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
- - - - -

Honestants and Swindlecants V.


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

#11 cpotting

cpotting

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 23 August 2007 - 06:24 PM


ok, let's clear things up.

there're only 4 possibilities:

1. Both parts are true => Entire statement is true. So the wife is an honestant and the husband is a swindlecant. PARADOX! Swindlecants don't tell the truth. So this is impossible.

2. First part is true, and second part is false => Entire statement is false. Wife is an honestant and husband is an honestant. PARADOX! Honestants always tell the truth. So this is also impossible.

3. First part is false, and second part is true => Entire statement is true. Wife is a swindlecant and husband is a swindlecant. PARADOX! Swindlecants always lie. So this is again impossible.

4. Both parts are false => Entire statement is true. Wife is a swindlecant and husband is an honestant. Only possible answer. Since the statement was given as an implication, the honestant is being tricky, but he isn't lying.

The thing about these truth/lie logic questions is that the background is usually that the inhabitants of the country while separated into these two distinct groups both love to try stumping the tourists with logic puzzles. So I don't see any inherent paradox in the honestant lying for both parts of the implication.



I have to disagree here. IF-THEN does not separate a statement into two independent phrases (that's what AND and OR do). IF-THEN makes one statement dependent on the other.

The solution is indeterminate:
For an Honestant to say "If my wife is an Honestant, then I am a Swindlecat" is a perfectly valid statement and indicates that there are no male Honestants with Honestant wives. It would be like me truthfully saying "If you are the king of Atlantis then I'm the Prince of the Moon!". I am not lying.

For a Swindlecat to say "If my wife is an Honestant, then I am a Swindlecat" is a perfectly valid statement also. It indicates that there are Honestants men who have married Honestant women, and others that have married Swindlecats, and that you can't tell that a husband is Swindlecat by knowing if his wife is or isn't. It is like my saying "If my wife has red hair, then I have brown". It is a lie because my wife's hair colour does not determine mine. It would only be impossible for me (a Swindlecat) to say this if there was some factor that meant that no redheaded women were married to brunettes. Or, as I just explained it to my brother, the statement "If you're name is Ian, then my name is Clive" is a lie (even though his name is Ian and mine is Clive). His name being Ian does not make my name Clive - my name could be John, or Barry. The IF-THEN relationship if false and makes the statement a lie.

Therefore, both an Honestant and a Swindlecat can make the statement and not break the rules. Without further information, we cannot tell which they are.


edit - oops, sorry for the double post - it was meant to be an edit, but I must have hit quote.
  • 0

#12 geekmanager

geekmanager

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 24 August 2007 - 03:11 PM

Hee hee, just for fun...

I just realized though, why neither of them are swindlecants, (besides my third answer) When the two get married, only honestants would be able to say "I do" when the priest asks them if they take the other to be their lawfully wedded wife/husband



But, I think, in a society composed of honestants and swindlecants the priest would ask the classic question, "What would your fiance' say you would say if I asked you the question: Do you take your fiance' to be your lawfully wedded mate?". Where upon the priest would assume the opposite to be the real truth. So either of them could be honestant or swindlecant by that test.
  • 0

#13 catfishrob

catfishrob

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 28 August 2007 - 07:54 AM

Here's the classical form:
A: I am a swindlecant
B: My wife is an honestant
X="If B, then A"
If A, then not X
If not X, then (if B, then not A)
---------
If A then (if B then not A)
If B then (if A then not A) - Reductio ad absurdum
---------
Not B
If not B then not A (This is the only way to reduce it, except it's a fallacy)
---------
Not A + B

So, Husband is honestant and wife is swindlecant, according to this logic. But since you have to use a fallacy to get the answer, I conclude that there is no solution. We know that the wife is a swindlecant, but we cannot deduce whether the husband is a honestant or not, because, unfortunately he says nothing of the conditions in the case of his wife being a swindlecant. (ie, you can't assume this: if someone receives ten presents on their birthday they will be happy, but they didn't receive ten presents, so they won't be happy. Maybe they had a lot of fun, although they didn't receive ten presents, so therefore were still happy.)

So, in this, I strongly disagree with rookie1ja and larryhl, but reinforce what was said by Fosley. Nothing is preventing both from being swidlecants, since the statement "If my wife is a honestant, then I'm a swindlecant" does not state conditions concerning the wife being a swindlecant (which we all know is the situation). In other words, just because he says if his wife is an honestant then he is a swindlecant, doesn't get rid of the possibility that his wife may be a swindlecant as well as himself, and this doesn't contradict his original statement because they actually discussed COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.

