Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Logic Problems at the Court I.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
24 replies to this topic

#21 AliceJH

AliceJH

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 08 September 2008 - 01:13 PM

I think the prisoner will only be "rescued" if the jury contains a majority of Honestants !
  • 0

#22 Charlie87

Charlie87

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

Posted 09 November 2008 - 07:22 AM

This is a lot simpler than some of you make it out to be....

First of all, ANY ONE can commit a crime, just because a person is honest doesn't make him innocent, we all know that. And some of you are trying to put words in the character's mouth. You shouldn't worry about that.

The point is what the person DID say, which was "A swindelcant committed the crime"

So lets look at it in the two only ways u can.

If he is an honestant, then obviously he's telling the truth, therefore he would be innocent.
If he is a swindelcant, he obviously CANNOT say that statement because it would be true. In other words he is saying "a liar committed the crime" and if he is a liar he CAN'T say that, he is supposed to LIE.

So the conclusion of the simple problem is that the guy is an honestant and he is innocent. B))
  • 0

#23 seward132

seward132

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 15 November 2008 - 12:35 AM

He said a swindlecat did it because no matter what the swindlecat says no one will believe him so if the prisoner is lying he will still be right because the swindlecat will lie, right??
  • 0

#24 noobicus2

noobicus2

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 04:00 AM

Actually, that statement indicates the defendant knows the guilty party. If this were the case he could make a statement regarding a known truth (the sky being blue) and identify himself as Honestant or Swindlecant, and the guilty person. i.e. - "The sky is striped yellow and orange, and Joe Swindlecant didn't do it!" or "The sky is blue right now, and Joe Swindlecant is the guilty one!"

He should have said "If I am a Swindlecant I did it!". This would not only exhonorate him, but also not indicate he knew who the real guilty party was. (If he is a Swindlecant, then he can't have done it or else the statement would be true, and if he is an Honestant he couldn't have done it or the statement would be false.)


It does not at all indicate he knows the guilty party. We know the crime was committed by either an honestant or a swindlecant, but we can't tell which. All his statement tells us is that he knows which one it was. He doesn't know the identity of said criminal, just whether or not they lie or tell the truth. There could be millions of honestants/swindlecants that could've performed the crime.
  • 0

#25 missepicfail

missepicfail

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts

Posted 13 May 2011 - 02:06 AM

This is a lot simpler than some of you make it out to be....

First of all, ANY ONE can commit a crime, just because a person is honest doesn't make him innocent, we all know that. And some of you are trying to put words in the character's mouth. You shouldn't worry about that.

The point is what the person DID say, which was "A swindelcant committed the crime"

So lets look at it in the two only ways u can.

If he is an honestant, then obviously he's telling the truth, therefore he would be innocent.
If he is a swindelcant, he obviously CANNOT say that statement because it would be true. In other words he is saying "a liar committed the crime" and if he is a liar he CAN'T say that, he is supposed to LIE.

So the conclusion of the simple problem is that the guy is an honestant and he is innocent. B))

You misunderstand.
We don't know who he is. The point is...IF he's an honestant and says "a swindlecant did it" then he's telling the truth and goes free. IF he's a swindlecant and says "a swindlecant did it" then he's lying and still goes free.
One always tells the truth and one always lies.

If he is a swindelcant, he obviously CANNOT say that statement because it would be true. In other words he is saying "a liar committed the crime" and if he is a liar he CAN'T say that, he is supposed to LIE.


You are assuming that a swindelcant committed the crime because they are liars when in fact ANYONE could have committed the crime. Which, I noticed, you yourself stated from the beginning and yet you contradict yourself. So if he is a swindlecant he CAN say that, and since he always lies that would mean an honestant did it. Essentially, he IS a liar saying a liar committed the crime...but that just means a liar DID NOT commit the crime.

Edited by missepicfail, 13 May 2011 - 02:12 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users