How Logical Are You? Test Your Skills With These Problems from the New International Logic Olympiad
The competition included three rounds of tests, culminating in the final one at Stanford. There teams of two to four engaged in a battle of wits, solving logic puzzles and competing in mathematical games against the backdrop of the foothills of Palo Alto, Calif. The winners this year were 11th-grade students Luke Song, Zixuan Yin, Kingston Zhang and Max Yang, who, unhappy with their official moniker of 'Team I,' informally dubbed themselves 'Team Goblin Tribe' after a video skit they watched during a review session. The key to their success, they contend, was lots of practice and teamwork. 'I think part of the reason why we were able to do so well in this was because I know my teammates really well and we've been friends for many years,' Song says.
The ILO was launched by Stanford computer scientist and logician Michael Genesereth in a collaboration between the university and the educational nonprofit Luminas. 'We use logic in almost everything we do,' Genesereth says. Doctors employ logic to diagnose patients, lawyers use logical arguments in the courtroom, and logic is more essential than ever to evaluate the rapidly changing world around us, he notes. 'It doesn't all have to do with mathematics and formulas and algebra,' Genesereth adds.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Most of this year's winners have an interest in computer science, alongside environmental science, applied math and electrical engineering, but Zhang says that neither math nor computer science are his 'strong suit' and that he plans to go into political science. 'A lot of the problems require very expansive thinking and creative solutions, and I think that'll definitely help me if I go into policy in the future,' he explains.
A special aspect of the olympiad is its collaborative nature, in which teams work together to solve problems, Yin says. He was particularly proud of how he and his teammates collaborated on a puzzle called Nations (below). After he reasoned out that a solution offered by one of the members of his group must be wrong and came up with an alternate one that proved correct, that teammate 'just kept on telling me how fortunate he was to have me on his team,' Yin says. 'Having these amazing people to work on logic—it's something that unites our friend group together.'
Here are a few curated puzzles from the competition that you can try your hand at with a friend group of your own. Some of the puzzles have been edited to better fit the format of this article.
Friends
Four students, numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4, vote among themselves to determine who should lead their review session. Each student is required to vote 'yes' or 'no' for each person in the group, including themselves. The following are true statements about their ballots:
In the table above, statements from the original ILO problem in the language of mathematical logic are at right. Our translations of those statements are at left.
Determine, to the extent possible from these statements, who did and did not vote for whom. Fill that out in the following grid with a check for a yes vote, an 'x' for a no vote and a blank if you can't know for sure. Each row represents the ballot of the number listed at the left.
Note: If we have a statement A that is not true, we consider any sentence of the form 'if A, then B ' to be true. For example, 'if the sky is green, then ____' is true no matter what goes in the blank because the premise is false. You will need this fact to solve the puzzle.
Quiz
1. What is the answer to question 2?
A. B
B. A
C. D
D. C
2. What is the answer to question 3?
A. C
B. D
C. B
D. A
3. What is the answer to question 4?
A. D
B. A
C. C
D. B
4. What is the answer to question 1?
A. D
B. C
C. A
D. B
Safe Cracking
A combination safe is opened with a series of four switches that can be flipped on (1) or off (0). The safe is broken, so in order to open it, you only need to get the position of two particular switches correct—but there's no way of knowing which switches are the ones that matter. Find the smallest set of combinations you can try to guarantee that one of them will open the safe.
Nations
There are two types of nations: strong and weak. Only weak nations can be invaded, and only strong nations can invade. If a strong nation invades a weak nation, it will annex the weak nation, but it will become weak, and thus invadable, for some period of time. Only one strong nation may invade a weak nation at a time. If multiple nations decide to invade the same weak nation, one is randomly chosen to be allowed to invade. Each nation wants to be as big as possible but not at the expense of being annexed itself. Assume all nations are completely rational. There are five strong nations and one weak nation. Will the weak nation be invaded?
