24 replies to this topic

[itsclueless]

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.

Ahh, but you used an "and" clause here. That would make the statement false if either clause is false, according to computer programmer logic.

The original problem is different, because of the use of "or". Imagine there were only only aborigine, and he said, "I am a Swindlecant or I am an Honestant." This would be a perfectly true statement, because he is one of the two choices, even if the other choice is false. This logic also applies to the two person scenario.

[seward132]

2 honestats, honestat told the truth and swindlecat lied.

[OpEx]

A cannot be a Swindlecant because both of his statements would have to be false to make him a liar. And a liar cannot call himself a liar because he would be telling the truth.

OR (+) truth table (0=false, 1=true)
0 + 0 = 0
0 + 1 = 1
1 + 0 = 1
1 + 1 = 1

I'm sorry, even though this is an old post, I thought I might throw in my 2 cents.
Doesn't the word "or" typically mean "one is false and the other is true"?
I'll try to show my logic toward this:

False OR False = False (If False AND False, then = True).
False OR True = True (If False AND True, then = False).
True OR False = True (If True AND False, then = False).
True OR True = False (If True AND True, then = True).

If Person A was a Swindlecant and Person B was an Honestant, he would still be lying because he isn't using AND, right?
If the statement was, "I am a Swindlecant and/or the other is a Honestant", then I would completely agree with everyone else here.
Since that is not the case, aren't there two answers to this riddle?

[I'm new to this]

I'm new to this and I haven't studied maths in years so my logics a bit rusty, so I'm completely open to being proven wrong, but I think the logic of the answer may be flawed.

Surely we can only accept that the statement is a true disjunction if the speaker is a Honestant? The disjunction itself could be false if the speaker were a Swindlecant. Only an Honestant is bound by the logic of the disjunction.

A Swindlecant could make this statement if they were both Swindlecants. Likewise an Honestant could make it if they were both Honestants.

Are we meant to assume the pair are the different?

Or is the answer suggesting that the logic is compartmentalised? That a Swindlecant can't make this statement because the first clause is true even if the whole statement isn't? I think that argument is flawed because then a Swindlecant wouldn't even be able to say "I" because that's a statement of existence!

[3lizab3th]

I think you're right, New. Our answer entirely depends on two factors: whether we judge each clauses' truth seperately or in conjunction with the whole, and the meaning of "OR".
If you interpret "or" to mean exactly one of the two statements is true, then there are two outcomes: they're both honestcants (one of the statements is true, so the OR modifier is true)' or the speaker is a swindlecant and the other is an honestcant (both clauses are true, so the OR modifier is false).