29 replies to this topic

[spoxjox]

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.

Agreed.

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?

[biophy]

For #2, i think you could say:"i will be sentenced to death." now to keep you a swindlecant, the judge has to release you.

[Jasonatron]

A couple things about this..

Spoiler for Solution 2

2. There is no such sentence.

I spent a good deal of time under the impression that there was an answer for this.. lol.. that's just mean.

Spoiler for Solution 4

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.“ The court could think this way:
4.1 If he is an honestant, then his statement is true and he is innocent.
4.2 If he is a swindlecant, then his statement is a lie and he is neither an innocent honestant nor a guilty swindlecant. This means that he is an innocent swindlecant.
4.3 If he is normal, then he is innocent since a normal man couldn’t have done that.

I had a problem with the answer for #4. The question read:

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?

You ask what sentence (singular) could I say no matter what my type was. This nullifies your answer for 4, as you have 3 different statements depending on your type, whereas the question leads one to search for a universal answer that any of the three could use to prove their innocence. The format of the fourth question leaves room for no other interpretation, and should be clarified.

That aside, for the solution of the Normal person, the jury doesn't know he's a Normal. So how could the simple fact that he is save his butt when the jury doesn't even know that, and he's one sentence away from execution? He would need a good sentence, such as: I am a Normal, and guilty.

Also, an earlier poster had a point when stating his displeasure at the answer format, as these types of questions don't usually accept compound sentences for answers. You could demolish the one sentence rule by simply constructing one giant run on sentence; or the defendant could decide never to sleep or end his sentence, and continue talking until he died of thirst.

[rookie1ja]

I had a problem with the answer for #4. The question read:
You ask what sentence (singular) could I say no matter what my type was. This nullifies your answer for 4, as you have 3 different statements depending on your type, whereas the question leads one to search for a universal answer that any of the three could use to prove their innocence. The format of the fourth question leaves room for no other interpretation, and should be clarified.
The sentence I was looking for is: „I am either an innocent honestant, or a guilty swindlecant.“ What is wrong with that?

That aside, for the solution of the Normal person, the jury doesn't know he's a Normal. So how could the simple fact that he is save his butt when the jury doesn't even know that, and he's one sentence away from execution? He would need a good sentence, such as: I am a Normal, and guilty.
As mentioned in the puzzle: "... everybody knows that the one who did it is not normal ..."

Also, an earlier poster had a point when stating his displeasure at the answer format, as these types of questions don't usually accept compound sentences for answers. You could demolish the one sentence rule by simply constructing one giant run on sentence; or the defendant could decide never to sleep or end his sentence, and continue talking until he died of thirst.
So how exactly does the sentence presented by me fail to work? I would say: „I am either an innocent honestant, or a guilty swindlecant.“

[Jackie Chan]

There are 4 scenarios presented, but 2 desired outcomes requested:
A) say 1 sentence to save your life, OR
B) say 1 sentence to prove your innocence.

These are not the same thing.

Outcome B, for example, cannot work with scenario 2.

So only outcome A can be applied to all the scenarios. Thus, I would say something along the lines of:

"There is a nuclear device hidden on this island set to explode if I stop breathing or the signal is lost..."

You, my sir, are what make life so delicious. So very witty

[cinnimini]

maybe he could click his heels and say "i wish i were home" then all his problems would be gone! PS whats a swindlecat? are they related to skimbleshanks?

Edited by cinnimini, 10 April 2008 - 03:44 PM.

[darkdexter]

i had a much simpler answer then that, correct me if im wrong but wouldnt the statment i am a swindlecant work becouse only a normal person could say it and no normal person did it?

[smile33]

Logic Problems at the Court III. - Back to the Logic Problems


1. If you were a liar (the court does not know that) and you were innocent. And it is an established fact that a liar committed the crime.
2. Same situation as above, but you are the one who committed the crime.

For numeber 2 could you say: "I am a truth teller or a liar"?

[litinside]

For # 2) "You will find me guilty and convict me." Since the court knows a liar committed the crime, they could not convict him and since he's not convicted, his statement remains false. That doesn't prove his innocence, but it gets him off the hook.

Edited by litinside, 07 June 2010 - 02:01 PM.

[New member]

Logic Problems at the Court III. - Back to the Logic Problems
You live on an island where there are only two kinds of people: the ones who always tell the truth (truth tellers) and those who always lie (liars). You are accused of crime and brought before the court, where you are allowed to speak only one sentence in your defense. What do you say in each of the following situations?

1. If you were a liar (the court does not know that) and you were innocent. And it is an established fact that a liar committed the crime.
2. Same situation as above, but you are the one who committed the crime.
3. If you were a truth teller (the court does not know that) and you were innocent. And it is an established fact that a truth teller committed the crime.
4. If you were innocent and it is an established fact that the crime was not committed by a “normal” person. Normal people are that new immigrant group who sometimes lie and sometimes speak the truth. What sentence, no matter whether you were a truth teller, liar, or normal, can prove your innocence?

Spoiler for Solution

Logic Problems at the Court III. - solution
1. „I did it – I am guilty.“
2. There is no such sentence.
3. „I am innocent.“
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.“ The court could think this way:
4.1 If he is an honestant, then his statement is true and he is innocent.
4.2 If he is a swindlecant, then his statement is a lie and he is neither an innocent honestant nor a guilty swindlecant. This means that he is an innocent swindlecant.
4.3 If he is normal, then he is innocent since a normal man couldn’t have done that.

Spoiler for wrong answer

IN the 1st question if I said that I did it and I am guilty then the court can also think this way
He is a honestant and has commited the crime and would have given punishment because the court didn't knew who I am and I am innocent

Edited by New member, 12 January 2011 - 02:15 PM.