[rookie1ja]

Honestants and Swindlecants VI. - Back to the Logic Problems
When the gringo wanted to pay and leave the pub, the bartender told him how much his drink costed. It was quite expensive, so he asked the bartender if he spoke the truth. But the gringo did not hear the whispered answer so he asked a man sitting next to him about it. And the man said: "The bartender said yes, but he is a big liar." Who are they?

Spoiler for Solution:

Honestants and Swindlecants VI. - solution
This one seems not clear to me. However, the bartender and the man sitting next to the gringo must be one honestant and one swindlecant (not knowing who is who).
1. the bartender must have said: "Yes, I speak the truth" (no matter who he is)
2. the man sitting next to gringo said: "The bartender said yes, but he is a big liar.", which is true only if BOTH parts of the sentence are true (for logical conjuction see http://en.wikipedia....al_conjunction)

o if it's true - the man is an honestant and the bartender a swindlecant,

o if it's false = "he is a big liar" is false - bartender is an honestant and the man is a swindlecant.

[Pheonix182]

the biggest thing to remember is that if the man sitting next to the gringo was a swindlecant he would have said , "the bartender said NO," since he HAS to lie and it is impossible to say "no" when answering the question "if he spoke the truth" from a swindlecant and a honestant.
So. the bartender must be a Swindlecant , and the man sitting next to him a Honestant

[rookie1ja]

The problem is that that the man sitting next to gringo said:
"The bartender said yes, but he is a big liar."

So he did not say just 1 part of the sentence and therefore what he said is considered as a whole and not as 2 separate parts as you wrote.

[lo19]

Since the bartender gave him a price initially, when he is asked if it is true or not the bartender has to say yes, because if he lied he will have to lie and say it was true. So the man next to the guy has to be an honestant because he tells the person that the bartender said yes, which must be true, so the man is an honestant. In logic, but & and are synonymous so the man's statement is like "he said yes and he's a liar" so the bartender is a swindlecant.

[lo19]

Oops, I mean the man sitting next to him's statement is like "he said yes and he's a liar". That has to be true because the bartender had to answer yes, so that makes the man an honestant and the bartender a swindlecant. (unconditionally).

[rookie1ja]

Once again - the man sitting next to gringo said:
"The bartender said yes, but he is a big liar." So he did not say: "The bartender said yes."
Sentence has to be considered as a whole and not as 2 separate parts. For more on logical conjunction see http://en.wikipedia....cal_conjunction

Quote

... produces a value of true if and only if both of its operands are true.

[wyattisimo]

rookie1ja,

You initially made an interesting point by referencing logical conjunction, but it's important to remember that Honestants and Swindlecants must either lie or tell the truth--they cannot do both. Although it is correct to point out that the result of a logical conjunction is false when at least one operand is false, it is not correct to assert that a Swindlecant can put forth a true operand and a false operand to create a false logical result.

As you said previously, the statement must be taken as a whole. Since Honestants must always be truthfull and Swindlecants must always lie, it is not possible for either person to give mixed operands. We all agree that the bartender could have only responded with a "Yes." That being said, there are only two possible versions of this logical conjuction (where Honestants and Swindlecants are concerned):

If the bartender was an Honestant, then a Swindlecant would say: The bartender said no, but he is a big liar. Both operands are false, thus making the logical result false.

If the bartender was a Swindlecant, then an Honestant would say: The bartender said yes, but he is a big liar. Both operands are true, thus making the logical result true.

Since the puzzle used the latter version, then the bartender must be a Swindlecant, and the other man an Honestant.


PS - Although logical conjuction can be a guiding principle here, logical equality is purely mathematic, and should not apply in this particular logic puzzle.

[rookie1ja]

What if I amended the basic assumptions so that whole statements of Swindlecants are always a lie and whole statements of Honestants are always true. So even Swindlecants could speak the truth in 1 part of sentence as long as the whole sentence is a lie. Would that be sufficient to justify my point of view?

[shiang]

Well the initial statment was that "swindlecants ALWAYS lie" so my guess is that in order to be a swindlecant all the statments have to be lies not just part of it. If part of the stament is a lie and part of it is truth then the guy would be a human, which sometimes lies. Thus making the man a honestant and the bar tender a swindlecant.

[fosley]

As I said in Part V, I disagree that single pieces of a statement have to be all lies or all truths. If that were the case, asking the Swindlecant "what would the other guy say" would return "the other guy wouldn't say" because allowing the other guy to even speak is a partial truth. Furthermore, even acknowledging the existence of the other guy is a partial truth, as is acknowledging that someone asked a question. Likewise, if you asked an Honestant what the Swindlecant would tell you, the true answer would necessarily contain a lie, which would disallow the Honestant from telling you. As such, it really only makes sense if entire, logical statements are considered.