Logic Problems at the Court I.

[rookie1ja]

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

And now a few cases from the island of honestants and swindlecants. A prisoner at the bar was allowed to say one sentence to defend himself. After a while he said: "A swindlecant committed the crime." Did it rescue him?

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.

Logic Problems at the Court I. - solution

Yes, the statement helped him. If he is an honestant, then a swindlecant committed the crime. If he is a swindlecant, then his statement points to an honestant who is guilty. Thus he is again innocent regarding the statement.

[Guest]

Ok. but you dont know if the man is swindlican or if he is a honest whatever. i dont like this one. it is too hard to determine. you can also say that he isnt safe because they would have to go into investigation. That could still prove him to be guilty.

[rookie1ja]

I should have mentioned conditions for this riddle - they are in the first riddle of this section called "Logic Problems". So here they are:

Swindlecants - all sentences they say (as a whole) are false

Honestants - all sentences they say (as a whole) are true

[Guest]

Ok. but you dont know if the man is swindlican or if he is a honest whatever. i dont like this one. it is too hard to determine. you can also say that he isnt safe because they would have to go into investigation. That could still prove him to be guilty.

there's no need for an investigation because it doesn't matter if he is an honestant or swindlecant, he didn't commit the crime. if he was an honestant, he always needs to speak the truth, thus a swindlecant committed the crime (the prisoner is innocent.) if he was a swindlecant, he always lies, thus an honestant really committed the crime (the prisoner is still innocent.)

[Guest]

Actually, that statement indicates the defendant knows the guilty party. If this were the case he could make a statement regarding a known truth (the sky being blue) and identify himself as Honestant or Swindlecant, and the guilty person. i.e. - "The sky is striped yellow and orange, and Joe Swindlecant didn't do it!" or "The sky is blue right now, and Joe Swindlecant is the guilty one!"

He should have said "If I am a Swindlecant I did it!". This would not only exhonorate him, but also not indicate he knew who the real guilty party was. (If he is a Swindlecant, then he can't have done it or else the statement would be true, and if he is an Honestant he couldn't have done it or the statement would be false.)

[Guest]

This one is pretty easy for a Swindlecants and Honestants puzzle. Look at some other ones for a bigger challenge.

[Guest]

A swindlecant can't say, 'I'm a Swindlecant', because they always have to lie. He could however say, 'I'm an Honestant' or 'I'm not a Swindlecant'.

Anna

[Guest]

Actually, that statement indicates the defendant knows the guilty party. If this were the case he could make a statement regarding a known truth (the sky being blue) and identify himself as Honestant or Swindlecant, and the guilty person. i.e. - "The sky is striped yellow and orange, and Joe Swindlecant didn't do it!" or "The sky is blue right now, and Joe Swindlecant is the guilty one!"

He should have said "If I am a Swindlecant I did it!". This would not only exhonorate him, but also not indicate he knew who the real guilty party was. (If he is a Swindlecant, then he can't have done it or else the statement would be true, and if he is an Honestant he couldn't have done it or the statement would be false.)

no, this statement would not in fact exonerate him... if he is a swindlecant, then he did not do it... but if he is an honestant, then the statement is meaningless to his case. this statement is if/then... not if-and-only-if. therefore, this statement does not nullify the possibility that an honestant could have done it. he would be no worse off saying "i did it."

he could have, however, said "if i am a swindlecant i did it, but otherwise i did not," or perhaps "i did this if and only if i am a swindlecant." for a swindlecant this would translate to "i didn't do this if and only if i'm a swindlecant," and for an ever-honest honestant, it would simply mean he hadn't done it.

[Guest]

Actually, that statement indicates the defendant knows the guilty party. If this were the case he could make a statement regarding a known truth (the sky being blue) and identify himself as Honestant or Swindlecant, and the guilty person. i.e. - "The sky is striped yellow and orange, and Joe Swindlecant didn't do it!" or "The sky is blue right now, and Joe Swindlecant is the guilty one!"

He should have said "If I am a Swindlecant I did it!". This would not only exhonorate him, but also not indicate he knew who the real guilty party was. (If he is a Swindlecant, then he can't have done it or else the statement would be true, and if he is an Honestant he couldn't have done it or the statement would be false.)

no, this statement would not in fact exonerate him... if he is a swindlecant, then he did not do it... but if he is an honestant, then the statement is meaningless to his case. this statement is if/then... not if-and-only-if. therefore, this statement does not nullify the possibility that an honestant could have done it. he would be no worse off saying "i did it."

he could have, however, said "if i am a swindlecant i did it, but otherwise i did not," or perhaps "i did this if and only if i am a swindlecant." for a swindlecant this would translate to "i didn't do this if and only if i'm a swindlecant," and for an ever-honest honestant, it would simply mean he hadn't done it.

You are right, I should have said "ONLY if I am a swindlecant did I do it.". But, my point remains that the original answer is flawed. He would have gotten off for the murder, but would have been convicted of conspiracy for hiding the true facts of the case.

[Guest]

If he is a swindlecant, doesn't the sentence "A swindlecant committed the crime." Mean "A Honestant did not committed the crime"?

