## 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

# Honestants and Swindlecants VI.

34 replies to this topic

### #21 onyx_omega

onyx_omega

Newbie

• Members
• 3 posts

Posted 19 October 2007 - 11:09 PM

Keep in mind also, this puzzle was written to have exactly one correct solution, so, while you could get by with the conjunction argument, you're probably not reading it how it was meant to be read if you get more than one answer. There are two ways to look at it. One yields and absolute solution. I'd say, do it that way.

I love common sense, even though nobody seems to have any.
• 0

### #22 aishi_khurana

aishi_khurana

Newbie

• Members
• 12 posts

Posted 15 November 2007 - 05:20 PM

if i consider the 1st statement to be false but other true then also the condition is satisfied......
• 0

### #23 momo0041

momo0041

Newbie

• Members
• 10 posts

Posted 17 November 2007 - 09:54 AM

First of all, I have a spilt personality.

- Ok, the man next to him says the bartender says yes, but he is a liar.
- He COULD be lying.
- Yes, but he could be telling the truth... If he was an Honestant, though, he could always break the law and become a Swindlecant. Or, the bartender could have said the truth and been a big liar...
- You're not supposed to THINK ABOUT IT LIKE THAT, silly! Either the man is lying or he isnt. There is no logical answer, just opinion. I would just pay up and leave.

As you can see, one is right, but no one knows who... I'll go with though.
• 0

### #24 Poppinjay

Poppinjay

Newbie

• Members
• 7 posts

Posted 03 December 2007 - 02:39 AM

There are four possibilities.

M = man
B = Bartender
T = truth-teller (honestant)
L = Liar (swindle cat)

Here are the possibilities.

1. M = L B = L
2. M = L B = T
3. M = T B = L
4. M = T B = T

The first combinationis impossible because if the Man is a liar and that means that the Bartender is a truth-teller and that he really answered "no" to verify the drink price. Since answering "no" to verify would mean he lied when saying the price, he can not be a truth teller, and thus this combination is impossible.

The second combination is impossible: If the man is a liar and the bartender is a truth teller then that means that the price of the drink was true. But the lair said that that the bartender said "yes" to verify the drink price which means he really said "no". But if he said "no" he can't be a truth-teler, which makes this combination impossible.

The third combination is possible: If the man is telling the truth then that means that the bartender liar, which means that his answer of "yes" is consistant wit hthe lie he told about the price and with him being a liar.

Since we found one that works we might stop here--but to be complete:

The fourth combination is impossible: If the man is a truth-teller then that means that the bartender must be a lair, but this is a contradiction and so can not be true.

Thus the man is in fact a truth-teller and the bartender is a liar, and the gringo should not pay the inflated price for the drink.

Does this sound right to everyone?

Poppinjay

I think this puzzle was a very clever one, becuase you need to use the information bout the drink price as well.
• 0

### #25 spoxjox

spoxjox

Junior Member

• Members
• 97 posts

Posted 05 December 2007 - 01:12 AM

If you are allowing logical conjunction in the second answer, you must also allow logical conjunction in the first. That is, perhaps the Swindlecant bartender answered, "No, but I'm lying." In that case, both responders are Swindlecants.

For the record, I don't agree with this type of logical conjunction with logic riddles. It really muddies the waters needlessly.
• 0

### #26 Quinten27

Quinten27

Newbie

• Members
• 10 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:48 PM

If you are allowing logical conjunction in the second answer, you must also allow logical conjunction in the first. That is, perhaps the Swindlecant bartender answered, "No, but I'm lying." In that case, both responders are Swindlecants.

For the record, I don't agree with this type of logical conjunction with logic riddles. It really muddies the waters needlessly.

The bartender has to be a honestcan and the stranger next to him has to be a Swindlecat. The bartenders says the price of the drink, and then is asked if he was telling the truth. The only possible reply is yes, because a Swindlecat won't say that yes they lied, and an honestcant wouldn't have lied about the price to being with. So, knowing the man said yes, we can deduce that the stranger is telling the truth when he says that the bartender said yes, meaning the rest of his statement is also true, and that the bartender is indeed a lying Swindlecat!

They cannot both be Honestcans because of the strangers statement that the other man was a big liar. This means one of the two of them has to be lying, and thusly a Swindlecat.

They cannot both be Swindlecats because if the Bartender lied about the price of the drink, then he would have to answer yes when asked about telling the truth, which makes the strangers statements true, and thusly not a Swindlecat.

The Bartender can't be a Honestcan and the stranger can't be a Swindlecat. If the bartender told the truth about the drink price, he would have replyed yes when asked if telling the truth, which means the strangers statement that the bartender said yes is true.

The only solution that fits the conditions is the bartender being an honestcan and the stranger being a lying Swindlecat.
• 0

### #27 Yoshia

Yoshia

Newbie

• Members
• 7 posts

Posted 01 February 2008 - 11:14 PM

Once again - the man sitting next to gringo said:
"The bartender said yes, but he is a big liar." So he did not say: "The bartender said yes."
Sentence has to be considered as a whole and not as 2 separate parts. For more on logical conjunction see <!-- m --><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction</a><!-- m -->

Interestingly enough, you've refuted your own point! I found this in the exact same article you provided.

Logically, the sentence "it's raining, but the sun is shining" is equivalent to "it's raining, and the sun is shining", so logically, "but" is equivalent to "and".

So both parts of the man's statement must be true after all!
• 0

### #28 rookie1ja

rookie1ja

Senior Member

• 1344 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Slovakia

Posted 01 February 2008 - 11:51 PM

Once again - the man sitting next to gringo said:
"The bartender said yes, but he is a big liar." So he did not say: "The bartender said yes."
Sentence has to be considered as a whole and not as 2 separate parts. Swindlecant can say truth in the first half of the sentence, however, if the 2 parts of 1 sentence were 2 separate sentences, then swindlecant could not say the first part as 1 sentence (and nothing else in that sentence).
For more on logical conjunction see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction</a>

Interestingly enough, you've refuted your own point! I found this in the exact same article you provided.

Logically, the sentence "it's raining, but the sun is shining" is equivalent to "it's raining, and the sun is shining", so logically, "but" is equivalent to "and". I agree - where have I written the opposite?

So both parts of the man's statement must be true after all! I agree - only if he is an honestant.

• 0

Optical Illusions
Support BrainDen

"To start: Press any key... Where's the 'any' key?" - Homer Simpson

### #29 armcc5000

armcc5000

Newbie

• Members
• 1 posts

Posted 04 February 2008 - 10:34 PM

Interestingly enough, you've refuted your own point! I found this in the exact same article you provided.

So both parts of the man's statement must be true after all! I agree - only if he is an honestant.

I actually come across a lot of Logical Conjunctions in my major.

Since we are assuming but = the AND operator, and the man in the bar has a two part argument then:

If the first part is false and the second part is true, the whole statement is false. (The same goes for the case of False\true)

The only way to receive a true statement from a two part argument is if both arguments are True.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/And_operator

Therefore:
If the man on the bar stool is lying about any part of the situation, he is a swindlecant. But this could make the bartender either a swindlecant or an honestcant:
If the man is lying about both statements then he is a swindlecant and the bartender is also a swindlecant.(1) (But this isn't possible as the bartender would have had to tell the truth at one point during the night in different statements)
If the man on the bar stool is lying about the bartender saying yes, that makes the bartender a swindlecant as well as he lied about the price. (2)
If the man on the bar stool is lying about the bartender being a liar, that obviously makes the bartender an honestcant. (3)
If the man on the bar stool is telling the truth then he is an honestcant and the bartender is a swindlecant. (4)

I'm also assuming that the riddle wasn't suppose to be looked at with Logical Conjunctions, so I would tend to lean towards the fourth answer.
• 0

### #30 SmiIingPerson

SmiIingPerson

Newbie

• Members
• 1 posts

Posted 08 February 2008 - 09:23 PM

The bartender is the Swindlecant.

The bartender could not possibly say no to the man who was paying for his drinks, because either he would then lie about the price of the drink or that it is the real price, which would mean he's neither a Swindlecant nor an Honestant, so both statements have to be either true or false.

The man sitting at the bar however, says that the bartender said yes, so right there, you know that he is telling the truth and is an Honestant.

I am making the assumption that the bartender and the man at the bar both have to be either an Honestant or a Swindlcant, but it's the only way to get a definite solution.

Edited by SmiIingPerson, 08 February 2008 - 09:28 PM.

• 0

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users