Hint: Try starting with one strong nation and one weak nation first and then build up from there. In order to solve the problem, try to see how complex cases can be reduced to simpler ones—a method formally known as 'mathematical induction.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
10 hours ago
- Scientific American
How Logical Are You? Test Your Skills With These Problems from the New International Logic Olympiad
Earlier this month, 36 sharp-witted high school students from around the globe stepped foot on the warm and breezy campus of Stanford University. Out of more than 4,000 students from more than 2,000 schools in more than 90 different countries, these 36 people were selected to compete as finalists in the second-ever International Logic Olympiad (ILO). The competition included three rounds of tests, culminating in the final one at Stanford. There teams of two to four engaged in a battle of wits, solving logic puzzles and competing in mathematical games against the backdrop of the foothills of Palo Alto, Calif. The winners this year were 11th-grade students Luke Song, Zixuan Yin, Kingston Zhang and Max Yang, who, unhappy with their official moniker of 'Team I,' informally dubbed themselves 'Team Goblin Tribe' after a video skit they watched during a review session. The key to their success, they contend, was lots of practice and teamwork. 'I think part of the reason why we were able to do so well in this was because I know my teammates really well and we've been friends for many years,' Song says. The ILO was launched by Stanford computer scientist and logician Michael Genesereth in a collaboration between the university and the educational nonprofit Luminas. 'We use logic in almost everything we do,' Genesereth says. Doctors employ logic to diagnose patients, lawyers use logical arguments in the courtroom, and logic is more essential than ever to evaluate the rapidly changing world around us, he notes. 'It doesn't all have to do with mathematics and formulas and algebra,' Genesereth adds. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Most of this year's winners have an interest in computer science, alongside environmental science, applied math and electrical engineering, but Zhang says that neither math nor computer science are his 'strong suit' and that he plans to go into political science. 'A lot of the problems require very expansive thinking and creative solutions, and I think that'll definitely help me if I go into policy in the future,' he explains. A special aspect of the olympiad is its collaborative nature, in which teams work together to solve problems, Yin says. He was particularly proud of how he and his teammates collaborated on a puzzle called Nations (below). After he reasoned out that a solution offered by one of the members of his group must be wrong and came up with an alternate one that proved correct, that teammate 'just kept on telling me how fortunate he was to have me on his team,' Yin says. 'Having these amazing people to work on logic—it's something that unites our friend group together.' Here are a few curated puzzles from the competition that you can try your hand at with a friend group of your own. Some of the puzzles have been edited to better fit the format of this article. Friends Four students, numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4, vote among themselves to determine who should lead their review session. Each student is required to vote 'yes' or 'no' for each person in the group, including themselves. The following are true statements about their ballots: In the table above, statements from the original ILO problem in the language of mathematical logic are at right. Our translations of those statements are at left. Determine, to the extent possible from these statements, who did and did not vote for whom. Fill that out in the following grid with a check for a yes vote, an 'x' for a no vote and a blank if you can't know for sure. Each row represents the ballot of the number listed at the left. Note: If we have a statement A that is not true, we consider any sentence of the form 'if A, then B ' to be true. For example, 'if the sky is green, then ____' is true no matter what goes in the blank because the premise is false. You will need this fact to solve the puzzle. Quiz 1. What is the answer to question 2? A. B B. A C. D D. C 2. What is the answer to question 3? A. C B. D C. B D. A 3. What is the answer to question 4? A. D B. A C. C D. B 4. What is the answer to question 1? A. D B. C C. A D. B Safe Cracking A combination safe is opened with a series of four switches that can be flipped on (1) or off (0). The safe is broken, so in order to open it, you only need to get the position of two particular switches correct—but there's no way of knowing which switches are the ones that matter. Find the smallest set of combinations you can try to guarantee that one of them will open the safe. Nations There are two types of nations: strong and weak. Only weak nations can be invaded, and only strong nations can invade. If a strong nation invades a weak nation, it will annex the weak nation, but it will become weak, and thus invadable, for some period of time. Only one strong nation may invade a weak nation at a time. If multiple nations decide to invade the same weak nation, one is randomly chosen to be allowed to invade. Each nation wants to be as big as possible but not at the expense of being annexed itself. Assume all nations are completely rational. There are five strong nations and one weak nation. Will the weak nation be invaded? Hint: Try starting with one strong nation and one weak nation first and then build up from there. In order to solve the problem, try to see how complex cases can be reduced to simpler ones—a method formally known as 'mathematical induction.'