[Guest]

If he is a swindlecant, doesn't the sentence "A swindlecant committed the crime." Mean "A Honestant did not committed the crime"?

No. It means that a swindlecant did not commit the crime.

[Guest]

Obviously It helped because if he were a honestant it would be true and if he is a swindlecant it would be true and a swidlecant can't tell the truth.

[Guest]

Honestants always tell the truth, and swindlecant always tells lies. If he was an honestant, and said that a swindlecant had done it, than he would be telling the truth and would be set free. If he was a swindlecant and had said that another swindlecant had done that, but if swindlecants always lie, than a swindlecant did not commit the crime, and that a honestant committed the crime. Either way, the accused will be set free thus the circumstances.

[Guest]

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

And now a few cases from the island of honestants and swindlecants. A prisoner at the bar was allowed to say one sentence to defend himself. After a while he said: "A swindlecant committed the crime." Did it rescue him?

Ofcourse it did. After all:

If he were an Honestant, then he must have spoken the truth and a Swindlecant had committed the crime. Since he was an Honestant, he could hardly have done it himself.

If he were a Swindlecant, however, then he had been lying, so an Honestant must have done it. Since clearly he wasn't an Honestant, he would not have done it himself.

In both cases, he would be innocent.

BoilingOil

[Guest]

If he was from one of the two islands then he is innocent, however if he is an outsider caught on one of the islands then it is undetermined.

[Guest]

If he is a swindlecant, doesn't the sentence "A swindlecant committed the crime." Mean "A Honestant did not committed the crime"?

First off:

Swindlecants always lie.

Honestants always tell the truth.

And no. It means just the opposite. If he is a swindlecant and says, "A Swindlecant committed the crime," it means that statement is a lie, and therefore, an honostant "did" committed the crime.

So- If he was an honestant and said, "A swindlecant committed this crime," he would be telling the truth, and he could not have commited the crime, for he is an honestant.

Regardless, if he was an honestant or a swindlecant, and is innocent, this statement would point the finger at the other type of person, proving his innocence.

[Guest]

Nonsense. The problem is flawed. This will never happen. In this island, only the swindlecants will be held for trial. An honestant cannot be held for trial because if he committed the crime he would have admitted it because honestants always tell the truth. If he is a swindlecant, he will deny the crime and would plead not guilty. Of course it means he's lying which means he really committed the crime. How then can a prisoner under trial say it was a swindlecant who committed the crime? This statement cannot be made by a swindlecant because it would mean it was the honestant who did it. But how could this be if an honestant always tells the truth? It was unnecessary for him to say so because an honestant criminal would have not denied it in the first place. In this island, a trial can only be had if an honestant is the complainant and only if a swindlecant is the criminal. So a liar swindlecant cannot say in court a swindlecant committed the crime because he would have lied. It doesnt make sense. The statement can only come from an innocent honestant falsely accused of a crime? But who could falsely accused him? No one!

[Guest]

Nonsense. The problem is flawed. This will never happen. In this island, only the swindlecants will be held for trial. An honestant cannot be held for trial because if he committed the crime he would have admitted it because honestants always tell the truth. If he is a swindlecant, he will deny the crime and would plead not guilty. Of course it means he's lying which means he really committed the crime. How then can a prisoner under trial say it was a swindlecant who committed the crime? This statement cannot be made by a swindlecant because it would mean it was the honestant who did it. But how could this be if an honestant always tells the truth? It was unnecessary for him to say so because an honestant criminal would have not denied it in the first place. In this island, a trial can only be had if an honestant is the complainant and only if a swindlecant is the criminal. So a liar swindlecant cannot say in court a swindlecant committed the crime because he would have lied. It doesnt make sense. The statement can only come from an innocent honestant falsely accused of a crime? But who could falsely accused him? No one!

I'm sorry to say but your logic is flawed. To begin, "an honestant cannot be held for trial because if he committed the crime he would have admitted it" is false because he could deny doing the crime in which case he would be telling the truth and be in the same position as a swindlecant (leaving the prosecution not knowing whether or not he's an honestant). Futhermore, your assumption that an honestant would never be accused of a crime is groundless. For example, if the crime were murder and after investigation the States best lead pointed to an honestant then they would/could accuse him. You assume absolute knowledge on part of the accuser of who did the crime when in fact this is not required. The person in this situation could simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Also, you are not given the full facts of his interrogation (if there even was one). He could have told the police at the time that "he didn't do it." If this were the case then an honestant would be telling the truth but because he could be a swindlecant and telling a lie then the police can't let him go for his statement. Only one of the statements made above will satisfy his being innocent. However, your assumption that an honestant will never be accused of a crime is baseless. A side note, this is a crime meaning that the State is prosecuting (and basing their accusation on evidence which may or may not be complete) and not a tort in which a private citizen would be suing. Even were this a tort and a private citizen sued, a swindlecant could know that an honestant did not commit the crime and could still accuse him (false accusation) believing he has a good chance to make some money from the honestant. After all, many torts could simply come down to one mans word against anothers, and without a statement as made above in the answer or others on this board, the court would not know whom to believe but could be still be swayed by the plaintiff that the defendant committed the tort, but I digress......

