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 :-)
Honestants and Swindlecants VI.
Posted 06 June 2007 - 03:15 PM
Posted 12 August 2007 - 01:38 AM
the biggest thing to remember is that if the man sitting next to the gringo was a swindlecant he would have said , "the bartender said NO," since he HAS to lie and it is impossible to say "no" when answering the question "if he spoke the truth" from a swindlecant and a honestant.
So. the bartender must be a Swindlecant , and the man sitting next to him a Honestant
to lie, only one part of a sentance needs to be false, in other words, a swindlecant can say, "I am a one-eyed monster who is also a swindlecant." because they are a not a one-eyed monster, their comment is a lie, an honestant cannot say this because their are no parts true here, and for someone to speak the truth, all parts of the sentance must be true. So with the sentance "he said yes, but he's a big lier" perhaps the bartender DID say yes, and is not a big lier if the man sitting next to him is a swindlecant. or, if he's an honestant, then obviously both parts must be true and the bartender said yes but lied and the answer is no, no?
Posted 28 August 2007 - 03:00 PM
This one seems not clear to me. However, the bartender and the man sitting next to the gringo must be one honestant and one swindlecant (not knowing who is who).
1. the bartender must have said: "Yes, I speak the truth" (no matter who he is)
2. the man sitting next to gringo said: "The bartender said yes, but he is a big liar.", which is true only if BOTH parts of the sentence are true (for logical conjuction see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction)
Except, if you look more closely at the wikipedia article, it shows the steps of logical conjunction. This example is not actually logical conjunction, the statement is already conjoined. I would argue that the man at the bar did not actually go through and do logical conjunction on his two seperate assumptions, and even if he did, we recognize that they were both seperate ideas at one point, meaning a swindlecant has to lie for both, and an honestant has to tell the truth for both. Since the statement is already conjoined, we can assume either that the man did it himself, acknowledging the truth (or untruth) of both statements, or that the man simply combined two assumptions that he had into one sentence simply to shorten what he had to say - this is not necessarily conjunction. So, the bartender is a swindlecant and the man an honestant.
Posted 28 August 2007 - 03:04 PM
Idiot; costed is not even a word.
If I were to call someone an idiot based on a grammatical error, I'd take the time out to make sure one was actually made:
Also, if you're taking the time to accuse someone of wrongly accusing someone, you should take the time to verify the truth of this. Read the definition more carefully. While costed is technically a word, in the sense used, it is not correct. Costed can only be used in the sense of "He costed the watch on display" (determined the value of). This form of the word is rarely used, though, and I would not blame someone for being unaware of its presence. However, saying that something "costed" you a certain amount of money is completely incorrect and gives any form of educated person a bad impression.
Posted 28 August 2007 - 11:10 PM
Posted 03 September 2007 - 03:59 AM
However, saying that something "costed" you a certain amount of money is completely incorrect and gives any form of educated person a bad impression.
Unless that educated person's native language is not English, which is the case in rookie1ja's case. Perhaps I should have written that eikonoklaste shouldn't be calling someone an idiot while claiming something that is a word, isn't. You really think the one giving a bad impression is one whose grammar isn't perfect and not the one needlessly calling another an idiot?
Posted 19 October 2007 - 10:58 PM
First off, the bartender can't say no. If he sais no, then that means that he's owning up to lying in the first place, which would be an honest response, or he's lying then, and was being honest in the first place. So he must've said yes.
This immediately implies that the man sitting next to the gringo was an honest one, having stated that the bartender said "yes" which we already decided he had. Thus, the man next to the gringo was also telling the truth about the bartender lying, so the bartender must be a swindlecant and the man next to the gringo must be an honestant.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users