Honestants and Swindlecants X.

[Guest]

He's trying to woo her so it's got to be romantic as well (last time I checked). He's not trying to get her to apply logic to his answers and perhaps rethink her strange decision!

How about this:

"Everyone on this island would say that I am entirely in love with you and that I am a rich swindlecat.

Those who are opposite of me would say I am a poor honestant but they always lie.

I cannot lie about how I feel about you; I wouldn't be lying to say you are the sun, moon, and stars to me."

[Guest]

Last sentence is questionable; meant to say, "I couldn't lie and not tell you that you are anything but the sun, moon, stars to me...and that it's your mind I find most pleasing." (just added that last part because I'm a smartass)

[Guest]

i don't think this could really be solved definitively. if i were say, the rich swindlecant, and I said, "I am a poor Swindlecant." Then I'm not completely lying, sincce they are still saying they are a swindlecant which is truthful. The only way for this to be true is if the term "poor swindlecant" and "rich swindlecant" are seen as completely different from one another.

[Guest]

All the Swindlecant has to say is; I am a poor honestant. The only answer the Honestant could say is; I am a rich honestant. if he actually is and if not there is nothing a poor honestant could say to win her over because she wants a rich honestant.

[Guest]

swindlecant : sun rises in the west and i am the poorest guy

honestant : sun rises in the east and i am a rich guy

what about this ?? just instead saying something plain, apply correlation to the statements

i like the other answer..

swindlecant : i am a girl and i am poor

honestant : i am a guy and i am rich

[Guest]

You could pretty much make note of an obvious fact and lie/tell the truth about it (to establish whether you're an honestant and swindlecant) and supply the corresponding second half of the answer about whether you are rich or poor.

If I were to approach the "wantable" woman, and I were a swindlecant, I would say: I'm a woman, and I'm poor. Conversely for Honestants: "I'm a man, and I'm rich."

[Guest]

I'm not so smart but fairly logical. Please explain what a "logic operation" is and define the formula. Thanks.

[Guest]

"sun rises in the west and i am the poorest guy"

This does not work for a swindlecant. By making the first part of the statement a lie he can append anything, truth or fiction and the sentance is still a lie when connected with an and. In other words a poor swindlecant can still legally say this sentence. In order to convince her you would need a statement where both parts have to be false, change the and to an or and then you have it:

"The sun rises in the west OR I am poor".

This way in order for the sentence to be a lie BOTH parts have to be untrue, not just one.

[Guest]

The rich swindlecant should state:

"Any Honestant would tell you I am poor."

This is a lie, confirming swindlecant status and rich because it is a lie.

If an Honestant were to say the same thing, they would be telling the truth and therefore be poor, so no wanted.

[Guest]

What about "I am neither rich nor poor, but I do not have a lot of money" - There are only rich and poor people on the island, therefore, this person must be lying and must be a Swindlecant. She will then know that his not having a lot of money is a lie.

[Guest]

"I am a poor swindlecant" = "I am poor and I am a swindlecant," but neither of these sentences would be true, given that he is rich. The girl presumably reasons out that he has to be a swindlecant, because an honestant would not call himself a swindlecant from any part of the economic spectrum. If he's a swindlecant, his sentence must be false, but it cannot be made false by "swindlecant" - so "poor" must make it false, and so he must be rich, QED.

[Guest]

I am sorry if this is not formatted right but I was typing in work, and I thought of a possible flaw with the honestant answer. Please correct my logic if it is wrong.

„I am a poor swindlecant.“ = „I am poor and I am swindlecant.“

Sentence has to be considered as a whole and not as single parts (you would be right if it was 2 separate sentences). For more, check logical conjunction.

Honestants and Swindlecants X. - solution

„I am a poor swindlecant.“ An honestant can not say such a sentence, so it is a lie. And that’s why only a rich swindlecant can say that.

„I am not a poor honestant.“ A swindlecant can not say that, because it would be true. And that’s why an honestant who is not poor (a rich one) said that.

„I am not a poor honestant.“ = I am not poor and I am an honestant. Could a poor swindlecant say this, he is poor = lie he is not an honestant which is a lie, from what I have come to understand F F = F

Also if the man is a rich swindlecant than I am not poor = True I am an honestant = F the whole statement becomes false.

Am I wrong?

[Guest]

I would think that we are assuming the lady does not know that you are a lier or truth teller, she just believes what she hears. In this case a rich honestant simply sais "I am a rich honestant" and she will take him if she wants a rich honestant. On the other hand if she wanted a rich swindlecat and I happened to be one I might say "I am the only rich swindlecat on this island" which is a lie if there are any others.

