29 replies to this topic

[Martini]

For the case of the guilty swin.(#2)= Could a GS not say something like, "I deserve to be punished."?

If one were an innocent Swin, the statement would be false, and their innocence would be proven.

If one were a guilty swin, the statement would be false (who really thinks they deserve punishment?!) and would make people think they were innocent as well.

Hmm, I think that may work (assuming that this swindlecant really thinks his crime deserves no punishment and the court believes that even a swindlecant would believe that this crime deserves punishment). Very clever, judo_val!

[urrutia86]

I think that the answer for the 4th question will simply be... "I am a swindlecat"...
because and honestant will never say that...
neither will a swindlecat...
so obviously... the person saying that is a normal... and he is Innocent!!!!!

[Martini]

I think that the answer for the 4th question will simply be... "I am a swindlecat"...
because and honestant will never say that...
neither will a swindlecat...
so obviously... the person saying that is a normal... and he is Innocent!!!!!

The fourth problem is looking for a statement that you can say no matter if you were an honestant, a swindlecant or normal. Swindlecants and honestants obviously can't say "I am a swindlecant".

[mallen324]

For solution #1, simply stating your are guilty does not prove you are a swindlecant. It says the court does not know you are a swindlecant. If you were to simply say I am guilty, they might assume you were an honestant.

edit: Nevermind, I see that the court knows a swindlecant did it. But if the court knows a swindlecant did it, how do they not know you are a swindlecant?

[Martini]

For solution #1, simply stating your are guilty does not prove you are a swindlecant. It says the court does not know you are a swindlecant. If you were to simply say I am guilty, they might assume you were an honestant.

edit: Nevermind, I see that the court knows a swindlecant did it. But if the court knows a swindlecant did it, how do they not know you are a swindlecant?

They know he is a swindlecant because an honestant could not say he is guilty because that would be a lie (remember, the court KNOWS a swindlecant committed the crime). He must therefore be a swindlecant who is lying about being guilty.

[BoilingOil]

for 1st...what about "I am not a swindlecant"

because only an honestant can say that and so his truth will prove that he is an honestant..........
a swindlecant cannot say that because if he'd say that then his lie will prove him an honestant which is a conflict....

Sorry, nice try, but it is flawed...

Why wouldn't a swindlecant be able to tell this lie? Swindlecants lie all the time! So this statement doesn't prove to which side you belong either way, because EVERYONE can and will say it.

It's actually the other way around: NOBODY on the island would be able to say simply "I'm a swindlecant", because if a swindlecant said it, he would speak the truth - which he can't -, and if an honestant said it, he would be lying - which he can't. The only way they could ever use this, is in combination with another statement IN THE SAME SENTENCE.


BoilingOil

[BoilingOil]

It's already been established that there is no solution for situation #2, however, when I was pondering these puzzles, I came up with one statement that I believe would work for all 3 other situations.

My main concern was that the court does not know whether I am an honestant or swindlecant, and so I would need a statement that exonerates me regardless of which I was, and also regardless of who did it.

The statement is: "If you ask me if I am innocent, my answer will be 'yes'."

1. If I am an innocent swindlecant, the logic is as follows:
a. I cannot say that I am innocent, because that is the truth.
b. If you ask me if I am innocent, I must lie and answer 'no'.
c. However, since I am the one making the above statement, I must lie about what my true answer would be. Thus I must say that my answer would be 'yes'.
d. The courts, being logical, would know that only a swindlecant who is innocent could make the above statement, and thus would have to release me if I am a swindlecant.

2. Conversely, a guilty swindlecant could not make the above statement. He's still up the creek.

3. If I am an innocent honestant, the above statement is true, and therefore I am innocent. A guilty honestant could not make the above statement. Thus the courts would have to release me if I am an honestant.

4. Neither a guilty swindlecant nor a guilty honestant could make the above statement. A guilty "normal" can, but we know that the guilty party is not normal. Anyone else who makes this statement must therefore be innocent.

One solution for all 3 solvable puzzles. Not bad for 3am.

Now, THAT IS impressive! At first I would not have believed this could be done, but I can not find any holes in your logic. To me it seems to be absolutely airtight! Chapeau for xandarr!

BoilingOil

[dannyboi22]

There is an answer for #2:
"Nothing I say can save myself"
The reasoning is:
I cannot be telling the truth because it would cause a paradox, so I must be lying.
So if I am lying there IS something I can say to save myself: I have just said it.

[aishi_khurana]

in the first case the jury wud consider d accused as a swindelant(at first sight) nd later if he says " i am guilty" he would surely be pardoned.but actually there is ambiguity n nobody knows whether he is an honestsnt or a swindelant, nd if he repeats the same sentence he might be punished....i m confused....

[TheChaos92]

here is what i got
1. state random common knoledge untruthfully so the court knows you are either Swindlecant or innocent and normal, then state that you are guilty(untruthfully). and if you a swindlecant you would be lying and saying your innocent

2.

3.state random common knoledge truthfully so the court knows you are either honastant or innocent and normal, then state your innocence. and if you a honestant you would be telling the truth and saying you innocent

4.i tell lies
(an honestant cannot say this because it would be lying and a swindlecant cannot say it becaus it would be truthful)