Honestants and Swindlecants III.

[Guest]

can't you just say like to one of them like, what color is my shoes? and if they say the wrong one you know they're lying. Then go to the other one and say which door will lead to freedom. And vice versa...

Welcome to the boards, dannyboy. Nope, that won't work. You can only ask one question to one guard.

[Guest]

What if you asked a guard "Which door would the other guard would want me to pick?"

The honestant guard would point to the door leading to the scaffold; and the Swindlecant would point to the same door, but that is assuming that the honestant doesn't want to see you die.

Fenix, that's the indirect question, only you said it in plainer English

I don't think you can assume that the Honestant wants you to live. After all, you have offended the sovereign. I don't think you can equate honesty with unquestioning goodwill.

Neither should you assume that the Swindlecant wants you to die. He may be a liar but have a loathing for the death penalty. Even if you could equate constant lying with general nastiness, then he might be pleased with you for insulting the sovereign - heading into that whole paradoxical area again.

So, sorry, but I don't think this question works.

[Guest]

Guys..... What color is the sky? What is 2+2? What is my name? Is it raining out, sunny out?....etc. A lie is a lie. If a Swindlecant "ALWAYS" lies, then you do the math.

[Guest]

rookie1ja: the "tricky question" assumes that one guard is in front of each door, which isn't stated in the riddle. If the door guards are simply assigned to guard both doors together yet can stand wherever they want, then they could both be standing in front of one door (or even sitting in a bulletproof guard booth that is in front of neither door) and the "tricky question" yields no useful response.

[rookie1ja]

rookie1ja: the "tricky question" assumes that one guard is in front of each door, which isn't stated in the riddle. If the door guards are simply assigned to guard both doors together yet can stand wherever they want, then they could both be standing in front of one door (or even sitting in a bulletproof guard booth that is in front of neither door) and the "tricky question" yields no useful response.

right, but I guess it wouldn't be a problem for you to adjust the tricky question even for such cases, would it?

[Guest]

The question would be "what would the other doorman say?"

Here's why: lets say you have doorman A and doorman B.

Now lets say that doorman A lies while doorman B tells the truth.

Finally lets say that the 1st door is the correct door to pic.

If you ask doorman A what doorman B would say, doorman A would sat the 2nd door because he is a lier. If you ask doorman B what doorman A would say, doorman B would also say the 2nd door. So, you take whichever door the doorman says not to take.

If that makes sense to anyone, cuz I'm kind of lost.

[Guest]

Would it be fair for this riddle for me to ask, "What is one plus one, AND which door is the door to freedom?"

Technically, it's still one question. I would find out whether the guard is a truth-teller or not, and I choose the correct door.

[Guest]

Ask either guard while pointing to the other guard "will he tell me this door leads to freedom" If the answer is "No", the door leads to freedom. If the answer is "Yes" the door leads to the scaffold.

[Guest]

The complicated question doesn't work.

Honestants and Swindlecants III. - Back to the Logic Problems

Our gringo displeased the sovereign with his intrusive questions and was condemned to death. But there was also a chance to save himself by solving the following logic problem. The gringo was shown two doors - one leading to a scaffold and the second one to freedom (both doors were the same) and only the door guards knew what was behind the doors. The sovereign let the gringo put one question to one guard. And because the sovereign was an honest man he warned that exactly one guard is a Swindlecant.

What question can save the gringo's life?

Honestants and Swindlecants III. - solution

There are a few types of questions:

• Indirect question: „Hey you, what would the other guard say, if I asked him where this door leads?“ The answer is always negated.
  
  
  • Tricky question: „Hey you, does an honestant stand at the door to freedom?“ The answer will be YES, if I am asking an honestant who is standing at the door to freedom, or if I am asking a swindlecant standing again at the same door. So I can walk through the door. A similar deduction can be made for negative answer.
    

Complicated question: „Hey you, what would you say, if I asked you ...?“ An honestant is clear, but a swindlecant should lie. However, he is forced by the question to lie two times and thus speak the truth.

In response to the complicated question:

The Swindlecant could say "Well, I would say 'fine weather we're having today'." and this would be a lie. However, if you rephrase so he can only choose from two answers, it would work. "Which door would you indicate if I asked you ...?"

Careful, if this were real, your fate would have been left to chance.

Ooh! I just noticed that the phrasing of the inderect question would only have a 50/50 shot of working for the same reason. (the honestant would definitely tell you what the swindlecant's lie would be. but the swindlecant could tell you "He would say 'Fizzle fazzle'" and still be lying.

[Guest]

Would it be fair for this riddle for me to ask, "What is one plus one, AND which door is the door to freedom?"

Technically, it's still one question. I would find out whether the guard is a truth-teller or not, and I choose the correct door.

No, technically that is 2 questions in one sentence. You are allowed one question.

[Guest]

1.) Who said there are only 2 guards

2.) who said you can only ask 1 guard? one question yes, one guard asked, says who?

if there are a plethora of guards then it is a simple matter of taking a majority vote.

if there is only one guard, which we know to be a liar, we also have solved it, as we know he'll simply lie.

a conjunction question is in order given x guards:

"to guard A:

if the other guard is a truth-teller what door would he want to go through

otherwise if the other guard is a liar what door would he SAY he would want to go through?"

we are not actually setting up multiple questions, simply setting up preconditions for response.

[Guest]

The trick questions: Is an honestate standing at the door of freedom

If the freedom door was behind a honestat

1. If your asking an honestat that question he would say Yes.

But if you were asking a swindelett he would say No

If the freedom door was behind an Swindellete

1. if your asking an honestate he would say no

2. If your asking a swindellet he would say Yes

Im confused, if you have no idea who is standing behind each door , and you ask that questions

For whatever answer you have, you'll still have the two options.

