Thread:
A Final Logic Question
10-08-2021, 02:21 PM
-
#61
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Originally Posted By l2ambo⏩
You are not following this. To repeat:Where was there a yes answer? lol
B could never have said A is a knave at any time in the past. B literally cannot utter true statements. Saying A is a knave would be a true statement.
The Yes answer then follows from that.
Originally Posted By l2ambo⏩
Your mistake is at the very beginning.B cannot have once said that A is a knave.If B once said that A is a knave. A could say no it's not true that he said it (in the past) Then log asks b whether or not a is a knave and he lies and says no. Logician 1 still has no idea that B is a knave. He could be a knight for all log 1 knows.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
10-08-2021, 02:28 PM
-
#62
- l2ambo
- Registered User
-
- l2ambo
- Registered User
- Join Date: May 2010
- Location: Canada
- Age: 36
- Posts: 8,380
- Rep Power: 8260
-
-
Look at the question. "is it true that B once said you are a knave"? Knave A says NO. What's wrong with this answer?
If you asked B the second question first, then asked A the first question, you're assertions would be accurate but since the questions are reversed, mine are.
If you asked B the second question first, then asked A the first question, you're assertions would be accurate but since the questions are reversed, mine are.
"Movin' ahead so life won't pass me by."
10-08-2021, 02:47 PM
-
#63
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Originally Posted By l2ambo⏩
Not at all. This has nothing to do with the second question. What’s wrong with that first part? Knave A cant say no. As explained above.Look at the question. "is it true that B once said you are a knave"? Knave A says NO. What's wrong with this answer?
If you asked B the second question first, then asked A the first question, you're assertions would be accurate but since the questions are reversed, mine are.
If you asked B the second question first, then asked A the first question, you're assertions would be accurate but since the questions are reversed, mine are.
Let’s try a different approach.
Can a knave ever say “2+2=4?”. Could he have ever said this in the past? Yes or no.
Originally Posted By Spazzzzy⏩
Dang not trying to cause less sleep here. I was up late responding myself, ha. Ah well, I think you guys have some good approaches in here, answer will come eventually. That or everyone just gets tired of it and I’ll give it.Fuark got zero sleep last night but will dust off my thinking cap for this one beyond the initial high level look yesterday.
Pretty fun, havent had to use brain for anything in years tbh.
Pretty fun, havent had to use brain for anything in years tbh.
Edit to I2ambo below:
Yes you are right that Log 1 No/No thing is all kind of tangent to the main problem, prob not worth going on about.
You can’t just say Log 2 was the one who deduced it though without justification. Say perhaps you find a combo such that Log 2 deduces it. You’d then have to make sure that same combo doesn’t allow Log 1 to deduce, because otherwise they would both deduce and wouldn’t fit the problem.
The poster above was using a sort of itemized table (well not quite, but essentially), tackling the problem systematically, which doesn’t surprise me coming from an engineer. Maybe try that sort of route.
Edit 2:
Originally Posted By mesobuild⏩
I do not think the conclusion follows from that argumentPretty obnoxious question.
I'll try without reading anything.
-
The combination must induce different conclusions from the two approaches.
Both knights:
All "no".
Both knaves:
yn, yn.
A knight, B knave:
y?, y?
A knave, B knight:
n?, y?
In case 4, the first logician knows B is a knight from the first answer. He can ask B if the other is a knave to deduce.
The second logician only knows at least one is a knave from the first answer. A knight would answer, "yes" while a knave might answer "yes" (if the other is a knight) or "no" (if the other is a knave). The second logician cannot deduce. His second question will be answered "yes", revealing only a mixed pair, which Knight/Knave and Knave/Knight both satisfy.
Answer: A is a knave, and B is a knight. I discovered this by inspecting the interesting looking answer set of the four cases.
Inspecting further, I think both logicians can deduce the answer from the other three cases.
I'll try without reading anything.
-
The combination must induce different conclusions from the two approaches.
Both knights:
All "no".
Both knaves:
yn, yn.
A knight, B knave:
y?, y?
A knave, B knight:
n?, y?
In case 4, the first logician knows B is a knight from the first answer. He can ask B if the other is a knave to deduce.
The second logician only knows at least one is a knave from the first answer. A knight would answer, "yes" while a knave might answer "yes" (if the other is a knight) or "no" (if the other is a knave). The second logician cannot deduce. His second question will be answered "yes", revealing only a mixed pair, which Knight/Knave and Knave/Knight both satisfy.
Answer: A is a knave, and B is a knight. I discovered this by inspecting the interesting looking answer set of the four cases.
