Background: Safin was born in Moscow to Tatar parents, Mubin ("Mikhail") Safin and Rauza Islanova. He speaks Russian, English, and Spanish as well as his native Tatar. His parents are former tennis players and coaches. His younger sister, Dinara, is a former world number one professional tennis player and silver medalist at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.
Context: Safin held the No. 1 ATP ranking for 9 weeks during 2000 (making him the tallest No. 1 ranked player of all time) when he won his first Grand Slam tournament at the US Open, becoming the only Russian in history to win this tournament in the men's singles draw, by defeating Pete Sampras in straight sets. He barely missed finishing the year as #1, the top spot being overtaken by Gustavo Kuerten at the last match of the season, the final of the 2000 Tennis Masters Cup and ATP Tour World Championships (3-0 win over Andre Agassi).  Safin reached three more Grand Slam finals, all at the Australian Open (2002, 2004, and 2005). He has cited nervousness as the reason for his loss in the 2002 event, and physical exhaustion for the 2004 loss. He defeated Lleyton Hewitt in the 2005 final to secure his second Grand Slam in five years. En route to this final, he defeated top-ranked Roger Federer in a five-set semifinal match. Safin described the match as "a brain fight." He also defeated future world No. 1 Novak Djokovic, who was making his first appearance in the main draw of a Grand Slam tournament, in the first round losing just three games.  His best result at Wimbledon was reaching the semifinals in 2008, beating world No. 3 Novak Djokovic en route. He often lost in the first or second rounds in other years, although he made the quarterfinals in 2001, losing in four sets to eventual champion Goran Ivanisevic. Safin dismissed his performance in the 2001 tournament as a result of luck. Safin disliked playing on grass. Safin has said: "It's difficult to [break serve]. It's difficult to play off the baseline because [of] a lot of bad bounces." With Safin's semifinal performance at Wimbledon in 2008, he became the fourth of five active players at the time to reach the semifinals in all four Grand Slams, joining Roger Federer, David Nalbandian, and Novak Djokovic. Other active players have since then joined the list.
Question: Where does he play after that?
Answer: Australian Open

Problem: Background: Hilary Whitehall Putnam (; July 31, 1926 - March 13, 2016) was an American philosopher, mathematician, and computer scientist, and a major figure in analytic philosophy in the second half of the 20th century. He made significant contributions to philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, and philosophy of science. At the time of his death, Putnam was Cogan University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University. He was known for his willingness to apply an equal degree of scrutiny to his own philosophical positions as to those of others, subjecting each position to rigorous analysis until he exposed its flaws.
Context: In the field of epistemology, Putnam is known for his "brain in a vat" thought experiment (a modernized version of Descartes's evil demon hypothesis). The argument is that one cannot coherently state that one is a disembodied "brain in a vat" placed there by some "mad scientist".  This follows from the causal theory of reference. Words always refer to the kinds of things they were coined to refer to, thus the kinds of things their user, or the user's ancestors, experienced. So, if some person, Mary, were a "brain in a vat", whose every experience is received through wiring and other gadgetry created by the "mad scientist", then Mary's idea of a "brain" would not refer to a "real" brain, since she and her linguistic community have never seen such a thing. Rather, she saw something that looked like a brain, but was actually an image fed to her through the wiring. Similarly, her idea of a "vat" would not refer to a "real" vat. So, if, as a brain in a vat, she were to say "I'm a brain in a vat", she would actually be saying "I'm a brain-image in a vat-image", which is incoherent. On the other hand, if she is not a brain in a vat, then saying that she is a brain in a vat is still incoherent, but now because she actually means the opposite. This is a form of epistemological externalism: knowledge or justification depends on factors outside the mind and is not solely determined internally.  Putnam has clarified that his real target in this argument was never skepticism, but metaphysical realism. Since realism of this kind assumes the existence of a gap between how man conceives the world and the way the world really is, skeptical scenarios such as this one (or Descartes' evil demon) present a formidable challenge. Putnam, by arguing that such a scenario is impossible, attempts to show that this notion of a gap between man's concept of the world and the way it is, is in itself absurd. Man cannot have a "God's eye" view of reality. He is limited to his conceptual schemes. Metaphysical realism is therefore false, according to Putnam.
Question: What was Putnam's "brain in a vat" experiment?
Answer:
if some person, Mary, were a "brain in a vat", whose every experience is received through wiring and other gadgetry created by the "mad scientist