24 replies to this topic

[Tyvlen]

i think both aborigines are swindlecants, the question did not state he met one of each types, simple two aborigines, imo a honestant couldnt say "I am a swindlecant" but a swindlecant can say, "Hi im a swindlecant, but you can trust him, he is a honestant"

[TwoaDay]

They cant both be swindlecants if so the first would be an honestant

[ash013]

I have a simple question to everyone who says that A is an honestant:if that is true,means that he/she made a false statment.How an honestant can lie?He/she didn't say "If i am.."This would be different.

[i am a liar]

guys if there is only 1 true statements you will be a swindlecats why because you will need 2 true statements to be an honestants, an honest guy never lies.
in my opinion A is a swindlecats and B is a honestants

[rookie1ja]

guys if there is only 1 true statements you will be a swindlecats why because you will need 2 true statements to be an honestants, an honest guy never lies.
in my opinion A is a swindlecats and B is a honestants

no, for the reason given in the very first post

[davasatoth]

they are both liars. just ask the bartender, he tells the truth.

Edited by davasatoth, 14 March 2008 - 01:49 AM.

[huh]

Hi I am new here.
They both have to be Swindlecants. No one is going to say they are a Swindlecant. Swindlecants will lie about it, and Honestant would not state that or they would be lying.

So you cannot split the statment into two sections. Either the whole statement is true, or if any part of it is false, it is a false statment. A Honestant will not say he/she is a swindlecant. If a Swindlecant states he is a Swindlecant, then he must be lying somewhere else in the statement.

Just my two cents worth.

I agree, the bartender always knows.

[foh]

Honestants and Swindlecants II. - Back to the Logic Problems
Afterwards he meets another two aborigines. One says: "I am a Swindlecant or the other one is an Honestant." Who are they?

Spoiler for Solution

Honestants and Swindlecants II. - solution
Logical disjunction is a statement "P or Q". Such a disjunction is false if both P and Q are false. In all other cases it is true. Note that in everyday language, use of the word "or" can sometimes mean "either, but not both" (e.g., "would you like tea or coffee?"). In logic, this is called an "exclusive disjunction" or "exclusive or" (xor).
So if A was a swindlecant, then his statement would be false (thus A would have to be an honestant and B would have to be a swindlecant). However, that would cause a conflict which implicates that A must be an honestant. In that case at least one part of his statement is true and as it can’t be the first one, B must be an honestant, too.

I know I am new to this forum, but in my mind the answer is "two aborigines" using the logic of "How do you spell that?" T H A T

[chiyaan]

The solution is not right! If A was an honestant, he wouldn't be lying by callin himself a swindlecant! So A IS a swindlecant!
Similarly.. If A says I'm a swindlecant 'AND' B is an honestant,they are different! But using 'OR', they are obviously the same! Whatever A is!
N since he is not an honestant, as an honestant will never lie n say he's a swindlecant.. They are both swindlecants!

Edited by chiyaan, 29 March 2008 - 06:04 AM.

[dheinecke]

I think the difficulty that most people here are having is trying to define to what extent a lie actually goes.

As a computer programmer, I usually think in terms of true and false, with true being truth, and false being a lie. Using this definition of truth and lie, both must be Honestants due to the mathematical proofs offered earlier.

The disconnect comes for those that feel that Swindlicants can't even tell a partial truth, or use a truthful clause in a statement. To test which camp you fall into, as yourself whether, based on what we know of swindlecants, if you think a swindlecant could make this statement:

"The sun is hot and the moon is made of green cheese"

Mathematically and logically the statement is false, because the second clause is false, so you could argue that this is something a Swindlecant would say. Conversely, you could argue that because Swindlecants must always lie that his use of a truthful clause ("the sun is hot") is verboten.

I tend to think more along the logical and mathematical lines, but due to different interpretations of what constitutes lieing, I can see the alternative solution.