79 replies to this topic

[Prof. Templeton]

I have another question about the premise.
"Because of possible loop conflicts, you may not ask any question about how the God of the Randomcants would answer."

Does this mean:
(a) you may not ask anybody "How would R answer...? or
(b) you may not ask anybody "How would B answer", given that B might be R.

I would have to say both would not be allowed unless you know that "B" is not the Randomcant.

[CaptainEd]

Well, R's answers depend on what H and S would respond with. So if we are asking if God "B" is an Honestant and "B" was, in fact the Honestant:

H would reply "Yes"
S would reply "No"
R would reply "Yes" since only one of the reponses from the other two Gods was a "Yes".

If God "B" is not an Honestant then:

H would reply "No"
S would reply "Yes"
R would reply "Yes" since only one of the reponses from the other two Gods was a "Yes".

R's answers are only dependent on what H and S would answer if given the same question. So in your example above R would give you 2 seperate answer that depended on if "B" was the Honestant or if he wasn't. For this question R's replies happen to be the same in both cases. If you walked up to God "A" and asked "Is God B is an Honestant", if "A" was the Randomcant you would get the same answer wheather "B" was or wasn't. Have I made it more confusing?

H...S...R
Y...Y...N
Y...N...Y
N...Y...Y
N...N...N

Spoiler for to save real estate,

I don't buy that this is well defined. H and S can't answer the same question in the same circumstances. Here are the six cases: (AB) = HR, HS, RH, RS, SH, SR

what would H say if I asked if B were H? There would be two cases HR, and HS. In both those cases, A(ie.H)'s answer would be No. However, if I ask R whether B is H, the two cases are different from A's cases: RH and RS. In the first case, B is H, but A could never have inhabited that case because A is H, so "how A would have answered" is not defined. Similarly, how would S have answered in the case RS? Since S couldn't have inhabited that condition, S's answer is not defined.

I think the intent of the premise might be achieved if, instead of saying that R responds Yes if exactly one of the other gods would say Yes, we say that R responds yes if any Honestant would say the opposite of any Swindlecant.

Edited by CaptainEd, 21 April 2009 - 07:54 PM.

[kkehoe5]

Spoiler for Got it, with luck that is

Ask first 2 gods same known question.

Am I a Male?
Am I a Male?

with luck you get the same word meaning the first 2 gods are H and R and you know what word = yes.

Ask the last god while pointing to first god, is this an honastant?
If he says yes then the gods are R H S, if he says a differant word then they are H R S

It's not solid but it works with luck.

[psycho]

Spoiler for I think I have it.

Ask a if b is honestant.
Ask a if c is honestant.

If answers are different, a is swindlecant. Ask if a is swindlecant. Match false answer to responses to the first question to determine what b and c are. For example, if answers are “ug” and “oh” respectively, and he is asked if he is a swindlecant and he answers “oh,” we know that “oh” means no and “ug” means yes. Which means c is honestcant and b is randomcant. And vis a versa.

If answers are the same, ask a if it is a honestant. If their answer is different from the first two answers, they are an honestant. If they are the same, it is a randomcant.

[Prof. Templeton]

Spoiler for to save real estate,

I don't buy that this is well defined. H and S can't answer the same question in the same circumstances. Here are the six cases: (AB) = HR, HS, RH, RS, SH, SR

what would H say if I asked if B were H? There would be two cases HR, and HS. In both those cases, A(ie.H)'s answer would be No. However, if I ask R whether B is H, the two cases are different from A's cases: RH and RS. In the first case, B is H, but A could never have inhabited that case because A is H, so "how A would have answered" is not defined. Similarly, how would S have answered in the case RS? Since S couldn't have inhabited that condition, S's answer is not defined.

I think the intent of the premise might be achieved if, instead of saying that R responds Yes if exactly one of the other gods would say Yes, we say that R responds yes if any Honestant would say the opposite of any Swindlecant.

I think I understand what your getting at. In your cases where "A" is the randomcant (RH and RS) H would answer "Yes" and "No" respectively, because in RH "B" is the Honestant and in RS "B" is not the Honestant. I think you have to look at what H and S would reply with if they were in R's position (figuratively), even if the question is about themselves. I hope that clears it up.

[Prof. Templeton]

Spoiler for I think I have it.

Ask a if b is honestant.
Ask a if c is honestant.

If answers are different, a is swindlecant. Ask if a is swindlecant. Match false answer to responses to the first question to determine what b and c are. For example, if answers are “ug” and “oh” respectively, and he is asked if he is a swindlecant and he answers “oh,” we know that “oh” means no and “ug” means yes. Which means c is honestcant and b is randomcant. And vis a versa.

If answers are the same, ask a if it is a honestant. If their answer is different from the first two answers, they are an honestant. If they are the same, it is a randomcant.

Both Honestant and Randomcant would answer "No" to the last question.

[psycho]

Both Honestant and Randomcant would answer "No" to the last question.

Actually, if the Swindlecant was asked the question he would reply "yes," which means the Randomcant would also reply "yes," making this answer the same as his first two.

Edit: If a was a Randomcant, he would answer yes to both the first and second question. Then when asked the third, he would still answer yes, as he would place each the Honestant and the Swindlecant in his position and as their answers would differ, his would be yes. All answers the same.

If a was a Honestant, he would answer No to both the first two questions, and yes to the last. Thus he would be the Honestant.

Edited by psycho, 21 April 2009 - 09:14 PM.

[CaptainEd]

I'm with Plasmid--there are two answers, P and Q. There are only 4 distinguishable sequences of answers, no matter what the questions: PPP, PPQ, PQP, PQQ, and 6 cases to distinguish. If I weren't so awash with coin-weighing, I would think that we can't distinguish 6 cases with only 4 sequences of answers. Sure wish I could prove it (or brilliantly get the answer!)

[Prof. Templeton]

Actually, if the Swindlecant was asked the question he would reply "yes," which means the Randomcant would also reply "yes," making this answer the same as his first two.

Edit: If a was a Randomcant, he would answer yes to both the first and second question. Then when asked the third, he would still answer yes, as he would place each the Honestant and the Swindlecant in his position and as their answers would differ, his would be yes. All answers the same.

If a was a Honestant, he would answer No to both the first two questions, and yes to the last. Thus he would be the Honestant.

You're right. R would answer "Yes" to all three questions wheather the order was R-H-S or R-S-H.

[psycho]

You're right. R would answer "Yes" to all three questions wheather the order was R-H-S or R-S-H.

I just realized it wouldn't mater anyway, as we would know who a was, but unless a is swindlecat, we wouldn't know what b or c were.

Nuts