Followers 0

# Honestants and Swindlecants II.

## 25 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

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?

This old topic is locked since it was answered many times. You can check solution in the Spoiler below.

Pls visit New Puzzles section to see always fresh brain teasers.

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 canâ€™t be the first one, B must be an honestant, too.

1

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Both are Honestants.

Let the one who answered be A and the other one be B.

If A is a Swindlecant, then the statement must be false. Since 'or' is used, both of the clauses should be false.

But, the clause "I am a Swindlecant" would be true. Hence, A cannot be a Swindlecant.

Thus, A is a Honestant.

Now the statement must be true, i.e. either one or both of the clauses should be true.

Case 1. Both clauses are true - This is not possible as "I am a Swindlecant" is obviously false.

Case 2. First clause is true, second is false - Again, not possible, as "I am a Swindlecant" is false.

Case 3. First clause is false, second is true - This case satisfies the conditions as the first clause "I am a Swindlecant" is false. Also the second clause "The other one is a Honestant" could be true.

Hence, as Case 3 is the only one which satisfies the conditions, B is a Honestant too.

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Both are Honestants.

If A is a Swindlecant, then the statement must be false. Since 'or' is used, both of the clauses should be false.

But, the clause "I am a Swindlecant" would be true. Hence, A cannot be a Swindlecant.

Thus, A is a Honestant.

Then he would be lieing. thus hes not Honestant, flawed.

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Sorry, check your logic. The Honestant has used an 'or' clause, therefore, even if clause 1 (I am a Swindlecant) is false, as long as clause 2 is true, then the entire statement is true. They are both Honestants.

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

or there both swindlecats, when you use or both statments become linked there for if eatherside of the statement is a lie then the statement itself is a lie.

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

In classical logic form:

A: Person 1 is swidlecat

B: Person 2 is honestant

X= "A xor B"

If A, not X

If not X, not (A + B.)

If A not A (reductio ad absurdum)

---------

Not A (Person 1 not swindlecat)

---------

B (Person 2 is honestant)

Both are honestants.

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

whaaaat?

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Alternate solution: Both are Swidlecats.

Nothing in the original issue stated that they were different...

Derf

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Alternate solution: Both are Swidlecats.

Nothing in the original issue stated that they were different...

Derf

That wouldn't work.

In order for the person speaking in this riddle to be a Swindlecant, he would have to be lying. His OR statement, however, is not false and hence not a lie. His OR statement is true! (Why would a Swindlecant say he is a Swindlecant? He lies about everything!)

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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"

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

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

Edited by davasatoth
0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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?

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 canâ€™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

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

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
0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

2 honestats, honestat told the truth and swindlecat lied.

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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?

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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!

0

##### Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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).

0