Honestants and Swindlecants VI.

[Guest]

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.

The bartender has to be a honestcan and the stranger next to him has to be a Swindlecat. The bartenders says the price of the drink, and then is asked if he was telling the truth. The only possible reply is yes, because a Swindlecat won't say that yes they lied, and an honestcant wouldn't have lied about the price to being with. So, knowing the man said yes, we can deduce that the stranger is telling the truth when he says that the bartender said yes, meaning the rest of his statement is also true, and that the bartender is indeed a lying Swindlecat!

They cannot both be Honestcans because of the strangers statement that the other man was a big liar. This means one of the two of them has to be lying, and thusly a Swindlecat.

They cannot both be Swindlecats because if the Bartender lied about the price of the drink, then he would have to answer yes when asked about telling the truth, which makes the strangers statements true, and thusly not a Swindlecat.

The Bartender can't be a Honestcan and the stranger can't be a Swindlecat. If the bartender told the truth about the drink price, he would have replyed yes when asked if telling the truth, which means the strangers statement that the bartender said yes is true.

The only solution that fits the conditions is the bartender being an honestcan and the stranger being a lying Swindlecat.

[Guest]

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 <!-- m --><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction</a><!-- m -->

Interestingly enough, you've refuted your own point! I found this in the exact same article you provided.

Logically, the sentence "it's raining, but the sun is shining" is equivalent to "it's raining, and the sun is shining", so logically, "but" is equivalent to "and".

So both parts of the man's statement must be true after all!

[rookie1ja]

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. Swindlecant can say truth in the first half of the sentence, however, if the 2 parts of 1 sentence were 2 separate sentences, then swindlecant could not say the first part as 1 sentence (and nothing else in that sentence).

For more on logical conjunction see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction</a>

Interestingly enough, you've refuted your own point! I found this in the exact same article you provided.

Logically, the sentence "it's raining, but the sun is shining" is equivalent to "it's raining, and the sun is shining", so logically, "but" is equivalent to "and". I agree - where have I written the opposite?

So both parts of the man's statement must be true after all! I agree - only if he is an honestant.

[Guest]

Interestingly enough, you've refuted your own point! I found this in the exact same article you provided.

So both parts of the man's statement must be true after all! I agree - only if he is an honestant.

I actually come across a lot of Logical Conjunctions in my major.

Since we are assuming but = the AND operator, and the man in the bar has a two part argument then:

If the first part is false and the second part is true, the whole statement is false. (The same goes for the case of False\true)

The only way to receive a true statement from a two part argument is if both arguments are True.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_operator

Therefore:

If the man on the bar stool is lying about any part of the situation, he is a swindlecant. But this could make the bartender either a swindlecant or an honestcant:

If the man is lying about both statements then he is a swindlecant and the bartender is also a swindlecant.(1) (But this isn't possible as the bartender would have had to tell the truth at one point during the night in different statements)

If the man on the bar stool is lying about the bartender saying yes, that makes the bartender a swindlecant as well as he lied about the price. (2)

If the man on the bar stool is lying about the bartender being a liar, that obviously makes the bartender an honestcant. (3)

If the man on the bar stool is telling the truth then he is an honestcant and the bartender is a swindlecant. (4)

I'm also assuming that the riddle wasn't suppose to be looked at with Logical Conjunctions, so I would tend to lean towards the fourth answer.

[Guest]

The bartender is the Swindlecant.

The bartender could not possibly say no to the man who was paying for his drinks, because either he would then lie about the price of the drink or that it is the real price, which would mean he's neither a Swindlecant nor an Honestant, so both statements have to be either true or false.

The man sitting at the bar however, says that the bartender said yes, so right there, you know that he is telling the truth and is an Honestant.

I am making the assumption that the bartender and the man at the bar both have to be either an Honestant or a Swindlcant, but it's the only way to get a definite solution.

Edited February 8, 2008 by SmiIingPerson

[Guest]

Hi everyone. I'm a Neue-B and am addicted to this site. There are a couple things that I'm not following with this problem.