[Guest]

I would think that we are assuming the lady does not know that you are a lier or truth teller, she just believes what she hears. In this case a rich honestant simply sais "I am a rich honestant" and she will take him if she wants a rich honestant. On the other hand if she wanted a rich swindlecat and I happened to be one I might say "I am the only rich swindlecat on this island" which is a lie if there are any others.

he could still be a poor liar though!

I am a lair who is also poor.

a truth teller can never say he is a liar, at all, and a liar can only indicate he is a liar if he lies about something else.

I am not a truth teller who is poor.

a liar can never say he is "not a truth teller" of any ilk, as that would be the truth.

[Guest]

i hope some people still visit this topic, because i want to verify my answer x.x

If i was a swindlecant, an honestant would say that i am a poor honestant.

If-Then statement, so if the If is false, than the Then is false.

Assuming that, we can say:

If I really am a swindlecant, then I would lie about what an honestant would say about myself: therefore, the girl will think that the honestant is actually saying that I am a rich swindlecant.

If i was a honestant that said this, then the If clause would be false, bringing in the negation of the Then clause:

If I am NOT a swindlecant, an honestant would NOT say that I am a poor honestant; in other words, he would say that I am a rich swindlecant.

In both cases(assuming the girl knows the honestant/swindlecant rules), the girl will think that I am a rich swindlecant, which answers the first problem.

I haven't thought of anything for the second problem yet, so I'll go with the original answer xD

thoughts/corrections? please let this board be alive..

[Guest]

I think I just came across a problem with the current solution.

A poor swindlecant could say, "I am not a poor honestant," because we would break the sentence down to (part A) "I am not poor." and (part B. "I am not a honestant." Since he could be a poor swindlecant, he would be lying by saying he is not poor, so we would have Part A as False and Part B as True. False and True is always False so, I don't think this would work as a poor swindlecant and a rich honestant can both say it.

Let me know if I'm wrong, or missed something.

You're breaking the sentence down incorrectly. In fact, you don't need to break it down at all. The statement "I am not a poor honestant" can only be said by a swindlecat if he IS a poor honestant, which is obviously impossible. Here's the equation you're looking for:

Does "Poor swindlecat" = "poor honestant"

No, of course it doesn't. So if a poor swindlecant says he is not a poor honestant, he is telling the truth, because the two are not equal. Swindlecants can't do this, so the sentence cannot be said by a swindlecant.

[Guest]

If i was a swindlecant, an honestant would say that i am a poor honestant.

If-Then statement, so if the If is false, than the Then is false.

...

I'm sorry, but this wouldn't work. First, in logic, an If-Then (conditional) statement is only false when the premise (if statement) is true and the conclusion (then statement) is false. The best reason I can think of as why this would be the case is because if it worked according to how you thought, then conditional statements would be logically no different from conjunctions (and statements), and that's just not useful!

Now, for the statement itself. It is clear that the statement would be false if he were a Swindlecant, as the conclusion would have to be false (Honestants would actually say he's a Swindlecant). But, if he's not a Swindlecant, then the conclusion can be true or false (it doesn't matter), and the statement is still true, which would make him an Honestant. Therefore, if he's a Swindlecant, he is making a false statement, and if he's an Honestant he's making a true statement. Since there is nothing about the statement which indicates it should be patently true or false, the woman would not know if you were lying or telling the truth, and would certainly not pick you (for either case!).

I'll finish by saying that I overthought this completely, and gave up on the solution because I was going nowhere. My closest attempt (for the honestant problem) was:

"I am a rich Honestant if and only if I am a Swindlecant, or I am either a rich Honestant or a Swindlecant"

((P <=> Q) + (P xor Q))

The problem with this is the modifier rich. The statement itself is a Tautology, so the speaker must be an Honestant. However, if the speaker is a poor Honestant, then P is false, and Q is obviously false.

So P <=> Q would be true. The woman would not know if I were rich or poor. The actual solution was ingeniously simple, and I'm a little disappointed I couldn't think of it... Oh well.

[Guest]

it was not mentioned that the girl is supposed to analyze what you are telling her... it was only said that she only wants a rich swindlecant..

"i am a poor swindlecant"

You are a rich swindlecant so you can say it

girl doesn't want you since you are a poor swindlecant according to your sentence

the second scenario (girl wants a rich honestant) is correct as it satisfies both conditions

"I am not a poor honestant"

You are a rich honestant so you can say it

girl wants you since you are a rich (not poor) honestant according to your sentence.