one word....Asmodean..... ;-)

[Jonn]

I for one don't remember what I thought then. Maybe I just thought someone' date=' and let it go at that. Certainly I didn't think on it much until a few years ago I noticed the online forums.

 

I'm not entirely sure where I'm going at here, but perhaps with enough indepth reading, Graendal should have been prominent. I guess I wasn't capable that then myself, in high-school I wasn't good enough to read WoT without a dictionary or word-book or whatever it is.

 

.[/quote']

 

That's the point. You shouldn't have to think about it too hard at all to have an intuitive reaction to something. The intuitively obvious argument is based on a direct quote from RJ. You don't need to have an in-depth reading session to figure out what is intuitive. You either have a reaction or you do not.

 

If you do not have a reaction, that doesn't help your Graendal theory at all. Graendal never crossed your mind at that moment and that speaks volumes.

 

Again, I've never heard of anyone who read that passage and immediately came up with Graendal as the killer. In fact, I've never heard of anyone wh has had even the nerve to lie and say that they did, not even in hindisght. Wanna know why I think that is? Because it makes absolutely no sense to immediately home in on Graendal at that point of the narrative. To imply as much would as good as torpedoe your credibility in this argument. Granted, law of averages says that at least one person took a blind guess and thought that it was possibly Graendal, but that flies in the face of what RJ is quoted as saying. He thought it would be intuitive and so he meant it to be intuitive in the narrative, not some blind guess and not some coldly logical breakdown that takes hours and hours of thinking and arguing about possibilities and factors.

 

I've said it again and again, Graendal as the killer reads as cold as a polar bear's toenails. It has no pop, no point. It would have been better served if there were an exposition of the consequences for Graendal's alleged actions, but that isn't even given. It's just this hole in the plot and a wasted opportunity to add depth to Graendal.

[Graendals favourite]

Well, yea, in a way. Though if the casual observer found it obvious Asmo didn't die by accident... from that observation, Graendal isn't that far, taking into account what had happened that day. Of course, it takes enough keen eye not to equate her with Semirhage and Mesaana, who'd not yet appeared on stage. For the rest, well RJ did also use the words figure out.

 

On that Graendal did it wouldn't matter, I disagree. It goes to show she has activities, and more generally, that the Forsaken do go about, and know things and can be near, even if not seen. So it doesn't have to be new people coming in, as the peddlers (Lanfear and Asmodean), but just passing and unobserved.

[rd2000]

Anyway' date=' there is that thing of Melindhra, to be considered. She should be someone's spy, that is clear. [/quote']

 

Melindhra was working for Sammael, or was carrying a dagger with his symbol at the time Mat killed her.

 

One comment about RJ saying the answer was intuitive. That is HIS perspective, he writes the story. What is intuitive to him, has obviously not been intuitive to the majority of us. When I first read about Asmo's death, I couldn't come up with a likely candidate on the spot. No one seemed to be the killer intuitively, at least to me. All that left was deduction/elimination.

[Moridin2794]

But for some reason, I can't be comfortable totally committing to Graendal. Sadly enough, I am nearly swayed by the Taim theory, though I dearly wish that it wasn't him.

[Kadere]

But it wasn't Mazrim, he wasn't in Caemlyn.

[Jonn]

Well' date=' yea, in a way. Though if the casual observer found it obvious Asmo didn't die by accident... from that observation, Graendal isn't that far, taking into account what had happened that day. Of course, it takes enough keen eye not to equate her with Semirhage and Mesaana, who'd not yet appeared on stage. For the rest, well RJ did also use the words figure out.

 

On that Graendal did it wouldn't matter, I disagree. It goes to show she has activities, and more generally, that the Forsaken do go about, and know things and can be near, even if not seen. So it doesn't have to be new people coming in, as the peddlers (Lanfear and Asmodean), but just passing and unobserved.[/quote']

 

You removed the word intuitive again.

 

I cannot stress any more that it makes a difference between obvious and intuitively obvious. Besides, RJ never said that the circumstances should be obvious. He said it's the killer who should be intitively obvious, meaning at the least, the reader should be able to have an answer in mind in regards to the killer at the moment they read the passage.

 

It should mean something is what I'm getting at. It's not just some passing detail that doesn't matter. Don't buy that for a second.

 

As for the Forsaken doing things that we just don't see...What is the point in writing a scenario that surely would demand an explanation and then fail to give the explanation? Just pause and re-read what you are suggest here, GF. You're telling me that RJ is writing in such a way that the villains' actions are not important to clarify the meaning. It's just ok to imply that they do something and that the consequence of what they allegedly do isn't important to the plot.

 

That's insane.

 

What I'm trying to convey here is a picture that what the Forsaken do personally means something. It is always worth mentioning what they do because it gives the reader a better feel for what the heroes face. To so something as major as killing a Forsaken no matter how weak they are relatively...to do so personally. THAT is worth mentioning. That would be addressed.

[Bob T Dwarf]

I've got to agree with that.

 

Since Jordan hasn't had the killer reveal him/herself, it makes the most sense for the reason to be that doing so would give away a major plot twist.

 

Cold hard logic does have to play its part, though. Whether we arrive at the killer's name through intuition at the time of reading or not, that name must be logically supported by the facts of the case, as laid out by the author. The lack of confirmation of the killer's identity to this point must logically be because that identity still plays an important part in the upcoming plot.

 

That's why I don't think it's any of the suspects most people mention. There's absolutely no surprise value, no plot twist in it being Sammael or Graendal. There's only curiosity value in it being Lanfear, as in, "How'd the Finns do THAT?" And, "Why Asmo and not Rand, or Avi, or Egwene?" The only surprise value in it being Moiraine would be, "Why was she so stupid as to wait until she had to waste a wish?"

 

The only thing which has proven to be "obvious" about this whole problem is that most of this audience somehow needs every question to have a supernatural answer.

[Graendals favourite]

Doesn't the intuitively obvious part go as well for intuituvely obvious once you start thinking about who did it. So that the name doesn't immediately leap out, but you see that that's how he was killed, so then it probably must have been so, and done so, aah, but then it was her!

 

I'm thinking the forsaken do such things all the time, if not killing other forsaken usually. That we DON'T see it done is because they are good at it, which is why we don't see it, aside from not having relevant povs.

[Jedimuppet]

I think everybody has a certain name jump in their head when they first read that part of the book' date=' but I think that the name isn't the same for everybody.

 

I, for instance, immediately thought of Lanfear, but I'm positive that about a billion people thought Graendal. So even if it's "intuitavily obvious" to the person reading, it's not agreed by everyone.[/quote']

 

I've never heard anyone ever say that they immediately thought it was Graendal. I've heard of people guessing it was one of the Forsaken, but never specifically Graendal.

 

Even the staunchest Graendal theorists I've argued the points with...I never gotten a clear answer that said that Graendal's name immediately popped in their head upon reading the passage. That's one of the big reasons that many people (including myself) cannot be sure about Graendal to begin with. She just does not figure in as "obvious" or even prominent enough in the story at that point for us to give her much of any thoughts on her disposition at that point in the narrative.

 

I think it was graendal based on logic, but I was persauded over time. My immediate thought was Lanfear. RJ is certainly having fun with this one.

J

[Jedimuppet]

Well' date=' yea, in a way. Though if the casual observer found it obvious Asmo didn't die by accident... from that observation, Graendal isn't that far, taking into account what had happened that day. Of course, it takes enough keen eye not to equate her with Semirhage and Mesaana, who'd not yet appeared on stage. For the rest, well RJ did also use the words figure out.

 

On that Graendal did it wouldn't matter, I disagree. It goes to show she has activities, and more generally, that the Forsaken do go about, and know things and can be near, even if not seen. So it doesn't have to be new people coming in, as the peddlers (Lanfear and Asmodean), but just passing and unobserved.[/quote']

 

You removed the word intuitive again.

 

I cannot stress any more that it makes a difference between obvious and intuitively obvious. Besides, RJ never said that the circumstances should be obvious. He said it's the killer who should be intitively obvious, meaning at the least, the reader should be able to have an answer in mind in regards to the killer at the moment they read the passage.

 

It should mean something is what I'm getting at. It's not just some passing detail that doesn't matter. Don't buy that for a second.

 

As for the Forsaken doing things that we just don't see...What is the point in writing a scenario that surely would demand an explanation and then fail to give the explanation? Just pause and re-read what you are suggest here, GF. You're telling me that RJ is writing in such a way that the villains' actions are not important to clarify the meaning. It's just ok to imply that they do something and that the consequence of what they allegedly do isn't important to the plot.

