Guest Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 (edited) 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 April 10, 2008 by cinnimini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2010 Report Share Posted January 24, 2010 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"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2010 Report Share Posted June 7, 2010 (edited) 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 June 7, 2010 by litinside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) 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 January 12, 2011 by New member Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts