rookie1ja

If there were more than 2, wouldn't they be called triplets?

Try to think as if you were the first one - as I mentioned above. Of course, we have to assume that all 3 are quite intelligent to pass the test that way.

It works great. Wonderful and clear description - good job

That would not fit the initial condition of not hitting anything.

Just a little catch. Maybe there is someone who fell for it.

Could you separate the lines so that 11 matches could be seen?

I like that one. That's why it has been on my site for many years - check http://brainden.com/weighing-puzzles.htm (the one called Weighing IV.) The solution is in this forum as well - check Weighing IV. - solution

This one might be more about logic then real practice, since time plays a role and the chosen aeroplane can not just hang in the air without using any fuel. But if you use cars instead and assume constant consumption and a road around the globe, then it could work, couldn't it?

I have just found another site applying the same logic as I do - and for the same kind of puzzle. It is a difference saying 2 parts of 1 sentence and saying the same in 2 separate sentences. Check numbers 37) and 38) on page <!-- m --><a href="http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~yzuev/puzzles.html#alice" target="_blank">http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~yzuev/puzzles.html#alice</a><!-- m --> Would be interesting to watch 2 philosophers argue about this puzzle

I might add a few lateral thinking puzzles like that one in the future. They just need some hints/guidance but some of them are really good.

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?

My solution is correct because logical conjunction is true if and only if both parts of the sentence are true (and not only if one part is true as you wrote). For more check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction

I like that one very much and that's why it has been on my page http://brainden.com/logic-problems.htm (called Honestants and Swindlecants III.) for many years. The possible solutions are placed on this page.

When the long sides are in full length, I kept them. Then I picked one short side and tried to complete it.

My solution should be correct. Check the following reasoning: Hans speaks before Emanuel so Emanuel knows whether Hans is lying. The following was said: Hans: "Emanuel lies." Emanuel: "Hans and Philip speak the same but I don't know whether truth or lie." If Hans speaks the truth then: 1. Emanuel lies = one part of Emanuel's sentence is a lie and the other one is truth OR both parts of the sentence are lies. For more on logical conjunction check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction 2. Emanuel knows if Hans is lying (second part is false) - for more check larryhl's explanation below [deleted=(second part is true) so the 1st part must be a lie = Philip lies.] If Hans is lying: 1. Emanuel speaks the truth = both parts of Emanuel's sentence are true. For more on logical conjunction check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction 2. Emanuel knows if Hans is lying (second part is false) - for more check larryhl's explanation below [deleted=(second part is true) so the 1st part must be true as well = Philip lies.]

x(x-2) = x-2 ... then dividing the equation by (x-2) ... this is what can't be done ... we can't divide by zero x(x-2)/(x-2) = (x-2)/(x-2) ... which can be simplified to x = 1

That does not work because a poor honestant can say that. That does not work either - "I like you" or "I don't like you" is not a guarantee for identifying honestant or swindlecant.

Exactly. Easy as that. I have added the picture.

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.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction

That's right. And that's why I clearly stated in the puzzle that: So I made the condition that their sizes are equal.

That's correct. BTW, this one was mentioned in a movie called Die Hard: With a Vengeance (1995) with Bruce Willis - measuring 4 gallons of water at a fountain. For more check http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112864/trivia - 3rd paragraph from the bottom where it begins as follows: "There are two solutions to the water jug riddle ...".

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.

Examined sentence: "On this island is a treasure, only if I am an honest man." 1st part - On this island is a treasure 2nd part - I am an honest man Swindlecant: 1st part - ? 2nd part - false So since the whole sentence has to be lie, the 1st part has to be true (see truth table above). So there is a treasure. Honestant: 1st part - ? 2nd part - true So since the whole sentence has to be true, the 1st part has to be true (see truth table above). So there is a treasure.

That's interesting. However, it does not fit the puzzle since the twins can not celebrate their birthdays months apart. As written in the puzzle:

That's not correct because 1-4-9 makes sum of 14 from which can be made by only 1 unique combination of 3 numbers which make the product of 36. As written in the puzzle: So the sum can be made of at least 2 combinations of 3 numbers which make the product of 36. And that's why there was another hint needed. Just let me know if that makes sense to you.