 

That's insane.

 

What I'm trying to convey here is a picture that what the Forsaken do personally means something. It is always worth mentioning what they do because it gives the reader a better feel for what the heroes face. To so something as major as killing a Forsaken no matter how weak they are relatively...to do so personally. THAT is worth mentioning. That would be addressed.

 

Agreed again. This is the kind of reasoning that belongs in a math logic class, and the word intuitively obvious is reserved for things like 2+2 = 4. I can't understand how the killer could be intuitively obvious, except only to the person who dreamed up the scenario.

J

[Guest cwestervelt]

Doesn't the intuitively obvious part go as well for intuituvely obvious once you start thinking about who did it. So that the name doesn't immediately leap out' date=' but you see that that's how he was killed, so then it probably must have been so, and done so, aah, but then it was her!

 

I'm thinking the forsaken do such things all the time, if not killing other forsaken usually. That we DON'T see it done is because they are good at it, which is why we don't see it, aside from not having relevant povs.[/quote']

 

That would be more of a "logically obvious" sollution which is essentially the diametrical opposite of an "intuitively obvious" solution. Once you take time to think about something, you cannot have an intuitive reaction as it is no longer spontaneous.

[Graendals favourite]

But when the standards are raised, more things become 2+2=4 :)...

 

Perhaps it's a physics thing, but when something can be clearly seen, one doesn't want to over-emphasise. To illustrate, (I get to quote myself :D ), I myself recently wrote on a physics paper

"--we immediately notice that, integrating over 2pi, both f and g must be even for a nonezero result--"

when I'd, after deriving results after two pages of calculations, worried for three weeks how the result might end up being imaginary if one of the indices might be odd. Only then did I notice from earlier on that they can't be, but it was still obvious.

[Guest cwestervelt]

I think everybody has a certain name jump in their head when they first read that part of the book' date=' but I think that the name isn't the same for everybody.

 

I, for instance, immediately thought of Lanfear, but I'm positive that about a billion people thought Graendal. So even if it's "intuitavily obvious" to the person reading, it's not agreed by everyone.[/quote']

 

I've never heard anyone ever say that they immediately thought it was Graendal. I've heard of people guessing it was one of the Forsaken, but never specifically Graendal.

 

Even the staunchest Graendal theorists I've argued the points with...I never gotten a clear answer that said that Graendal's name immediately popped in their head upon reading the passage. That's one of the big reasons that many people (including myself) cannot be sure about Graendal to begin with. She just does not figure in as "obvious" or even prominent enough in the story at that point for us to give her much of any thoughts on her disposition at that point in the narrative.

 

I think it was graendal based on logic, but I was persauded over time. My immediate thought was Lanfear. RJ is certainly having fun with this one.

J

 

Your immediate thought was an intuitive result. Allowing yourself to be convinced it was Graendal based on logic goes against RJ's comments.

 

But you see' date=' you [b']had[/b] an instictive/intuitive reaction. You later allowed logic (which isn't intuitive) to change your mind.

 

Other than Moiraine, Lanfear is the only candidate that I can see people arriving at intuitively.

[Jedimuppet]

I think everybody has a certain name jump in their head when they first read that part of the book' date=' but I think that the name isn't the same for everybody.

 

I, for instance, immediately thought of Lanfear, but I'm positive that about a billion people thought Graendal. So even if it's "intuitavily obvious" to the person reading, it's not agreed by everyone.[/quote']

 

I've never heard anyone ever say that they immediately thought it was Graendal. I've heard of people guessing it was one of the Forsaken, but never specifically Graendal.

 

Even the staunchest Graendal theorists I've argued the points with...I never gotten a clear answer that said that Graendal's name immediately popped in their head upon reading the passage. That's one of the big reasons that many people (including myself) cannot be sure about Graendal to begin with. She just does not figure in as "obvious" or even prominent enough in the story at that point for us to give her much of any thoughts on her disposition at that point in the narrative.

 

I think it was graendal based on logic, but I was persauded over time. My immediate thought was Lanfear. RJ is certainly having fun with this one.

J

 

Your immediate thought was an intuitive result. Allowing yourself to be convinced it was Graendal based on logic goes against RJ's comments.

 

But you see' date=' you [b']had[/b] an instictive/intuitive reaction. You later allowed logic (which isn't intuitive) to change your mind.