Let's say the bartender told the patron that the cost of the drink was $100:

a) If he is honest, that would actually be the cost, AND he would have replied "Yes" when asked if he told the truth.

b) If he is dishonest, the drink would have cost $x (x≠$100), AND he would have replied "Yes" when asked if he told the truth.

So, everyone has concluded that the bartender's response was always "Yes"...BUT, what if

c) He is dishonest, and the drink cost $x (x≠$100), AND he responded to the truth inquiry with a "Maybe" (after all, the patron didn't hear him). That is still dishonest (he knows the price of the drink) and still answers the inquiry.

So, if "c)" holds true, both the bartender and the man are dishonest.

Now, the man:

1) If he is honest, the bartender said "Yes", AND is a big liar.

2) If he is dishonest, the bartender could have said "Yes" but is not a big liar (see "a)")

3) If he is dishonest, the bartender could have also said "Maybe" AND is a big liar. (one lie, one truth)

So, I'm left with:

A) Man = dishonest, Bartender = dishonest (option "3c")

B) Man = honest, Bartender = dishonest (option "1b")

C) Man = dishonest, Bartender = honest (option "2a")

I hope I'm just confused, because I really don't want to have spent this much time thinking about this if there really is no answer to deduce. I do know that it isn't possible that they're both telling the truth, though.

[Guest]

I know this is a very old topic, but I just discoverd this magical site through the Google widget and felt the desire to weigh in on this particular thread.

I have one important question? If the gringo knows the nature of Honestants and Swindlecants, what the heck is he doing drinking on this island?? If he's silly enough compromise his faculties in an obviously logic intensive society, then he deserves to pay whatever the bartender chooses to charge him.

[Guest]

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?

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.org/wiki/Logical_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.

I have do disagree that these two parts are connected. In an if-then statement, the sentence parts in logical form are connected, the same with an either or statement. However, "and" and "but" statements are not connected, at least not in this format, as they can be separated into two separate sentences, so your logical path here is false, not the statement.

Since you can separate "he said yes" from "he is a big liar" in sentence structure, gramatically, and change it to "He said yes. He is a big liar." It must be two separate statements combined by "but," meaning that for him to state one of them as truth and one as a lie would be impossible under these predefined conditions (honestant and swindlecant).

Look at it like this:

With an if/then situation or an either/or situation, you cannot separate the situation into two whole sentences, and still retain the whole content in truth.

However, with an "and" or "but" statement, you CAN, meaning that if you CAN separate them into complete sentences simply by taking out "and" or "but," and adding a period in place of the comma, they are two separate statements combined by a conjunction, and as such, in these conditions, they would both have to be false, or both be true.

In this case, as one part of the statement was proven true (by the fact that a liar could not call himself a liar and be lying) and the man who was asked claimed the truth in that part, and the second part "he is a big liar" is a separate clause, and thus a separate statement, devoid of the effect from the first statement, and only affected by whether or not the character is an honestant, it is proven that they are an honestant, as they have already spoken one complete truth.

[Guest]

if bartender was a liar, then when asked about price he would have told the wrong one and when asked about " is it truth??"

he must say "yes".

if bartender was a honest person , then when asked about price he would have told the correct price and when asked "is it truth??" he will say yes.

so what ever it is bartender always says "yes"

so the man sitting beside is the honest one as he said "bartender said yes, but is a big liar".

and according to his statement bartender is a liar.

bartender=Swindlecant

man=honestant

[Guest]

A whisper is not necessarily a "Yes". In this interpretation of the scenario, the bartender is an honestant and the man sitting next to the gringo is a swindlecant.

The gringo asked the bartender "Are you an honestant?" The deaf bartender who could read lips but who had just turned away from the patron, returned to faced the gringo and whispered, "Repeat your question, I am a bit deaf." The gringo, himself having not heard, turned to the patron sitting next to him and asked the patron, "Is the bartender an honestant?" The patron replied, "The bartender said yes, but he is a big liar".