Inspecting further, I think both logicians can deduce the answer from the other three cases.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
10-08-2021, 02:49 PM
-
#64
- l2ambo
- Registered User
-
- l2ambo
- Registered User
- Join Date: May 2010
- Location: Canada
- Age: 36
- Posts: 8,380
- Rep Power: 8260
-
-
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
K Forget my reasoning on the first logician cause it doesn't even matter and I'm probably off on my reasoning there. Logician 2 is the one as I said before. Is he not? I only had 4 hours of sleep last night and I'm too tired and too lazy to go through log 1.Not at all. This has nothing to do with the second question. What’s wrong with that first part? Knave A cant say no. As explained above.
Let’s try a different approach.
Can a knave ever say “2+2=4?”. Could he have ever said this in the past? Yes or no.
Let’s try a different approach.
Can a knave ever say “2+2=4?”. Could he have ever said this in the past? Yes or no.
"Movin' ahead so life won't pass me by."
10-08-2021, 03:08 PM
-
#65
- Savux
- Registered User
-
- Savux
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jun 2014
- Age: 37
- Posts: 2,671
- Rep Power: 18095
-
-
I think I have it
Logician A's questions cannot result in both inhabitants being a knave,
The second logicians questions can arrive at every conclusion,
The difference is, the second logicians questions have the ability to have them both be knaves, with certainty. Given the second logicians first question we will know for certain what inhabitant A is.
Inhabitant A answers yes
They then ask inhabitant B the second question and he says 'No'
Both Knaves,
Logician one cannot arrive at this conclusion
Logician A's questions cannot result in both inhabitants being a knave,
The second logicians questions can arrive at every conclusion,
The difference is, the second logicians questions have the ability to have them both be knaves, with certainty. Given the second logicians first question we will know for certain what inhabitant A is.
Inhabitant A answers yes
They then ask inhabitant B the second question and he says 'No'
Both Knaves,
Logician one cannot arrive at this conclusion
10-08-2021, 03:16 PM
-
#66
10-08-2021, 03:38 PM
-
#67
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
The argument is inspection.I do not think the conclusion follows from that argument
Knave/Knight
L1: "A, did B say you are a knave?" B did, so A lies and says, "No." L1 can conclude B is a knight because A only answers, "No," when B is a knight. L1 asks B, who L1 knows is a knight, if A is a knave. B answers truthfully, "Yes," proving to L1 A is a knave.
L1 now knows both identities.
L2: "A, did B say you are both knaves?" B did not, so A lies and says, "Yes." L2 can only eliminate the Knight/Knight solution from this answer. Asking either A or B if the other is a knave will result in an answer of "Yes," which occurs in the Knight/Knave solution AND the Knave/Knight solution. L2 cannot distinguish A and B but knows they are not Knave/Knave (because the knave would answer "No," to the second question if so.)
L2 knows Knave/Knight and Knight/Knave satisfy the "Yes, Yes" solutions but does not know which.
10-08-2021, 03:53 PM
-
#68
10-08-2021, 05:43 PM
-
#69
- Savux
- Registered User
-
- Savux
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jun 2014
- Age: 37
- Posts: 2,671
- Rep Power: 18095
-
-
Originally Posted By Spazzzzy⏩
We don't need to know whether the statement is said or not. One of the logicians was able to come to a conclusion and the logicians also did not know whether it was actually said or not.Just tried to teach myself truth table lmfao.
So it is testing:
p: A = Said im a Knave
q: B = Is other a Knave
we know p^q is inaccurate
we know p^`q is accurate
we know `p^q is accurate
we know `p^`q is accurate
Did B say you're a Knave, No. If second answer is repeated LOG1 knows both a Knight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If B is a Knight:
B Said: Did B say you're a Knave, No. Is A a Knave Yes. Is B a Knave Yes. We know a lie has occurred.
B Didnt: Did B say you're a Knave, Yes. Is A a Knave Yes. Is B a Knave Yes. We know a lie has occurred.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If B is a Knave:
B Said: Did B say you're a Knave, Yes. Is A a Knave Yes. Is B a Knave Yes. We know a lie has occurred.
B Didnt: Did B say you're a Knave, No. Is A a Knave Yes. Is B a Knave Yes. We know a lie has occurred.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B said I'm a Knave, Yes. Is A a Knave No. Is B a Knave No - Not - Both Knaves
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
p: A = Knave
q: B = Knight
p^q true
p^`q not true
`p^q not true
`p^`q true
Did B say you were Knaves, yes
Did B say you were Knaves, yes
Is other a Knave: Yes
Is other a Knave: Yes
--------------------------------------------------
Soz boyos just repeating same scenarios - don't know how to get around whether the statement was said or not.