 

Other than Moiraine, Lanfear is the only candidate that I can see people arriving at intuitively.

 

Yeah, except I didn't fully understand the nature of Finnland and other important factors during my first reading.

J

[Jedimuppet]

But when the standards are raised' date=' more things become 2+2=4 :)...

 

Perhaps it's a physics thing, but when something can be clearly seen, one doesn't want to over-emphasise. To illustrate, (I get to quote myself :D ), I myself recently wrote on a physics paper

"--we immediately notice that, integrating over 2pi, both f and g must be even for a nonezero result--"

when I'd, after deriving results after two pages of calculations, worried for three weeks how the result might end up being imaginary if one of the indices might be odd. Only then did I notice from earlier on that they can't be, but it was still obvious.[/quote']

 

Agreed, but integrals are 2+2 equivalent for physics math people. integrals and addition are the same in kind, that is they are both functional mathematical operations, as opposed to deduction or inference.

J

[Graendals favourite]

I have to admit, though, I've been nowadays a bit trained not to use intuition, I guess. Been working so much at solving physical systems. My initial graps on intuition says that's how you start out solving something, how you think the problem can be solved, but then I guess that might be just problem solving technique and experience, so dunno.

[Graendals favourite]

[quote name="Jedimuppet

Agreed' date=' but integrals are 2+2 equivalent for physics math people. integrals and addition are the same in kind, that is they are both functional mathematical operations, as opposed to deduction or inference.

J[/quote]

 

Well, yea. Though I'm not certain where the example there goes. In that those indices were in the powers of sine and cosine functions. Integrating their product (for arbitrary f and g) takes a little work, but one can see because of symmetry that unless both sin and cos have even powers, their product cancels out over 2pi. So it's deduction in a way more than explicit calculation, but still something one can immediately say about the result without any further calculations. Edit: I'm not sure how much experience plays into intuition.

[Jedimuppet]

[quote=Jedimuppet

Agreed' date=' but integrals are 2+2 equivalent for physics math people. integrals and addition are the same in kind, that is they are both functional mathematical operations, as opposed to deduction or inference.

J[/quote]

 

Well, yea. Though I'm not certain where the example there goes. In that those indices were in the powers of sine and cosine functions. Integrating their product (for arbitrary f and g) takes a little work, but one can see because of symmetry that unless both sin and cos have even powers, their product cancels out over 2pi. So it's deduction in a way more than explicit calculation, but still something one can immediately say about the result without any further calculations.

 

What I'm saying is the output is deterministic based on the input, as opposed to an exercise in deduction, where rules don't dictate every operation you're allowed to make.

 

To sufficiently advanced people an integral is just as intuitive as 2+2.

J

[Graendals favourite]

I take it there's then the element of, now I can't explain this exactly or this isn't exactly referred to, but still I'm sure that is how it is.

[Jedimuppet]

I take it there's then the element of' date=' now I can't explain this exactly or this isn't exactly referred to, but still I'm sure that is how it is.[/quote']

 

I'm not sure what you mean by Element of...do you mean the logic operation? Like x is an element of set y?

 

sorry if i'm missing your meaning

J

[Graendals favourite]

It take it you have some experience in mathematics, then, the pure sort... :) That's more than me, in physics everything is in Hilbert space, and if a set of functions form a complete basis, I'm happy at that :) . But, sorry, in mathematics I'm less familiar with the correct english terms than in physics. With element I just meant a synonym for saying that something intuitive should have the characteristic of not relying solely on known facts :).

[Jedimuppet]

It take it you have some experience in mathematics' date=' then, the pure sort... :) That's more than me, in physics everything is in Hilbert space, and if a set of functions form a complete basis, I'm happy at that :) . But, sorry, in mathematics I'm less familiar with the correct english terms than in physics. With element I just meant a synonym for saying that something intuitive should have the characteristic of not relying solely on known facts :).[/quote']

 

I understand. I come out of a computer science background, so it's heavily dependent on math logic and predicate calculus.

 

If you wanted to concretely define intuition, it would be arriving at a correct conclusion without being able to prove it in the mathematical sense.

 

That's why I think you're sort of missing the mark a bit by applying a robust logical framework to something that should be "intuitive". Intuitive has a strong meaning here, and it is meant to say a proof is not required. I should add though, that something intuitive should be able to be proved. It only indicates that form of reasoning is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion, not that it is necessary.