[Guest]

The trick questions: Is an honestate standing at the door of freedom

If the freedom door was behind a honestat

1. If your asking an honestat that question he would say Yes.

But if you were asking a swindelett he would say No

If the freedom door was behind an Swindellete

1. if your asking an honestate he would say no

2. If your asking a swindellet he would say Yes

Im confused, if you have no idea who is standing behind each door , and you ask that questions

For whatever answer you have, you'll still have the two options.

Yup. You still have two options, but there is enough information given with a Yes or No answer to make the right one.

If the answer is Yes, walk through the door of the person you asked. If you asked an honestant, his door is obviously the door to freedom. If he's a swindlecant and answered Yes, then the honestant must be standing in front of the other door and is the door leading to a death sentence, so you want to go through the door the swindlecant is standing in front of.

Receive a Yes answer and go through the door of the person you asked.

If the answer is No, walk through the door of the person other than the one you asked. If you asked an honestant, his door is obviously the door leading to a death sentence so you want to go through the other door. If he's a swindlecant and answered No, then the honestant must be standing in front of the other door and is the door leading to freedom, so you want to go through the door the honestant is standing in front of.

Receive a No answer and go through the door of the person other than the one you asked.

[Guest]

My answer is perfect. Here it is:

"If you are a guard, then which door leads to freedom, but if you are NOT a guard, then which door leads to the scaffold?"

This took about two minutes, but that is my answer and, by the rules of the English language, it IS "one question".

[Guest]

the question you ask is: 'Which door would the OTHER GUARD TELL ME IS THE DOOR TO FREEDOM?' Whatever the answer is, take the OPPOSITE door.

1. If you asked the honestant, he's going to tell you the truth, which in that case would be that the swindlecant would lead you to the door to the scaffold (which would be the swindlecant lying about which door leads to freedom) so you pick the opposite door.

2. If you asked the swindlecant, he's going to lie by indicating the door that leads to the scaffold (since the honestant would point you to the door that leads to freedom) so once again you pick the opposite door.

I hope that wasn't too convoluted an explanation...

[Guest]

the person that got condemned to death has to ask any of the two guars: "which door would the other guard say leads me to freedom?" because if the guard you are talking to lies than the other guard doesnt, since the guard you are talking to knows that the other guard doesnt lie, he also knows he would point to the rite door, so since he lies hes going point to the rong door. if you are talking to the guard that doesnt lie, than he is going to say the truth about wat the other guard would say which means hes going to the rong door (again). that means that he goes to the opposite door that the guard showed him.

its hard to explain, so i hope you understood my explination. . .

[Guest]

The indirect question makes sense and I agree with it.

The Tricky question logic looks flawed to me, unless I am missing something. the question asked is 'Hey you, does an honestant stand at the door to freedom' Whilst your conclusions are correct as to the answers you will get, nothing actually indicates whether you are talking to an honestant or a swindlecant, So the conclusion you draw is that a honestant is standing in front of the door to freedom, but you still don't know which of the 2 is the honestant.

Is it me?

I realize this is a long time after this post was made, but yes, it is you. Ok, look at it this way, there's been no thorough explanation of this as of yet, at least as far as Lehman's terms go, so I'll have a whack at it.

Case 1: The honestant IS standing at the door to freedom-

Ok, if you ask if an honestant stands at the door to freedom, the honestant, if he were standing at the door to freedom, would say yes, because he has to tell the truth. The swindlecant, if the honestant WERE standing at the door to freedom, would have to say NO, so as to mislead you to walk into HIS door, which in this case was NOT the door to freedom.

Case 2: The swindlecant is standing at the door to freedom-

Arite, if you asked the swindlecant if the honestant was standing at the door to freedom, and the honestant was NOT standing at the door to freedom, the false boolean response ( a lie as a "yes" or "no" answer) would have to be yes, as the honestant, again, is NOT standing in front of the door to freedom. However, if you asked the honestant, and the swindlecant was standing in front of the door to freedom, being honest, the honestant would have to tell you NO.

So, if the honestant only says yes when the door to freedom is the door that THEY are standing by, and the swindlecant only says yes when it is the door that THEY are standing by, and the opposite for no (meaning that it is always the OTHER door when they say no), the question works.

[Guest]

Actually, there is an unknown, simple, & elegant solution that my Talmudic older brother came up with. In fact, it is superior to the classic answer because it works even if both guards are liars.

Here it is (roll the drums):

Which door would you have told me to pick yesterday?

Then pick that door.

If he's a truth teller then its the correct door. If he's a liar then he will lie (today) about the incorrect door he would have told you yesterday, resulting in the correct door!

Great stuff.

[Guest]

the person that got condemned to death has to ask any of the two guars: "which door would the other guard say leads me to freedom?" because if the guard you are talking to lies than the other guard doesnt, since the guard you are talking to knows that the other guard doesnt lie, he also knows he would point to the rite door, so since he lies hes going point to the rong door. if you are talking to the guard that doesnt lie, than he is going to say the truth about wat the other guard would say which means hes going to the rong door (again). that means that he goes to the opposite door that the guard showed him.

its hard to explain, so i hope you understood my explination. . .

i think yours makes perfect sense... the liar would lie and point to the wrong door because he knows the honestant would point to the right door, so you would choose the opposite door

and the honestant would point to the wrong door because he knows the liar would tell you the wrong door, and in that case also you would choose the opposite door. nice thinking

P.S. it was hard for me to explain to myself even because the logic keeps flipping on itself

Edited May 16, 2011 by ZomBPhilanges

[Guest]

Another possible solution might be asking

"Do atleast one of you ever lie"

[Guest]

Another possible solution might be asking

"Do atleast one of you ever lie"

you'll know which one lies and which one tells the truth.. but you'll never know which door leads to which path..