removing the double negatives:
"Not avoid not making the bell not ring" simplifies to "make the bell ring."
"Under no circumstances" implies a prohibition, so doing the opposite would be to allow or ensure the action happens.
So, the opposite instruction would be: "You must ensure to make the bell ring."
Regarding the second part of the task, "The task is over when you have either rung the bell or not rung the bell and said I did the right thing 3 times," doing the opposite would mean:
You don't need to declare "I did the right thing" at all.
Since the original task ends with either action (ringing or not ringing the bell), the opposite would be that the task does not end with just the action of ringing or not ringing the bell. However, since this creates a paradox (as the task must have an endpoint), we can interpret it as the task simply ends when you ring the bell, without any further action required.
Therefore, to follow the opposite of the original instructions, you should ring the bell and there is no need to say anything afterwards.
Was relieved when Susie forgot the first bit of the sentence😅
Symbolic logic is useful for parsing these kinds of sentences. The rule is that two negations are the same as nothing ("not not X = X"). So you count the number of negations, if it's even then they all cancel out (as was the case here), and if the total number of negations is odd then it's just like having one negation.
There's an easy trick to that riddle. Count the negatives in the statement, if it's an odd number then it's negative, if it's an even number then it's positive.
In my opinion, the OPPOSITE of "under no circumstances do not avoid not making the bell not ring" is "under every circumstance, do avoid making the bell ring." Essentially, the "Do the opposite of the following:" could be taken to mean "whatever that equation comes to, do the other thing", but it could also mean simply to take every element of the sentence and invert it, in which case, you should not ring the bell.
So basically
Under No Circumstances not avoid -> 2 no's negate -> Avoid
not making the bell not ring -> 2 no's negate -> Making the bell ring
-> Avoid making the bell ring
And as it's the opposite
-> Ring the Bell
I had a middle school teacher that would literally write questions like this on the tests, lol.
Okay, I read and deciphered and dissected the title like 10 times before I even allowed myself to click on the video😅
Victoria talking about threading the needle making her queasy: I thought I was the only one.
@@jonhohensee3258 fixed it.
@@doctorstrangepants6706 no you didn't lmao
@@lred1383 try refreshing your app/webpage.
@@lred1383 lmao? I bet you barely chuckled.
@@jonhohensee3258 a polite nose exhale with a half-smile
I can live with making the same mistake as Victoria :D Like her, I thought the double negatives were the easy part, then forgot the very first negative (do the opposite).
but Victoria had it written down in front of her. No excuse for her to forget
I prefer solving these problems by taking out chunks of the sentence in reverse, rewording them to be easier to understand, then replacing them in the original sentence.
Original sentence for reference: "(7:) Do the opposite of the following: (6:) You must (5:) under no circumstances (4:) not (3:) avoid (2:) not (1:) making the bell not ring."
Step 1: Making the bell not ring (singular negative) --> Not making the bell ring.
Step 2: Not not making the bell ring (double negative) --> Making the bell ring.
Step 3: Avoid making the bell ring (singular negative) --> Do not ring the bell.
Step 4: Do not not ring the bell (double negative) --> Ring the bell.
Step 5: Under no circumstances ring the bell (singular negative) --> Do not ring the bell.
Step 6: You must not ring the bell (singular negative) --> Do not ring the bell.
Step 7: Do the opposite of not ringing the bell (double negative) --> Ring the bell.
notes: "Making the bell ring" is just a wordier way of saying "ringing the bell". This adds a layer of difficulty.
Without this analysis, I got it wrong on my first read, and I would have not rang the bell.
If I got it wrong, I would argue that everything below the dash should still also be considered opposite, meaning that "If you do the wrong thing you gain 5 points in the end".
I think Suzie Dent is wrong, the opposite of "You must under no circumstances not avoid not making the bell not ring." would be something along the lines of "Myself must not above all non-events avoid making the bell ring." meaning that they could do either and it would be fine since the letter writer must not avoid making the bell ring.
I'm gone be really pedantic here: there is a difference between "you must not avoid" doing something and "you must" do something. You cannot remove the "not avoid" bit because it's not redundant, it changes the meaning of the sentence. So technically the only thing they had to do was to just do the task without avoiding ringing the bell. Whether they actually rung it is irrelevant.
Please do a Taskmaster fan favorite/redemption series where contestants that did not win but were well liked are voted upon by fans and can compete again. Maximum one person from a series.
For example, my ideal lineup is:
James Acaster
Mel Giedroyc
Nish Kumar
Mike Wozniak
Asim Chaudhry
Please consider this!
"Don't do the wrong thing" isn't the same as "Do the right thing". If they didn't do anything and just walked away they wouldn't have done the wrong thing. Bingo bango free points.
