24 replies to this topic

[Martini]

If he is a swindlecant, doesn't the sentence "A swindlecant committed the crime." Mean "A Honestant did not committed the crime"?

No. It means that a swindlecant did not commit the crime.

[Matman0010]

Obviously It helped because if he were a honestant it would be true and if he is a swindlecant it would be true and a swidlecant can't tell the truth.

[sajow4]

Honestants always tell the truth, and swindlecant always tells lies. If he was an honestant, and said that a swindlecant had done it, than he would be telling the truth and would be set free. If he was a swindlecant and had said that another swindlecant had done that, but if swindlecants always lie, than a swindlecant did not commit the crime, and that a honestant committed the crime. Either way, the accused will be set free thus the circumstances.

[BoilingOil]

Logic Problems at the Court I. - Back to the Logic Problems
And now a few cases from the island of honestants and swindlecants. A prisoner at the bar was allowed to say one sentence to defend himself. After a while he said: "A swindlecant committed the crime." Did it rescue him?

Ofcourse it did. After all:
If he were an Honestant, then he must have spoken the truth and a Swindlecant had committed the crime. Since he was an Honestant, he could hardly have done it himself.
If he were a Swindlecant, however, then he had been lying, so an Honestant must have done it. Since clearly he wasn't an Honestant, he would not have done it himself.
In both cases, he would be innocent.


BoilingOil

[NinjaTariq]

If he was from one of the two islands then he is innocent, however if he is an outsider caught on one of the islands then it is undetermined.

[Singingsoul]

If he is a swindlecant, doesn't the sentence "A swindlecant committed the crime." Mean "A Honestant did not committed the crime"?

First off:
Swindlecants always lie.
Honestants always tell the truth.

And no. It means just the opposite. If he is a swindlecant and says, "A Swindlecant committed the crime," it means that statement is a lie, and therefore, an honostant "did" committed the crime.

So- If he was an honestant and said, "A swindlecant committed this crime," he would be telling the truth, and he could not have commited the crime, for he is an honestant.

Regardless, if he was an honestant or a swindlecant, and is innocent, this statement would point the finger at the other type of person, proving his innocence.

[falcon_phoenix]

Nonsense. The problem is flawed. This will never happen. In this island, only the swindlecants will be held for trial. An honestant cannot be held for trial because if he committed the crime he would have admitted it because honestants always tell the truth. If he is a swindlecant, he will deny the crime and would plead not guilty. Of course it means he's lying which means he really committed the crime. How then can a prisoner under trial say it was a swindlecant who committed the crime? This statement cannot be made by a swindlecant because it would mean it was the honestant who did it. But how could this be if an honestant always tells the truth? It was unnecessary for him to say so because an honestant criminal would have not denied it in the first place. In this island, a trial can only be had if an honestant is the complainant and only if a swindlecant is the criminal. So a liar swindlecant cannot say in court a swindlecant committed the crime because he would have lied. It doesnt make sense. The statement can only come from an innocent honestant falsely accused of a crime? But who could falsely accused him? No one!

[Dragon]

Nonsense. The problem is flawed. This will never happen. In this island, only the swindlecants will be held for trial. An honestant cannot be held for trial because if he committed the crime he would have admitted it because honestants always tell the truth. If he is a swindlecant, he will deny the crime and would plead not guilty. Of course it means he's lying which means he really committed the crime. How then can a prisoner under trial say it was a swindlecant who committed the crime? This statement cannot be made by a swindlecant because it would mean it was the honestant who did it. But how could this be if an honestant always tells the truth? It was unnecessary for him to say so because an honestant criminal would have not denied it in the first place. In this island, a trial can only be had if an honestant is the complainant and only if a swindlecant is the criminal. So a liar swindlecant cannot say in court a swindlecant committed the crime because he would have lied. It doesnt make sense. The statement can only come from an innocent honestant falsely accused of a crime? But who could falsely accused him? No one!

I'm sorry to say but your logic is flawed. To begin, "an honestant cannot be held for trial because if he committed the crime he would have admitted it" is false because he could deny doing the crime in which case he would be telling the truth and be in the same position as a swindlecant (leaving the prosecution not knowing whether or not he's an honestant). Futhermore, your assumption that an honestant would never be accused of a crime is groundless. For example, if the crime were murder and after investigation the States best lead pointed to an honestant then they would/could accuse him. You assume absolute knowledge on part of the accuser of who did the crime when in fact this is not required. The person in this situation could simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Also, you are not given the full facts of his interrogation (if there even was one). He could have told the police at the time that "he didn't do it." If this were the case then an honestant would be telling the truth but because he could be a swindlecant and telling a lie then the police can't let him go for his statement. Only one of the statements made above will satisfy his being innocent. However, your assumption that an honestant will never be accused of a crime is baseless. A side note, this is a crime meaning that the State is prosecuting (and basing their accusation on evidence which may or may not be complete) and not a tort in which a private citizen would be suing. Even were this a tort and a private citizen sued, a swindlecant could know that an honestant did not commit the crime and could still accuse him (false accusation) believing he has a good chance to make some money from the honestant. After all, many torts could simply come down to one mans word against anothers, and without a statement as made above in the answer or others on this board, the court would not know whom to believe but could be still be swayed by the plaintiff that the defendant committed the tort, but I digress......

[sunshipballoons]

Nonsense. The problem is flawed. This will never happen. In this island, only the swindlecants will be held for trial. An honestant cannot be held for trial because if he committed the crime he would have admitted it because honestants always tell the truth. If he is a swindlecant, he will deny the crime and would plead not guilty. Of course it means he's lying which means he really committed the crime. How then can a prisoner under trial say it was a swindlecant who committed the crime? This statement cannot be made by a swindlecant because it would mean it was the honestant who did it. But how could this be if an honestant always tells the truth? It was unnecessary for him to say so because an honestant criminal would have not denied it in the first place. In this island, a trial can only be had if an honestant is the complainant and only if a swindlecant is the criminal. So a liar swindlecant cannot say in court a swindlecant committed the crime because he would have lied. It doesnt make sense. The statement can only come from an innocent honestant falsely accused of a crime? But who could falsely accused him? No one!

Well, Dragon's response to this statement is rambling nonsense, but falcon is still wrong. A Honestant always tells the truth, <i>when he speaks</i>. There is nothing preventing the Honestant from saying <i>nothing</i> about whether he committed the crime. Indeed, in real life, you have the right to not testify against yourself. But that doesn't even matter. This is a logic puzzle and one of the assumptions of the puzzle is that we've reached a point where they are accusing the guy of a crime and they don't know who did it. If you don't want to play the game, that's fine. But this particular criticism of the puzzle is pretty silly.

[aniox]

An innocent swindlecant would nonetheless confess when prompted, nullifying the value of the accusation.