kingofpain

Broad daylight?

Well, my point is that intent doesn't matter. If I intend for someone to die of thirst in the desert, I am not responsible because my actions did not cause the death. Similarly, even if I started up my car and drove around looking for X to run over and someone else ran him over, I would not be a murderer (although, if caught I would be an attempted murderer). I think in this analogue, C died as B wanted him to but as a consequence of A's actions. B just made sure it happened the way B wanted it to happen. And hey, I just used word veracity since it is your screename... no doubting your truthfulness or the validity of your logic intended... (Just the validity of the conclusion hehehe )... Sorry if that came across the wrong way... Or maybe we should argue the semantics of the word 'veracity' instead) Cheers! -- Vig P.S. I want you to have my kids!!

Ok... let me try and make this clearer to you... The actions of A were intended to kill C by poisoning him C died since A depleted C's supply of DRINKABLE WATER. Once A added the poison, C had no drinkable water. C died of thirst thereby making A's actions responsible for the murder. It is irrelevant that C did not die the way A intended for him to. The actions of B were intended to kill C B's actions did not play a part in killing C since B just took away poisoned water from C which was irrelevant to C's death. B's actions in no way caused C's death. It is irrelevant that C died the way B intended for him to. I thereby question the veracity of your conclusion.

Actually, I would argue that "to die of thirst" would be to die of lack of *potable* water. Since C did not have any potable water with him (as a consequence of A's actions), A would be the murderer as per this point of view since he deprived C of potable water intentionally. B would be charged with attempted murder as he cut the slit with full knowledge of the consequences and intended for these consequences to occur. I would find both guilty of attempted murder, but I would definitely not convict B of murder. A could be convicted by a competent lawyer or an extremely sharp judge...like ..ahem... yours truly

I think the trick is that the middle 2 squares touching a lot of squares have to be 1 and 8 since they have only 1 adjacent number which allows you to put more numbers around them... once you start there, the puzzle virtually solves itself...am I making sense?