 

Ahh, it's been a long time since i talked logic, and I think I'm going off on a tangent.

 

I do think you're right that it shouldn't have to rely on known facts, but that it the preponderence of known facts and hunches should lead to it.

 

Despite RJ's comments, I'm not sure that this puzzle really is intuitively obvious.

J

[Graendals favourite]

Ok, I can agree with that.

 

True, arriving at it intuitively doesn't prevent it from being subjected to a proof. RJ did say figure out too, so it should be possible to arrive at the conclusion also through that route.

 

Occasional tangents are refreshing, I think, of course one shouldn't take them too far. One can arrive at discussions completely absurd at first glance, but which still may end up bearing some relevance.

 

Yep, perhaps it isn't intuitively obvious, really. At least there's evidence for that...

[Jonn]

hehe, we seem to have become like those Brown and White Ajah Aes Sedai in KOD discussing the appearing dead, the shifting realities and all of that chaos.

 

Look, other than through mathematics and physics, we can look at this problem very simply. Instead we use the intuitiveness of plot structure and narrative. Those are the elements we are dealing with.

 

I'm trying not to seem like swindler here by not giving my full account of what I think happened. You see, I don't want to jump the gun on RJ giving a full explanation. I know he's had half a dozen books to clean this up and maybe someone should take a crack at it. The point is, I cannot try to explain a plot point that hasn't been writen in yet. I'd rather he set out to write it and I can be right or wrong about it. The time is coming near, folks. We WILL have an answer from Moiraine. I will be right or wrong dependant on an answer that we know will come. Moiraine will return and she will have explanations and revelations to give us. Knowing what happened will either confirm her as the culprit or eliminate her from the running.

 

I cannot be as certain of Graendal as she has been around all of this time and still has not provided the concrete answer. Lanfear has been about for some time as well and no answer from her. EVeryone else fails to fit thematically or logically, let alone intuitively..At the very least Moiraine will provide AN answer if not THE answer.

 

The very best thing about the Moiraine theory is that it would be so intriguing to hear the explanation. She already works thematically as a surprising Forsaken slayer. The logic of her Modis Operandi and mysterious circumstances stand in place. As far as the narrative goes, she's near perfect. It wouldn't be cheap, it would be interesting.

 

To me to reveal Graendal at this point would be rather cheap and uninteresting. Lanfear would be mildly interesting as an explanation to what happened to her after going through the doorway. Still it would be lessened by the fact that she has really taken a back seat in matters since.

[Jedimuppet]

hehe' date=' we seem to have become like those Brown and White Ajah Aes Sedai in KOD discussing the appearing dead, the shifting realities and all of that chaos.

 

Look, other than through mathematics and physics, we can look at this problem very simply. Instead we use the intuitiveness of plot structure and narrative. Those are the elements we are dealing with.

 

I'm trying not to seem like swindler here by not giving my full account of what I think happened. You see, I don't want to jump the gun on RJ giving a full explanation. I know he's had half a dozen books to clean this up and maybe someone should take a crack at it. The point is, I cannot try to explain a plot point that hasn't been writen in yet. I'd rather he set out to write it and I can be right or wrong about it. The time is coming near, folks. We WILL have an answer from Moiraine. I will be right or wrong dependant on an answer that we know will come. Moiraine will return and she will have explanations and revelations to give us. Knowing what happened will either confirm her as the culprit or eliminate her from the running.

 

I cannot be as certain of Graendal as she has been around all of this time and still has not provided the concrete answer. Lanfear has been about for some time as well and no answer from her. EVeryone else fails to fit thematically or logically, let alone intuitively..At the very least Moiraine will provide AN answer if not THE answer.

 

The very best thing about the Moiraine theory is that it would be so intriguing to hear the explanation. She already works thematically as a surprising Forsaken slayer. The logic of her Modis Operandi and mysterious circumstances stand in place. As far as the narrative goes, she's near perfect. It wouldn't be cheap, it would be interesting.

 

To me to reveal Graendal at this point would be rather cheap and uninteresting. Lanfear would be mildly interesting as an explanation to what happened to her after going through the doorway. Still it would be lessened by the fact that she has really taken a back seat in matters since.[/quote']

 

Asmodean aside, though, do you really think that Graendal has just been hanging out in her palace looking at naked servants?

 

Logically, we'll find out just how much of a player she's been.

J