[Guest]

Nonsense. The problem is flawed. This will never happen. In this island, only the swindlecants will be held for trial. An honestant cannot be held for trial because if he committed the crime he would have admitted it because honestants always tell the truth. If he is a swindlecant, he will deny the crime and would plead not guilty. Of course it means he's lying which means he really committed the crime. How then can a prisoner under trial say it was a swindlecant who committed the crime? This statement cannot be made by a swindlecant because it would mean it was the honestant who did it. But how could this be if an honestant always tells the truth? It was unnecessary for him to say so because an honestant criminal would have not denied it in the first place. In this island, a trial can only be had if an honestant is the complainant and only if a swindlecant is the criminal. So a liar swindlecant cannot say in court a swindlecant committed the crime because he would have lied. It doesnt make sense. The statement can only come from an innocent honestant falsely accused of a crime? But who could falsely accused him? No one!

Well, Dragon's response to this statement is rambling nonsense, but falcon is still wrong. A Honestant always tells the truth, <i>when he speaks</i>. There is nothing preventing the Honestant from saying <i>nothing</i> about whether he committed the crime. Indeed, in real life, you have the right to not testify against yourself. But that doesn't even matter. This is a logic puzzle and one of the assumptions of the puzzle is that we've reached a point where they are accusing the guy of a crime and they don't know who did it. If you don't want to play the game, that's fine. But this particular criticism of the puzzle is pretty silly.

[Guest]

An innocent swindlecant would nonetheless confess when prompted, nullifying the value of the accusation.

[Guest]

I think the prisoner will only be "rescued" if the jury contains a majority of Honestants !

[Guest]

This is a lot simpler than some of you make it out to be....

First of all, ANY ONE can commit a crime, just because a person is honest doesn't make him innocent, we all know that. And some of you are trying to put words in the character's mouth. You shouldn't worry about that.

The point is what the person DID say, which was "A swindelcant committed the crime"

So lets look at it in the two only ways u can.

If he is an honestant, then obviously he's telling the truth, therefore he would be innocent.

If he is a swindelcant, he obviously CANNOT say that statement because it would be true. In other words he is saying "a liar committed the crime" and if he is a liar he CAN'T say that, he is supposed to LIE.

So the conclusion of the simple problem is that the guy is an honestant and he is innocent.

[Guest]

He said a swindlecat did it because no matter what the swindlecat says no one will believe him so if the prisoner is lying he will still be right because the swindlecat will lie, right??

[Guest]

Actually, that statement indicates the defendant knows the guilty party. If this were the case he could make a statement regarding a known truth (the sky being blue) and identify himself as Honestant or Swindlecant, and the guilty person. i.e. - "The sky is striped yellow and orange, and Joe Swindlecant didn't do it!" or "The sky is blue right now, and Joe Swindlecant is the guilty one!"

He should have said "If I am a Swindlecant I did it!". This would not only exhonorate him, but also not indicate he knew who the real guilty party was. (If he is a Swindlecant, then he can't have done it or else the statement would be true, and if he is an Honestant he couldn't have done it or the statement would be false.)

It does not at all indicate he knows the guilty party. We know the crime was committed by either an honestant or a swindlecant, but we can't tell which. All his statement tells us is that he knows which one it was. He doesn't know the identity of said criminal, just whether or not they lie or tell the truth. There could be millions of honestants/swindlecants that could've performed the crime.

[Guest]

This is a lot simpler than some of you make it out to be....

First of all, ANY ONE can commit a crime, just because a person is honest doesn't make him innocent, we all know that. And some of you are trying to put words in the character's mouth. You shouldn't worry about that.

The point is what the person DID say, which was "A swindelcant committed the crime"

So lets look at it in the two only ways u can.

If he is an honestant, then obviously he's telling the truth, therefore he would be innocent.

If he is a swindelcant, he obviously CANNOT say that statement because it would be true. In other words he is saying "a liar committed the crime" and if he is a liar he CAN'T say that, he is supposed to LIE.

So the conclusion of the simple problem is that the guy is an honestant and he is innocent.

You misunderstand.

We don't know who he is. The point is...IF he's an honestant and says "a swindlecant did it" then he's telling the truth and goes free. IF he's a swindlecant and says "a swindlecant did it" then he's lying and still goes free.

One always tells the truth and one always lies.

If he is a swindelcant, he obviously CANNOT say that statement because it would be true. In other words he is saying "a liar committed the crime" and if he is a liar he CAN'T say that, he is supposed to LIE.

You are assuming that a swindelcant committed the crime because they are liars when in fact ANYONE could have committed the crime. Which, I noticed, you yourself stated from the beginning and yet you contradict yourself. So if he is a swindlecant he CAN say that, and since he always lies that would mean an honestant did it. Essentially, he IS a liar saying a liar committed the crime...but that just means a liar DID NOT commit the crime.

Edited May 13, 2011 by missepicfail