Any objections?
  • 0

#14 erizob

erizob

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 30 August 2007 - 05:41 PM

I have to disagree with cpotting. If we use your take on this problem a Swindlecant could lie about even having a wife. So a possible outcome would be just a Swindlecant without a spouse.

The teaser states a Honestant ALWAYS speaks the truth and a Swindlecant ALWAYS speaks lies. Always is the hard word to get around. Not part of the time, not part of a sentence - Always.
  • 0

#15 therealdonquixote

therealdonquixote

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 07 October 2007 - 11:18 AM

The funny man's statement is paradoxical.
In fact its part of a quite famous paradox, known as The Liar Paradox. Some people refer to it as the Epimenides Paradox, even though he really said all "Cretans are liars" which lead to the whole philosphical idea of the Liars Paradox which was later re-stated by St. Augustine (i think). Just click that link for better info (its a wiki YAYAYAYAY).

Anyhew, it boils down to this. The paradox lies in the self reference of the statement.
Basic liars paradox.
"I am lying now."
If the person is lying then the statement is actually true, which means that the person is telling the truth, which makes the statement false, which means the person is lying, which makes the statement true, which means the person is telling the truth, which means the statement is false... (continues till the end of time)
Also
If the person is telling the truth (aka, not lying) then the statement is lie, which means the person is lying, which means that the statement is true, which means the person is telling the truth, which means the statement is false, which means the person is lying, which means the statement is true... (keep going till the end of time)

Now, on to the funny man's statement. It is a paradox of the same kind as "The Liars Paradox".
"If my wife is an honestant, then I am a swindlecant."
If his wife is an honestant, then he is telling the truth, which means he is not a swindlecant, which means he is lying, which means he is a swindlecant, which means he is telling the truth, which means he is not a swindlecant... (yep it keeps going, hence "Self Referential Paradox")
If he has no wife at all then he is deceiving the gringo into thinking he has a wife (aka, he is lying), which means he is a swindlecant, which means the "then" part of the statement is the truth, which means he's not a swindlecant, which means the "then" part of the statement is false (aka a lie), which means he is a swindlecant... (keeps going weather he has a wife or not)

Just as with "The Liars Paradox", the Funny Man's statement can never consistently be assigned a value of true or false, which means the Funny Man can never be consistently categorized as a swindlecant nor an honestant.

If your mind is broken by now, just Google "Liar Paradox" and read till your brain completely deflates.

sry if this is sloppy but its time for bed and I'm not going to revise anything right now
  • 0

#16 Lemeshianos

Lemeshianos

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 03:39 PM

I believe you have the truth tables wrong
The if then tables should be like this
P Q P->Q
F F F
F T F
T F F
T T T


So his sentence would be true only if his wife was a honestant and he was a swidlecandle.And if his sentence was true than he would be saying the truth which couldn't be the case since we assumed he is a swidlecant.
  • 0

#17 Lemeshianos

Lemeshianos

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 03:39 PM

I believe you have the truth tables wrong
The if then tables should be like this
P Q P->Q
F F F
F T F
T F F
T T T


So his sentence would be true only if his wife was a honestant and he was a swidlecande.And if his sentence was true than he would be saying the truth which couldn't be the case since we assumed he is a swidlecant.

Lets check about first arqument being false and the second true.
The man says that if his wife is a honestant(F) then he is a swidlecant(T).
The whole sentence from the above table is false.So he is not breaking any rules.
That means that "both are swidlecants" is an acceptable answer.

I ll check the other cases and get back to you!
  • 0

#18 Lemeshianos

Lemeshianos

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 04:04 PM

I got the tables wrong!please ignore above answer
  • 0

#19 Lemeshianos

Lemeshianos

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 04:04 PM

same here
  • 0

#20 Pelican Bay Buiders

Pelican Bay Buiders

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 13 November 2007 - 04:27 AM

It seems to me that if the husband says if his wife is an honestant he is saying that she is a swindlecant and if she is in fact an honestant than he is telling a lie. And by saying if she is an honestant then he is a swindlecant he is calling himself an honestant. so the statement of himself being a swindlecant is not the truth but a part of his lie because he does not say he is ,only as a condition ,to shore up his lie about his wife and himself so he is the swindlecant and she is an honestant.
Mike
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users