Logic Problems at the Court III. - Back to the Logic Problems
This time you are one of the inhabitants of the island. There was crime committed and people think you did it. At the court you can say only one sentence to save your life. So what do you say?
1. If you were a swindlecant (the court does not know that) and you were innocent. It is known that a swindlecant did it.
"If you were to ask me if I committed this crime, I would tell you 'no'."
If you are an Honestant, this is an obvious statement of innocence. If you are a Swindlecant, you must be lying about your purported response -- which in turn would mean that, if asked, you would actually admit to having done it, a lie.
2. The same situation but you are guilty.
Logically, no statement could exonerate you, whether or not people knew your identity.
3. If you were an honestant (the court does not know that) and you were innocent. It is known that an honestant did it.
Same as #1.
4. If you were innocent and everybody knows that the one who did it is not normal. Normal people sometimes lie and sometimes speak the truth. What sentence, no matter if you were an honestant, a swindlecant or normal can prove your innocence?
Same as #1.
Of course, if the suspect pool includes Normals, no statement can exonerate anyone not already known to be an Honestant or a Swindlecant.
Logic Problems at the Court III. - solution
1. „I did it – I am guilty.“
No, this would not work. If they thought you were an Honestant, they would condemn you.
2. There is no such sentence.
3. „I am innocent.“
Again, this would not work. If they thought you were a Swindlecant, they would condemn you.
4. „Either I am an honestant and innocent, or I am a swindlecant and guilty.“ = „I am either an innocent honestant, or a guilty swindlecant.“
This is a perfect example of why compound statements ought not be allowed in these logic problems. They make the solutions too easy, even trivial. For example, #1 could be solved by saying:
"I am a Swindlecant and I did it."
Whoop-de-do. What fun is that?