BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers

# Honestants and Swindlecants VI.

## Recommended Posts

Honestants and Swindlecants VI. - Back to the Logic Problems

When the gringo wanted to pay and leave the pub, the bartender told him how much his drink costed. It was quite expensive, so he asked the bartender if he spoke the truth. But the gringo did not hear the whispered answer so he asked a man sitting next to him about it. And the man said: "The bartender said yes, but he is a big liar." Who are they?

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.

Honestants and Swindlecants VI. - solution

This one seems not clear to me. However, the bartender and the man sitting next to the gringo must be one honestant and one swindlecant (not knowing who is who).

1. the bartender must have said: "Yes, I speak the truth" (no matter who he is)

2. the man sitting next to gringo said: "The bartender said yes, but he is a big liar.", which is true only if BOTH parts of the sentence are true (for logical conjuction see http://en.wikipedia....al_conjunction)

o if it's true - the man is an honestant and the bartender a swindlecant,

o if it's false = "he is a big liar" is false - bartender is an honestant and the man is a swindlecant.

##### Share on other sites

• 3 weeks later...

the biggest thing to remember is that if the man sitting next to the gringo was a swindlecant he would have said , "the bartender said NO," since he HAS to lie and it is impossible to say "no" when answering the question "if he spoke the truth" from a swindlecant and a honestant.

So. the bartender must be a Swindlecant , and the man sitting next to him a Honestant

##### Share on other sites

The problem is that that the man sitting next to gringo said:

"The bartender said yes, but he is a big liar."

So he did not say just 1 part of the sentence and therefore what he said is considered as a whole and not as 2 separate parts as you wrote.

##### Share on other sites

Since the bartender gave him a price initially, when he is asked if it is true or not the bartender has to say yes, because if he lied he will have to lie and say it was true. So the man next to the guy has to be an honestant because he tells the person that the bartender said yes, which must be true, so the man is an honestant. In logic, but & and are synonymous so the man's statement is like "he said yes and he's a liar" so the bartender is a swindlecant.

##### Share on other sites

Oops, I mean the man sitting next to him's statement is like "he said yes and he's a liar". That has to be true because the bartender had to answer yes, so that makes the man an honestant and the bartender a swindlecant. (unconditionally).

##### Share on other sites

Once again - the man sitting next to gringo said:

"The bartender said yes, but he is a big liar." So he did not say: "The bartender said yes."

Sentence has to be considered as a whole and not as 2 separate parts. For more on logical conjunction see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction

... produces a value of true if and only if both of its operands are true.
##### Share on other sites

rookie1ja,

You initially made an interesting point by referencing logical conjunction, but it's important to remember that Honestants and Swindlecants must either lie or tell the truth--they cannot do both. Although it is correct to point out that the result of a logical conjunction is false when at least one operand is false, it is not correct to assert that a Swindlecant can put forth a true operand and a false operand to create a false logical result.

As you said previously, the statement must be taken as a whole. Since Honestants must always be truthfull and Swindlecants must always lie, it is not possible for either person to give mixed operands. We all agree that the bartender could have only responded with a "Yes." That being said, there are only two possible versions of this logical conjuction (where Honestants and Swindlecants are concerned):

If the bartender was an Honestant, then a Swindlecant would say: The bartender said no, but he is a big liar. Both operands are false, thus making the logical result false.

If the bartender was a Swindlecant, then an Honestant would say: The bartender said yes, but he is a big liar. Both operands are true, thus making the logical result true.

Since the puzzle used the latter version, then the bartender must be a Swindlecant, and the other man an Honestant.

PS - Although logical conjuction can be a guiding principle here, logical equality is purely mathematic, and should not apply in this particular logic puzzle.

##### Share on other sites

What if I amended the basic assumptions so that whole statements of Swindlecants are always a lie and whole statements of Honestants are always true. So even Swindlecants could speak the truth in 1 part of sentence as long as the whole sentence is a lie. Would that be sufficient to justify my point of view?

