[rookie1ja]

Logic Problems at the Court I. - Back to the Logic Problems
And now a few cases from the island of honestants and swindlecants. A prisoner at the bar was allowed to say one sentence to defend himself. After a while he said: "A swindlecant committed the crime." Did it rescue him?

Spoiler for Solution:

Logic Problems at the Court I. - solution
Yes, the statement helped him. If he is an honestant, then a swindlecant committed the crime. If he is a swindlecant, then his statement points to an honestant who is guilty. Thus he is again innocent regarding the statement.

[pack_fanny]

Ok. but you dont know if the man is swindlican or if he is a honest whatever. i dont like this one. it is too hard to determine. you can also say that he isnt safe because they would have to go into investigation. That could still prove him to be guilty.

[rookie1ja]

I should have mentioned conditions for this riddle - they are in the first riddle of this section called "Logic Problems". So here they are:
Swindlecants - all sentences they say (as a whole) are false
Honestants - all sentences they say (as a whole) are true

[larryhl]

Quote

Ok. but you dont know if the man is swindlican or if he is a honest whatever. i dont like this one. it is too hard to determine. you can also say that he isnt safe because they would have to go into investigation. That could still prove him to be guilty.

there's no need for an investigation because it doesn't matter if he is an honestant or swindlecant, he didn't commit the crime. if he was an honestant, he always needs to speak the truth, thus a swindlecant committed the crime (the prisoner is innocent.) if he was a swindlecant, he always lies, thus an honestant really committed the crime (the prisoner is still innocent.)

[imtcb]

Actually, that statement indicates the defendant knows the guilty party. If this were the case he could make a statement regarding a known truth (the sky being blue) and identify himself as Honestant or Swindlecant, and the guilty person. i.e. - "The sky is striped yellow and orange, and Joe Swindlecant didn't do it!" or "The sky is blue right now, and Joe Swindlecant is the guilty one!"

He should have said "If I am a Swindlecant I did it!". This would not only exhonorate him, but also not indicate he knew who the real guilty party was. (If he is a Swindlecant, then he can't have done it or else the statement would be true, and if he is an Honestant he couldn't have done it or the statement would be false.)

[colorclown26]

This one is pretty easy for a Swindlecants and Honestants puzzle. Look at some other ones for a bigger challenge.

[anna_fran]

A swindlecant can't say, 'I'm a Swindlecant', because they always have to lie. He could however say, 'I'm an Honestant' or 'I'm not a Swindlecant'.

Anna

[dVs]

Quote

Actually, that statement indicates the defendant knows the guilty party. If this were the case he could make a statement regarding a known truth (the sky being blue) and identify himself as Honestant or Swindlecant, and the guilty person. i.e. - "The sky is striped yellow and orange, and Joe Swindlecant didn't do it!" or "The sky is blue right now, and Joe Swindlecant is the guilty one!"

He should have said "If I am a Swindlecant I did it!". This would not only exhonorate him, but also not indicate he knew who the real guilty party was. (If he is a Swindlecant, then he can't have done it or else the statement would be true, and if he is an Honestant he couldn't have done it or the statement would be false.)

no, this statement would not in fact exonerate him... if he is a swindlecant, then he did not do it... but if he is an honestant, then the statement is meaningless to his case. this statement is if/then... not if-and-only-if. therefore, this statement does not nullify the possibility that an honestant could have done it. he would be no worse off saying "i did it."

he could have, however, said "if i am a swindlecant i did it, but otherwise i did not," or perhaps "i did this if and only if i am a swindlecant." for a swindlecant this would translate to "i didn't do this if and only if i'm a swindlecant," and for an ever-honest honestant, it would simply mean he hadn't done it.

[imtcb]

Quote

Quote

Actually, that statement indicates the defendant knows the guilty party. If this were the case he could make a statement regarding a known truth (the sky being blue) and identify himself as Honestant or Swindlecant, and the guilty person. i.e. - "The sky is striped yellow and orange, and Joe Swindlecant didn't do it!" or "The sky is blue right now, and Joe Swindlecant is the guilty one!"

He should have said "If I am a Swindlecant I did it!". This would not only exhonorate him, but also not indicate he knew who the real guilty party was. (If he is a Swindlecant, then he can't have done it or else the statement would be true, and if he is an Honestant he couldn't have done it or the statement would be false.)

no, this statement would not in fact exonerate him... if he is a swindlecant, then he did not do it... but if he is an honestant, then the statement is meaningless to his case. this statement is if/then... not if-and-only-if. therefore, this statement does not nullify the possibility that an honestant could have done it. he would be no worse off saying "i did it."

he could have, however, said "if i am a swindlecant i did it, but otherwise i did not," or perhaps "i did this if and only if i am a swindlecant." for a swindlecant this would translate to "i didn't do this if and only if i'm a swindlecant," and for an ever-honest honestant, it would simply mean he hadn't done it.

You are right, I should have said "ONLY if I am a swindlecant did I do it.". But, my point remains that the original answer is flawed. He would have gotten off for the murder, but would have been convicted of conspiracy for hiding the true facts of the case.

[leo78]

If he is a swindlecant, doesn't the sentence "A swindlecant committed the crime." Mean "A Honestant did not committed the crime"?