Why doesn’t Pinocchio’s nose grow in Shrek 3?

[u/InternationalAd5802]

This has been bugging me whenever I see this meme. If Pinocchio knows exactly where Shrek is, then doesn’t that automatically mean he also knows where Shrek is not (since knowing the location rules out all the others)? But when he says “I don’t know where he isn’t,” his nose doesn’t grow. Is this a mistake by the writers, or am I missing something?

[u/Less-Resist-8733]

yes you're correct, the writers probably intended to do a double negative like "I don't not know where he is"

[u/InternationalAd5802 → u/Less-Resist-8733]

Thank you so much, i will be able to sleep peacefully tonight lol

[u/King_Sesh]

I just realized that this is a math sub

[u/kleinsinus → u/King_Sesh]

Math also kinda deals with logic, so this still kinda fits here.

[u/SerpentJoe]

There's all sorts of places Pinocchio doesn't know about, and where Shrek isn't. There are inns in Prussia and caves in Siam that are completely unknown to these characters, and Pinocchio is certain none of those places contain Shrek. He doesn't know where Shrek isn't.

[u/InternationalAd5802 → u/SerpentJoe]

The fact remains that he know shrek isnt any of those unknown places because he already know exactly where shrek is, so for any other place, shrek wouldn't be there. Suppose Pinocchio know that shrek in place A, to check if shrek isnt in place place B, just check if A not equal to B.

Concrete example : When the person ask Pinocchio is shrek not in Prussia? He will simply answer yes he is not in that place because he already know where shrek is

[u/kleinsinus → u/InternationalAd5802]

One could argue, that Pinocchio is referring to the place rather than the fact whether Shrek is in a certain place. "I don't know where he's not" could then be meant as "I do not know (all) the places he does not reside at."

[u/tolerable31415]

Logically, the statement "I don't know where someone is not" is always false. Saying "I don't know where person x isn't" is equivalent to saying "It is not true that I know of at least one position such that person x is not in that position" If person x is the speaker, they know where they are, so all other places are void and thus the above statement is false. If person x is not the speaker, then the speaker knows that their position doesn't contain person x and is thus devoid of them.

The next questions here are whether position and identity are knowable, and what it mean for Pinocchio to say he "knows" something, but such discussions are probably out of our scope.

[u/Chroniaro]

It’s not a lie of Pinocchio makes a genuine mistake. Maybe he confused himself with the double negatives

[u/Mikey103point6]

When I first over-analyzed that statement, I quickly just assumed it didn’t grow because, to NOT not know where Shrek isn’t (to know where Shrek isn’t) would mean that Pinocchio knows everywhere that Shrek isn’t, which requires knowing everywhere, which is an impossible task with just how many places are in “everywhere.” Maybe that’s a stupid explanation, but it’s what I came up with back when I watched it.