Forbes
3 days ago
- Forbes
Rethinking Work With AI: What Stanford's Groundbreaking Workforce Study Means For Healthcare's Future
AI systems should reduce cognitive load, clarify ambiguity, and work alongside teams as intelligent collaborators, not as black-box disruptors. What if the AI systems you're building solve the wrong problems and alienate the workforce you're trying to support? That's the uncomfortable reality laid bare by a new research study from Stanford University. While AI pilots race ahead across administrative and clinical functions, most are still built on a flawed assumption: that automating tasks equals progress. But for the people doing the work—clinicians, care coordinators, billing specialists—that's not what they asked for. The report, Future of Work with AI Agents, offers the most granular audit yet of how worker sentiment, task complexity, and technical feasibility collide in the age of artificial intelligence. Over 1,500 U.S. workers were surveyed across 104 occupations, producing the most detailed dataset yet on where AI could, and should, fit. Their preferences were paired with ratings from 52 AI experts to create a map of the true automation and augmentation landscape. For healthcare, the findings could not come at a more urgent moment. The healthcare sector faces a burned-out workforce, escalating administrative waste, and widespread dissatisfaction with digital tools that were meant to help. A majority of physicians report that documentation burden is a leading cause of burnout, with recent studies showing U.S. physicians spend excessive time on documentation tasks. Nurse attrition has also remained a concern since the pandemic. Meanwhile, AI adoption is surging, with the vast majority of health systems piloting or planning AI integration. However, there remains a lack of consistent frameworks to align these technologies with real-world clinical and operational dynamics. The result? Misplaced investment, fractured trust, and resistance from the very people AI is meant to assist. The Stanford study confirms it: the majority of tasks that healthcare workers want automated—like documentation, claims rework, or prior auth form generation—are not where AI tools are being focused. In fact, less than 2% of those high-desire tasks are showing up in actual LLM usage today. Instead, attention and venture funding are often diverted toward automating interpersonal communication, appeals, or triage. These are areas where trust, nuance, and empathy matter most. This is more than a technical oversight. It's a strategic miscalculation. This study clarifies that the future of AI in healthcare isn't about replacing human judgment—it's about protecting it. Leaders must pivot from automation-at-any-cost to augmentation-by-design. That means building AI systems that reduce cognitive load, clarify ambiguity, and work alongside teams as intelligent collaborators, not as black-box disruptors. And, most critically, it means listening to the workforce before you deploy. A New Lens on Work: Automation Desire vs. Technical Feasibility Stanford's framework introduces two powerful filters for every task: what workers want automated and what AI can do. This produces a four-quadrant map: This approach is especially revealing in healthcare, where: Critically, 69% of workers said their top reason for wanting AI was to free up time for higher-value work. Only 12% wanted AI to fully take over a task. The takeaway? Augmentation, not replacement. Green Light (Automate Now): R&D Opportunity (Invest in Next-Gen AI): Red Light (Approach with Caution): Y Combinator is one of the world's most influential startup accelerators, known for launching and funding early-stage technology companies, including many that shape the future of artificial intelligence. Its relevance in this context comes from its outsized role in setting trends and priorities for the tech industry: the types of problems YC-backed startups pursue often signal where talent, investment, and innovation are headed. The Stanford study highlights a striking disconnect between these startup priorities and actual workforce needs. Specifically, it found that 41% of Y Combinator-backed AI startups are developing solutions for tasks that workers have little interest in automating—referred to as 'Red Light Zones' or low-priority areas. This reveals a substantial missed opportunity: if leading accelerators like Y Combinator better aligned their focus with the real needs and preferences of the workforce, AI innovation could deliver far greater value and acceptance in the workplace. The Human Agency Scale: AI as a Teammate To move beyond binary thinking (automate vs. don't), the Stanford research team introduces a more nuanced framework: the Human Agency Scale (HAS). This five-tier model offers a conceptual scaffold for evaluating how AI agents should integrate into human workflows. Rather than asking whether a task should be automated, the HAS asks to what extent the human remains in control, how decision-making is shared, and what level of oversight is required. The scale ranges from H1 to H5, as follows: The Stanford study reveals a clear pattern across occupations: the majority of workers—particularly in healthcare—prefer H2 or H3. Specifically, 45.2% of tasks analyzed across all industries favor an H3 arrangement, in which AI acts as a collaborative peer. In healthcare contexts—where judgment, empathy, and contextual nuance are foundational—H3 is even more critical. In roles such as care coordination, utilization review, and social work, tasks often require a mix of real-time decision-making, human empathy, and risk stratification. A system built for full automation (H5) in these contexts would not only be resisted—it would likely produce unsafe or ethically problematic outcomes. Instead, what's required are AI agents that can surface relevant information, adapt to the evolving contours of a task, and remain responsive to human steering. John Halamka, President of Mayo Clinic Platform, reinforced this collaborative mindset in February 2025: 'We have to use AI,' he said, noting that ambient listening tools represent 'the thing that will solve many business problems' with relatively low risk. He cited Mayo's inpatient ambient nursing solutions, which handle '100% of the nursing charting without the nurse having to touch a keyboard,' but was clear that these tools are 'all augmenting human behavior and not replacing the human.' These insights echo a broader workforce trend: automation without agency is unlikely to succeed. Clinical leaders don't want AI to dictate care pathways or handle nuanced appeals independently. They want AI that reduces friction, illuminates