If you need to do the opposite of saying: "I did the right thing" they should have said "I didn't do the right thing"
"Is anything ever going to be okay ever again, Alex?"
I wonder about humanity as a whole whenever I see clips from this show.
It stopps the time when you have (not) ring the bell. After the necklace you should so be able to have directly won and the challenge is over and could have rang the bell after the Challenge. - or the challenge was going on, hence you have not rang the bell. That way you have accomplished it with ringing the bell.
Another interpretation of the card (assuming the capitalization in the video description is accurate to what was actually on the card) would be, "make and wear a popcorn necklace with at least five pieces of popcorn and then do the opposite of the following: [...]" where the next word, 'You', is capitalized, and is therefore the first sentence to be subject to the terms of the colon, while the sentence beginning with 'The' would also be subject to the terms of the colon, as would the sentences beginning with 'Fastest' and 'If'. Until there is a paragraph break, all of the antecedent sentences are subjected to the colon.
By that undoubtedly correct linguistic interpretation, and with the parallel interpretation that the opposite of 'the following' is in fact 'the preceding', the task reads as follows: "make and wear a popcorn necklace with at least five pieces of popcorn and then do the preceding. This quite naturally means making the popcorn necklace again as described, upon which the card's instructions have been satisfied.
I would explain that logic whilst making 2 popcorn necklaces, wearing each one as I completed it, and then walk out because the task is finished.
I would’ve rung the bell for the simple fact that it is more fun than not ringing it and I couldn’t be bothered to actually figure it out. 50% odds are 50% odds.
I ended up interpreting the task different in my weird autistic brain. So doing the opposite would implicitly cancel out the Do Not at the beginning, as the "Do Not" at the beginning applies to the entire sentence afterwards, so you'd read the task as "Avoid Not Making the Bell Not Ring". Now as the task says "Avoid", you can interpret that as just not getting involved rather than a negative, or "avoiding the bell". Therefore, regardless of whether the bell was rung or not by any event, by not getting involved, you have avoided the bell.
Another interpretation would be; "Making the bell not ring" implies you're stopping the ringing of a bell which was going to be rung. Not doing that would mean you're not stopping the bell getting rung if someone else goes to ring it, so whether someone comes along to ring the bell or not, you meet this criteria. Then taking the avoid into account, you would avoid not doing anything when someone else comes to ring the bell, so as long as no one else comes along to ring the bell, if you ring it or not, you still meet the criteria, (and then as above the opposite and "Do Not" at the beginning would cancel out as there's not definition of an action tied to these parts of the sentence)
TL;DR either interpret it as just ignore the bell, avoid getting involved with it and you'd win
or Ring the bell, don't ring the bell, whatever, so long as no one else comes to "Make the bell ring", you win
...it makes sense in my head...
There are two aspects of the sentence that make "even/odd number of negations" strategy incorrect and makes the show incorrect. Working from the inside out:
-"making the bell not ring": taking an action that causes the bell to not ring when it otherwise would. Simplified: preventing the bell from ringing
-"[do ]not making the bell not ring": do not prevent the bell from ringing.
-"avoid not making the bell not ring": making a best effort to take an action that prevents the bell from ringing. Simplified: try to prevent the bell from ringing
-"[do] not avoid not making the bell not ring": do not try to prevent the bell from ringing. simplified: do not prevent the bell from ringing
-"you must under no circumstances not avoid not making the bell not ring": you must prevent the bell from ringing
-"do the opposite of the following: 'you must under no circumstances not avoid not making the bell not ring'": you may, if you choose, prevent the bell from ringing.
This final result is indifferent to whether you or anyone else rings the bell. "making the bell not ring" is about whether ringing the bell is *acceptable*, so choosing not to ring remains an option no matter how many times the phrase is negated. Additionally, "must" creates a requirement, so the opposite of "must" isn't "must not" (which would be a different requirement). It's "may" -- a lack of requirement
not making the bell not ring could mean "don't do something that prevents the bell from ringing"
avoiding that means "avoid not preventing the bell from ringing"
which boils down to "prevent the bell from ringing"
not avoiding therefore means "do not prevent the bell from ringing"
under no circumstances should you "not prevent the bell from ringing"
which means that you should prevent the bell from ringing
doing the opposite of that means you shouldn't prevent the bell from ringing
Not preventing the bell from ringing doesn't require you to ring nor not ring the bell. If someone put something in the way of the wall of the bell and the thing that hits it, that would count as preventing the bell from ringing and would be wrong.
Since none of the contestants prevented the bell from ringing, I think they were all correct in their actions.
"get out more", i would, but i solved that as it was read, without even thinking about it. at this point, i'm pretty sure if i stepped outside i'd spontaneously combust.
I tried the opposite of trying to not avoid not watching this video