I'll just say
Log1 figured it out
A is a Knave
B is a Knight
So it is testing:
p: A = Said im a Knave
q: B = Is other a Knave
we know p^q is inaccurate
we know p^`q is accurate
we know `p^q is accurate
we know `p^`q is accurate
Did B say you're a Knave, No. If second answer is repeated LOG1 knows both a Knight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If B is a Knight:
B Said: Did B say you're a Knave, No. Is A a Knave Yes. Is B a Knave Yes. We know a lie has occurred.
B Didnt: Did B say you're a Knave, Yes. Is A a Knave Yes. Is B a Knave Yes. We know a lie has occurred.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If B is a Knave:
B Said: Did B say you're a Knave, Yes. Is A a Knave Yes. Is B a Knave Yes. We know a lie has occurred.
B Didnt: Did B say you're a Knave, No. Is A a Knave Yes. Is B a Knave Yes. We know a lie has occurred.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B said I'm a Knave, Yes. Is A a Knave No. Is B a Knave No - Not - Both Knaves
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
p: A = Knave
q: B = Knight
p^q true
p^`q not true
`p^q not true
`p^`q true
Did B say you were Knaves, yes
Did B say you were Knaves, yes
Is other a Knave: Yes
Is other a Knave: Yes
--------------------------------------------------
Soz boyos just repeating same scenarios - don't know how to get around whether the statement was said or not.
I'll just say
Log1 figured it out
A is a Knave
B is a Knight
Question two is framed to provide you with certainty an answer regardless of whether it was actually asked or not.
Since we then know only one logician figured out the answer we have to consider what conclusion could be met by only one of the logicians.
In this case it is that both are knaves, determined by logician 2.
Logician 1 cannot make this conclusion
10-08-2021, 05:57 PM
-
#70
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Originally Posted By Savux⏩
Spazzzzy is right about this: if A and B are both Knaves, then the answer to Log 1’s Q’s are Yes, then No. This would enable Log 1 to deduce. Log 2 also could deduce based on the Yes, then No answer. Which doesn’t fit the problem.We don't need to know whether the statement is said or not. One of the logicians was able to come to a conclusion and the logicians also did not know whether it was actually said or not.
Question two is framed to provide you with certainty an answer regardless of whether it was actually asked or not.
Since we then know only one logician figured out the answer we have to consider what conclusion could be met by only one of the logicians.
In this case it is that both are knaves, determined by logician 2.
Logician 1 cannot make this conclusion
Question two is framed to provide you with certainty an answer regardless of whether it was actually asked or not.
Since we then know only one logician figured out the answer we have to consider what conclusion could be met by only one of the logicians.
In this case it is that both are knaves, determined by logician 2.
Logician 1 cannot make this conclusion
Hmmm many Knave/knight Log 1 answers above. I do not agree with anyone’s proof on this though. I like the systematization though
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
10-08-2021, 06:13 PM
-
#71
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Tables can help make these problems simpler, no nonsense. The very first row filled in. Note the inclusion of the middle column, after A and B. Can anyone fill the rest out. How many rows in the table for each logician.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
10-08-2021, 06:33 PM
-
#72
- Savux
- Registered User
-
- Savux
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jun 2014
- Age: 37
- Posts: 2,671
- Rep Power: 18095
-
-
Originally Posted By Spazzzzy⏩
Tell me how you can deduce both as knaves from logician 1's questioning?Are you reading thread? Your answer is wrong
You can determine that it is 2 Knaves or 2 Knights, or Knight Knave easily in each solution. You cannot know if the claim has occurred in either scenario
OP has said it is unique solution only available in scenarios. We havent been able to determine which type holds position A and B thus far.
You can determine that it is 2 Knaves or 2 Knights, or Knight Knave easily in each solution. You cannot know if the claim has occurred in either scenario
OP has said it is unique solution only available in scenarios. We havent been able to determine which type holds position A and B thus far.
I might have fried my brain on this by now but I don't believe it is possible.
10-08-2021, 06:42 PM
-
#73
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Originally Posted By Savux⏩
A couple ways. One is just to fill out table 1 above.Tell me how you can deduce both as knaves from logician 1's questioning?
I might have fried my brain on this by now but I don't believe it is possible.
I might have fried my brain on this by now but I don't believe it is possible.
In words though, Both knaves means the answers are "Yes", then "No" to logician 1. If logician 1 receives a "no" answer to the second question, it means that A and B are of the same type (knight/knight or knave/knave) (prove this to yourself if you have to). Log 1 can cross out the knight/knight possibility since the answer to the first was Yes (if it were knight/knight, that first answer would be no). Thus Log 1 knows it's knave knave with a "Yes","No" answer.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
10-08-2021, 07:37 PM
-
#74
- Savux
- Registered User
-
- Savux
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jun 2014
- Age: 37
- Posts: 2,671
- Rep Power: 18095
-
-
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
Yeah I've overthought myself into mush.A couple ways. One is just to fill out table 1 above.