##### Share on other sites

Well the initial statment was that "swindlecants ALWAYS lie" so my guess is that in order to be a swindlecant all the statments have to be lies not just part of it. If part of the stament is a lie and part of it is truth then the guy would be a human, which sometimes lies. Thus making the man a honestant and the bar tender a swindlecant.

##### Share on other sites

• 3 weeks later...

As I said in Part V, I disagree that single pieces of a statement have to be all lies or all truths. If that were the case, asking the Swindlecant "what would the other guy say" would return "the other guy wouldn't say" because allowing the other guy to even speak is a partial truth. Furthermore, even acknowledging the existence of the other guy is a partial truth, as is acknowledging that someone asked a question. Likewise, if you asked an Honestant what the Swindlecant would tell you, the true answer would necessarily contain a lie, which would disallow the Honestant from telling you. As such, it really only makes sense if entire, logical statements are considered.

##### Share on other sites

• 5 weeks later...

to my knowledge, the original assumptions of all truth/lie puzzles is that the whole statement is either true or false, not the individual parts. otherwise, these wouldn't be very good puzzles (because then there're only 2 possibilities instead of 4.)

##### Share on other sites

• 1 month later...

Idiot; costed is not even a word.

##### Share on other sites

Idiot; costed is not even a word.

If I were to call someone an idiot based on a grammatical error, I'd take the time out to make sure one was actually made:

##### Share on other sites

the biggest thing to remember is that if the man sitting next to the gringo was a swindlecant he would have said , "the bartender said NO," since he HAS to lie and it is impossible to say "no" when answering the question "if he spoke the truth" from a swindlecant and a honestant.

So. the bartender must be a Swindlecant , and the man sitting next to him a Honestant

to lie, only one part of a sentance needs to be false, in other words, a swindlecant can say, "I am a one-eyed monster who is also a swindlecant." because they are a not a one-eyed monster, their comment is a lie, an honestant cannot say this because their are no parts true here, and for someone to speak the truth, all parts of the sentance must be true. So with the sentance "he said yes, but he's a big lier" perhaps the bartender DID say yes, and is not a big lier if the man sitting next to him is a swindlecant. or, if he's an honestant, then obviously both parts must be true and the bartender said yes but lied and the answer is no, no?

##### Share on other sites

• 3 weeks later...
This one seems not clear to me. However, the bartender and the man sitting next to the gringo must be one honestant and one swindlecant (not knowing who is who).

1. the bartender must have said: "Yes, I speak the truth" (no matter who he is)

2. the man sitting next to gringo said: "The bartender said yes, but he is a big liar.", which is true only if BOTH parts of the sentence are true (for logical conjuction see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction)

Except, if you look more closely at the wikipedia article, it shows the steps of logical conjunction. This example is not actually logical conjunction, the statement is already conjoined. I would argue that the man at the bar did not actually go through and do logical conjunction on his two seperate assumptions, and even if he did, we recognize that they were both seperate ideas at one point, meaning a swindlecant has to lie for both, and an honestant has to tell the truth for both. Since the statement is already conjoined, we can assume either that the man did it himself, acknowledging the truth (or untruth) of both statements, or that the man simply combined two assumptions that he had into one sentence simply to shorten what he had to say - this is not necessarily conjunction. So, the bartender is a swindlecant and the man an honestant.

##### Share on other sites

Idiot; costed is not even a word.

If I were to call someone an idiot based on a grammatical error, I'd take the time out to make sure one was actually made:

Also, if you're taking the time to accuse someone of wrongly accusing someone, you should take the time to verify the truth of this. Read the definition more carefully. While costed is technically a word, in the sense used, it is not correct. Costed can only be used in the sense of "He costed the watch on display" (determined the value of). This form of the word is rarely used, though, and I would not blame someone for being unaware of its presence. However, saying that something "costed" you a certain amount of money is completely incorrect and gives any form of educated person a bad impression.

##### Share on other sites

The bartender would say "yes" no matter what. Since Swindlecants always lie, they would lie also about the bartender's response and anything else. So the Swindlecant lied about the response -and- lied about the honestability of the bartender. The key is that the Swindlecant always lies, not just make each statement a resultant lie. So a part of the statement could be a lie, which would make the statement a lie, but since a Swindlecant always lies, so every part of the statement is a lie. Therefore the man sitting next to the gringo is the Swindlecant.

