42 replies to this topic

[noobicus2]

I think I just came across a problem with the current solution.

A poor swindlecant could say, "I am not a poor honestant," because we would break the sentence down to (part A) "I am not poor." and (part B. "I am not a honestant." Since he could be a poor swindlecant, he would be lying by saying he is not poor, so we would have Part A as False and Part B as True. False and True is always False so, I don't think this would work as a poor swindlecant and a rich honestant can both say it.

Let me know if I'm wrong, or missed something.

You're breaking the sentence down incorrectly. In fact, you don't need to break it down at all. The statement "I am not a poor honestant" can only be said by a swindlecat if he IS a poor honestant, which is obviously impossible. Here's the equation you're looking for:

Does "Poor swindlecat" = "poor honestant"

No, of course it doesn't. So if a poor swindlecant says he is not a poor honestant, he is telling the truth, because the two are not equal. Swindlecants can't do this, so the sentence cannot be said by a swindlecant.

[Erdumas]

If i was a swindlecant, an honestant would say that i am a poor honestant.

If-Then statement, so if the If is false, than the Then is false.
...

I'm sorry, but this wouldn't work. First, in logic, an If-Then (conditional) statement is only false when the premise (if statement) is true and the conclusion (then statement) is false. The best reason I can think of as why this would be the case is because if it worked according to how you thought, then conditional statements would be logically no different from conjunctions (and statements), and that's just not useful!

Now, for the statement itself. It is clear that the statement would be false if he were a Swindlecant, as the conclusion would have to be false (Honestants would actually say he's a Swindlecant). But, if he's not a Swindlecant, then the conclusion can be true or false (it doesn't matter), and the statement is still true, which would make him an Honestant. Therefore, if he's a Swindlecant, he is making a false statement, and if he's an Honestant he's making a true statement. Since there is nothing about the statement which indicates it should be patently true or false, the woman would not know if you were lying or telling the truth, and would certainly not pick you (for either case!).

I'll finish by saying that I overthought this completely, and gave up on the solution because I was going nowhere. My closest attempt (for the honestant problem) was:
"I am a rich Honestant if and only if I am a Swindlecant, or I am either a rich Honestant or a Swindlecant"
((P <=> Q) + (P xor Q))
The problem with this is the modifier rich. The statement itself is a Tautology, so the speaker must be an Honestant. However, if the speaker is a poor Honestant, then P is false, and Q is obviously false.
So P <=> Q would be true. The woman would not know if I were rich or poor. The actual solution was ingeniously simple, and I'm a little disappointed I couldn't think of it... Oh well.

[arci]

it was not mentioned that the girl is supposed to analyze what you are telling her... it was only said that she only wants a rich swindlecant..

"i am a poor swindlecant"

You are a rich swindlecant so you can say it
girl doesn't want you since you are a poor swindlecant according to your sentence

the second scenario (girl wants a rich honestant) is correct as it satisfies both conditions

"I am not a poor honestant"

You are a rich honestant so you can say it
girl wants you since you are a rich (not poor) honestant according to your sentence.