Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Logic Problems at the Court III.

30 posts in this topic

Posted (edited) · Report post

maybe he could click his heels and say "i wish i were home" then all his problems would be gone! PS whats a swindlecat? are they related to skimbleshanks?

Edited by cinnimini
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

i had a much simpler answer then that, correct me if im wrong but wouldnt the statment i am a swindlecant work becouse only a normal person could say it and no normal person did it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Logic Problems at the Court III. - Back to the Logic Problems

1. If you were a liar (the court does not know that) and you were innocent. And it is an established fact that a liar committed the crime.

2. Same situation as above, but you are the one who committed the crime.

For numeber 2 could you say: "I am a truth teller or a liar"?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

For # 2) "You will find me guilty and convict me." Since the court knows a liar committed the crime, they could not convict him and since he's not convicted, his statement remains false. That doesn't prove his innocence, but it gets him off the hook.

Edited by litinside
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Logic Problems at the Court III. - Back to the Logic Problems

You live on an island where there are only two kinds of people: the ones who always tell the truth (truth tellers) and those who always lie (liars). You are accused of crime and brought before the court, where you are allowed to speak only one sentence in your defense. What do you say in each of the following situations?

1. If you were a liar (the court does not know that) and you were innocent. And it is an established fact that a liar committed the crime.

2. Same situation as above, but you are the one who committed the crime.

3. If you were a truth teller (the court does not know that) and you were innocent. And it is an established fact that a truth teller committed the crime.

4. If you were innocent and it is an established fact that the crime was not committed by a “normal” person. Normal people are that new immigrant group who sometimes lie and sometimes speak the truth. What sentence, no matter whether you were a truth teller, liar, or normal, can prove your innocence?

Logic Problems at the Court III. - solution

1. „I did it – I am guilty.“

2. There is no such sentence.

3. „I am innocent.“

4. „Either I am an honestant and innocent, or I am a swindlecant and guilty.“ = „I am either an innocent honestant, or a guilty swindlecant.“ The court could think this way:

  • 4.1 If he is an honestant, then his statement is true and he is innocent.

    • 4.2 If he is a swindlecant, then his statement is a lie and he is neither an innocent honestant nor a guilty swindlecant. This means that he is an innocent swindlecant.

4.3 If he is normal, then he is innocent since a normal man couldn’t have done that.

IN the 1st question if I said that I did it and I am guilty then the court can also think this way

He is a honestant and has commited the crime and would have given punishment because the court didn't knew who I am and I am innocent

Edited by New member
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.