##### Share on other sites

However, saying that something "costed" you a certain amount of money is completely incorrect and gives any form of educated person a bad impression.

Unless that educated person's native language is not English, which is the case in rookie1ja's case. Perhaps I should have written that eikonoklaste shouldn't be calling someone an idiot while claiming something that is a word, isn't. You really think the one giving a bad impression is one whose grammar isn't perfect and not the one needlessly calling another an idiot?

##### Share on other sites

• 1 month later...

How much was the drink?

##### Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...

When the gringo wanted to pay and leave the pub, the bartender told him how much his drink costed. It was quite expensive, so he asked the bartender if he spoke the truth. But the gringo did not hear the whispered answer so he asked a man sitting next to him about it. And the man said: "The bartender said yes, but he is a big liar." Who are they?

First off, the bartender can't say no. If he sais no, then that means that he's owning up to lying in the first place, which would be an honest response, or he's lying then, and was being honest in the first place. So he must've said yes.

This immediately implies that the man sitting next to the gringo was an honest one, having stated that the bartender said "yes" which we already decided he had. Thus, the man next to the gringo was also telling the truth about the bartender lying, so the bartender must be a swindlecant and the man next to the gringo must be an honestant.

##### Share on other sites

Keep in mind also, this puzzle was written to have exactly one correct solution, so, while you could get by with the conjunction argument, you're probably not reading it how it was meant to be read if you get more than one answer. There are two ways to look at it. One yields and absolute solution. I'd say, do it that way.

I love common sense, even though nobody seems to have any.

##### Share on other sites

• 4 weeks later...

if i consider the 1st statement to be false but other true then also the condition is satisfied......

##### Share on other sites

First of all, I have a spilt personality.

- Ok, the man next to him says the bartender says yes, but he is a liar.

- He COULD be lying.

- Yes, but he could be telling the truth... If he was an Honestant, though, he could always break the law and become a Swindlecant. Or, the bartender could have said the truth and been a big liar...

- You're not supposed to THINK ABOUT IT LIKE THAT, silly! Either the man is lying or he isnt. There is no logical answer, just opinion. I would just pay up and leave.

As you can see, one is right, but no one knows who... I'll go with though.

##### Share on other sites

• 3 weeks later...

There are four possibilities.

M = man

B = Bartender

T = truth-teller (honestant)

L = Liar (swindle cat)

Here are the possibilities.

1. M = L B = L

2. M = L B = T

3. M = T B = L

4. M = T B = T

The first combinationis impossible because if the Man is a liar and that means that the Bartender is a truth-teller and that he really answered "no" to verify the drink price. Since answering "no" to verify would mean he lied when saying the price, he can not be a truth teller, and thus this combination is impossible.

The second combination is impossible: If the man is a liar and the bartender is a truth teller then that means that the price of the drink was true. But the lair said that that the bartender said "yes" to verify the drink price which means he really said "no". But if he said "no" he can't be a truth-teler, which makes this combination impossible.

The third combination is possible: If the man is telling the truth then that means that the bartender liar, which means that his answer of "yes" is consistant wit hthe lie he told about the price and with him being a liar.

Since we found one that works we might stop here--but to be complete:

The fourth combination is impossible: If the man is a truth-teller then that means that the bartender must be a lair, but this is a contradiction and so can not be true.

Thus the man is in fact a truth-teller and the bartender is a liar, and the gringo should not pay the inflated price for the drink.

Does this sound right to everyone?

Poppinjay

I think this puzzle was a very clever one, becuase you need to use the information bout the drink price as well.

##### Share on other sites

If you are allowing logical conjunction in the second answer, you must also allow logical conjunction in the first. That is, perhaps the Swindlecant bartender answered, "No, but I'm lying." In that case, both responders are Swindlecants.

For the record, I don't agree with this type of logical conjunction with logic riddles. It really muddies the waters needlessly.

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.