Honestants and Swindlecants I.

[Guest]

Honestants and Swindlecants I. - Back to the Logic Problems

These are typical logic problems which can be solved by using classic logic operations.

There are two kinds of people on a mysterious island. There are so-called Honestants who speak always the truth, and the others are Swindlecants who always lie.

Three fellows (A, B and C) are having a quarrel at the market. A gringo goes by and asks the A fellow: "Are you an Honestant or a Swindlecant?" The answer is incomprehensible so the gringo asks B: "What did A say?" B answers: "A said that he is a Swindlecant." And to that says the fellow C: "Do not believe B, he is lying!" Who is B and C?

well we all know that A could not have said "I am a Swindlecant" If he had said that, and he were a swindlecant, he would have been telling the truth. And if he had said that and he were a honestant, he would have been lying.

So B is obviously lying and therefore a Swindlecant himself. Which means that C was telling the truth and he is a Honestant.

[Guest]

What if B and C are both lying?

[Guest]

A cannot say he is a swindlecant

Logic = swindlecant would lie and say honestant, honestant would say honestant

therefore we know that b is lying and therefore a swindlecant

as we know that b is a swindlecant we know that c is telling the truth and is therefore an honestant

[Guest]

No one can say they're a Swindlecant because they always lie, so B is a Swindlecant, while C is a Honestant. A is probably an Honestant if B understood what A said. But if B is just made up something, he is still lying, A does not have to tell the truth, so A is either, B is Swindlecant, and C is an Honestant.

I love these

[Guest]

Given in another way, in reference to claiming that we can know what 'A' is----

Actually the puzzle says that "the answer [from A] is incomprehensible" so we can't assume that A gave a word/phrase-answer at all... Maybe A was drunk...or was knocked out with a bat... We don't know.. All we know is that A's answer [maybe it was a yelp] was not able to be understood...

Additionally, B making a claim that "A'' said something AT ALL would [by the logic given for why B is a Swindlecant], be a lie making it so that A must have NOT really replied (for whatever reason) at all!

B is making the claim that 1. A said something

2. the something A said was that he/she is a swindlecant

Based on the logic that B is a swindlecant (already proven well in previous posts) means that 1 and 2 above must both be lies........A said Nothing and the fact that B made claim to what A is, is null now that we know A said nothing b/c we know B was lying when he said that A said anything at all...

A = unknown/can't prove

B = swindlecant

C = honestant

[Guest]

I like the logical answer, but there's another way to answer it.

The answer was incomprehensible, so B wouldn't have understood it, and if he was telling the truth, he'd have said, "I don't know." But B couldn't understand him and said that A was a Swindlecant, so B must have been lying, making C a Honestant.

[Guest]

A was a Honestant

going on the logic that Swindlecants can ONLY lie, B's statement "A said he was a Swindlecant" MUST have been a lie. and therefore the opposite must be true. A is a Honestant.

[Guest]

Honestants and Swindlecants I. - Back to the Logic Problems

These are typical logic problems which can be solved by using classic logic operations.

There are two kinds of people on a mysterious island. There are so-called Honestants who speak always the truth, and the others are Swindlecants who always lie.

Three fellows (A, B and C) are having a quarrel at the market. A gringo goes by and asks the A fellow: "Are you an Honestant or a Swindlecant?" The answer is incomprehensible so the gringo asks B: "What did A say?" B answers: "A said that he is a Swindlecant." And to that says the fellow C: "Do not believe B, he is lying!" Who is B and C?

Honestants and Swindlecants I. - solution

It is impossible that any inhabitant of such an island says: „I am a liar.“ An honestant would thus be lying and a swindlecant would be speaking truth. So B must have been lying and therefore he is a swindlecant. And that means that C was right saying B is lying – so C is an honestant. However, it is not clear what is A.

one is a swindlecant and other is honestant

[Guest]

Another way to clarify the answer is to systematically explore all possible solution permutations (since we have only three participants, we can afford to explore all of them quickly). Note the heading for A - we are strictly going off of what A "said", not what A "is":

A says… B is… C is… Possible? Reason

h h h N B is lying, cannot be H

h h s N B is lying, cannot be H; C is telling the truth, should be H

h s h Y

h s s N B is telling the truth, should be H; C is telling the truth, should be H

s h h N A cannot say the truth that he is S; C is lying, cannot be H

s h s N A cannot say the truth that he is S

s s h N A cannot say the truth that he is S; B is telling the truth, should be H; C is lying, cannot be H

s s s N A cannot say the truth that he is S; B is telling the truth, should be H; C is telling the truth, should be H

Edited December 16, 2008 by realitarian

[Guest]

*** My previous post had formatting all messed up and this site wouldn't let me edit in time, so re-posting ***

Another way to clarify the answer is to systematically explore all possible solution permutations using a truth table(since we have only three participants, we can afford to explore all of them quickly). Note the heading for A - we have to solve based on what A "said", not what A "is":

A says… ------B is…------C is…------Possible?------Reason

h------------------h-------------h-----------N--------------B is lying, cannot be H

h------------------h-------------s-----------N--------------B is lying, cannot be H; C is telling the truth, should be H

h------------------s-------------h-----------Y

h------------------s-------------s-----------N--------------B is telling the truth, should be H; C is telling the truth, should be H

s------------------h-------------h-----------N--------------A cannot say the truth that he is S; C is lying, cannot be H

s------------------h-------------s-----------N--------------A cannot say the truth that he is S

s------------------s-------------h-----------N--------------A cannot say the truth that he is S; B is telling the truth, should be H; C is lying, cannot be H

s------------------s-------------s-----------N--------------A cannot say the truth that he is S; B is telling the truth, should be H; C is telling the truth, should be H

Conclusion: A could be either, B is 's' and C is 'h'.

Edited December 16, 2008 by realitarian

[Guest]

If you are an honestant then you would called yourself an honestant. If you are an Swindlecants then you would call yourself and honestant. It is impossible for A to call himself an Swindlecant, therefore, B have to be a Swindlecant because he lied and C have to be a Honestant.

[Guest]

LETS GO BACK TO A'S RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION.

A mix up his answer which result to incomprehensible.

Liars misdirect people to avoid the truth.

if A is Honestants he would just say that he is,

but he did not.

so therefore

A is a Swindlecants.

LET'S GO TO B'S RESPONSE.

the Stranger simply asked B what A is saying.

the stranger than not say if he is a swindlecant or honestant.

C's Response

Liar would not kill his own kind.

so to avoid the truth to be known

he announced that b is swindlecant

then my answer is A&C is a swindlecant

& B is an honestant

[Guest]

A is another example of the liar-paradox. He is both an honestant and a swindlecant at the same time. In order to get a real answer, we need to change/ignore the meaning of the languagesymbols of the story. Thereby the logic-structure of the story (difficult to imagine would happen in reality ) would be changed and the story wouldn't make any sense

[Guest]

It doesn't mean that if B is lying then A is automatically the opposite...

ever wondered what A really said? what if A said "I didn't get your question..." or "can you repeat that for me"

B is entitled to make-up anything since he is a swindlecant. so it doesn't automatically mean that if B is a swindlecant, whatever he said was the opposite of what A said...

sorry for my english..

[Guest]

The fact is that A would be a honestant because b said A said that A is a swindlecant and because B is a swindlecant that means B was lying which means A really said that it was a honestant so A is a honestant. simple really.

because b said A said that A is a swindlecant and because B is a swindlecant that means B was lying which means A really said that it was a honestant >> wrong.. it doesn't work that way... "A" could have said "i don't wanna talk to you" and "B" can still say "A said he's a swindlecant....