blind spots, and extends their cognitive reach, without erasing professional identity or judgment. As such, designing for HAS Level 3 (equal partnership) is emerging as the gold standard for intelligent systems in healthcare. This model balances speed and efficiency with explainability and oversight. It also offers a governance and performance evaluation framework that prioritizes human trust. Building AI for HAS Level 3 requires features that go beyond prediction accuracy. Systems must be architected with: Healthcare doesn't need one-size-fits-all automation. It requires collaboration at scale, grounded in transparency and guided by human expertise. These perspectives align perfectly with the Stanford findings: workers don't fear AI—they fear being sidelined by it. The solution isn't to slow down AI development. It's to direct it with clarity, co-design it with the people who rely on it, and evaluate it not just by outputs but also by the experience and empowerment it delivers to human professionals. The true ROI of AI is trust, relief, and time reclaimed. Outcomes like 'claims processed' or 'notes generated' aren't enough. Metrics should track cognitive load reduced, time returned to patient care, and worker trust in AI recommendations. While throughput remains a necessary benchmark, these human-centered outcomes provide the clearest signal of whether AI improves the healthcare experience. Measurement frameworks must be longitudinal, capturing not just initial productivity but long-term operational resilience, clinician satisfaction, and sustainable value. Only then can we ensure that AI fulfills its promise to elevate both performance and purpose in healthcare. Dr. Rohit Chandra, Chief Digital Officer at Cleveland Clinic, gave voice to this idea in June 2025: 'It's made their jobs a ton easier. Patient interactions are a lot better because now patients actually engage with the doctor,' he said, referring to 4,000 physicians now using AI scribes. 'I'm hoping that we can keep building on the success that we've had so far to literally drive the documentation burden to zero.' Build With, Not For This moment is too important for misalignment. The Stanford study offers a blueprint. For healthcare leaders, the message is clear: If you want AI to scale, build with the workforce in mind. Prioritize the Green Light Zones. Invest in agentic systems that enhance, not override. Govern AI like a trusted partner, not a productivity engine. The future of AI in healthcare won't be determined by the size of your model. It will be defined by the quality of your teaming.
CNBC
4 days ago
- CNBC
Nvidia CEO: If I were a 20-year-old again today, this is the field I would focus on in college
If Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang were a student today, he says he'd focus on the physical sciences. During a trip to Beijing on Wednesday, Huang was asked by a journalist: "If you are a 22-year-old version of Jensen [who] just graduated today in 2025 but with the same ambition, what would you focus on?" To that, the Nvidia CEO said: "For the young, 20-year-old Jensen, that's graduated now, he probably would have chosen ... more of the physical sciences than the software sciences," adding that he actually graduated two years early from college, at age 20. Physical science, as opposed to life science, is a broad branch that focuses on the study of non-living systems, including physics, chemistry, astronomy and earth sciences. Huang got his electrical engineering degree from Oregon State University in 1984 before earning his master's degree in electrical engineering from Stanford University in 1992, according to his LinkedIn profile. About a year later, in April 1993, Huang co-founded Nvidia with fellow engineers Chris Malachowsky and Curtis Priem over a meal at a Denny's restaurant in San Jose, California. Under Huang's leadership as CEO, the chipmaker has now become the world's most valuable company. Nvidia also became the world's first company to hit a $4 trillion market cap last week. Although Huang didn't explain why he says he'd study the physical sciences if he were a student again today, the tech founder has been very bullish on "Physical AI" or what he calls the "next wave." Over the past decade and a half, the world has moved through multiple phases of artificial intelligence, he explained in April at The Hill & Valley Forum in Washington, D.C. "Modern AI really came into consciousness about 12 to 14 years ago, when AlexNet came out and computer vision saw its big, giant breakthrough," Huang said at the forum. AlexNet was a computer model unveiled during a 2012 competition that demonstrated the ability of machines to recognize images using deep learning, helping spark the modern AI boom. This first wave is called 'Perception AI,' Huang said. Then, came the second wave called "Generative AI," "which is where the AI model has learned how to understand the meaning of the information but [also] translate it" into different languages, images, code and more. "We're now in this age called 'Reasoning AI'... where you now have AI that can understand, it can generate, [and] solve problems and recognize conditions that we've never seen before," he said. Artificial intelligence, in its current state, can solve problems using reasoning. "Reasoning AI allows you to produce a form of digital robots. We call them agentic AI," said Huang. These AI agents are essentially "digital workforce robots" capable of reasoning, he added. Today, AI agents are a key focus among many tech companies, such as Microsoft and Salesforce. Looking ahead, the next wave is "Physical AI," said Huang. "The next wave requires us to understand things like the laws of physics, friction, inertia, cause and effect," said Huang in Washington, D.C., in April. Physical reasoning abilities, such as the concept of object permanence — or the fact that objects continue to exist even if they're out of sight — will be big in this next phase of artificial intelligence, he said. Applications of physical reasoning include predicting outcomes, such as where a ball will roll, understanding how much force is needed to grip an object without damaging it and inferring the presence of a pedestrian behind a car. "And when you take that physical AI and then you put it into a physical object called a robot, you get robotics," he added. "This is really, really important for us now, because we're building plants and factories all over the United States." "So hopefully, in the next 10 years, as we build out this new generation of plants and factories, they're highly robotic and they're helping us deal with the severe labor shortage that we have all over the world," said Huang.