In words though, Both knaves means the answers are "Yes", then "No" to logician 1. If logician 1 receives a "no" answer to the second question, it means that A and B are of the same type (knight/knight or knave/knave) (prove this to yourself if you have to). Log 1 can cross out the knight/knight possibility since the answer to the first was Yes (if it were knight/knight, that first answer would be no). Thus Log 1 knows it's knave knave with a "Yes","No" answer.
In words though, Both knaves means the answers are "Yes", then "No" to logician 1. If logician 1 receives a "no" answer to the second question, it means that A and B are of the same type (knight/knight or knave/knave) (prove this to yourself if you have to). Log 1 can cross out the knight/knight possibility since the answer to the first was Yes (if it were knight/knight, that first answer would be no). Thus Log 1 knows it's knave knave with a "Yes","No" answer.
I wanted to try to figure it out without writing it out in tables/excel sheet.
Going to just concede on this one and wait for result. I can accept that I am not intelligent enough to figure it out at this point.
10-08-2021, 07:39 PM
-
#75
- Savux
- Registered User
-
- Savux
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jun 2014
- Age: 37
- Posts: 2,671
- Rep Power: 18095
-
-
Originally Posted By Spazzzzy⏩
Careful, the question isn't whether they asked the other if they are a knave, it is whether or not B claimed that A was a knave.Knave cannot tell the truth so the Knave wouldn't ask the other Knave if they are a Knave.
Did B ask you if you're a Knave, the answer is no, but they lie and say yes.
Is the other person a Knave? No, no
Confirmed Knave.
Did B ask you if you're a Knave, the answer is no, but they lie and say yes.
Is the other person a Knave? No, no
Confirmed Knave.
10-08-2021, 07:40 PM
-
#76
- l2ambo
- Registered User
-
- l2ambo
- Registered User
- Join Date: May 2010
- Location: Canada
- Age: 36
- Posts: 8,380
- Rep Power: 8260
-
-
Logician 2 Discovered after only asking these questions
The second logician asked A whether B once claimed they were both knaves. Then he asked one of the two whether the other was a knave
AKnightNo BKnaveYes
AKnaveBKnightYes
So... I think Logician 2 has to have figured out that A is knight and B is Knave.
The Knight can't answer that the Knave has said they were both knaves cause even thoughAis a Knight and he would be lying there,Bwould technically be telling a half truth because he's a knave and knaves can't tell the truth. Then when asked the second question,Bresponds Yes,Ais a knave, lying.
I believe this is the only No/Yes combo Log 2 can come to. KnaveAcouldn't say No in the second example.
Maybe someone else has already answered this?
The second logician asked A whether B once claimed they were both knaves. Then he asked one of the two whether the other was a knave
AKnightNo BKnaveYes
AKnaveBKnightYes
So... I think Logician 2 has to have figured out that A is knight and B is Knave.
The Knight can't answer that the Knave has said they were both knaves cause even thoughAis a Knight and he would be lying there,Bwould technically be telling a half truth because he's a knave and knaves can't tell the truth. Then when asked the second question,Bresponds Yes,Ais a knave, lying.
I believe this is the only No/Yes combo Log 2 can come to. KnaveAcouldn't say No in the second example.
Maybe someone else has already answered this?
"Movin' ahead so life won't pass me by."
10-08-2021, 07:50 PM
-
#77
10-08-2021, 07:51 PM
-
#78
- capowt
- cooked
-
- capowt
- cooked
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Posts: 10,836
- Rep Power: 226391
-
-
Ok I change my answer to:
A is a Knight
B is a Knave
Logician 2 figured it out
Log2 Q1: Has B claimed you're both Knaves?
Knight A: No, if true then A is a Knight and B is either a Knight or Knave. If a lie then A is a Knave, telling a lie and B HAS claimed they're both Knaves which is impossible for a Knight or a Knave to do. So the answer to Q1 is true making A a Knight.
Log2 Q2: "Is B a Knave?
Knight A: Yes, knowing A is a Knight we can deduce that this is true and B is a Knave.
Logician 1 Answers if KNIGHT/KNAVE:
Q1: YES
Q2 to A: YES
OR
Q1: YES
Q2 to B: YES
A KNAVE/KNIGHT would give the same answers.
Q1: YES
Q2 to A: YES
OR
Q1: YES
Q2 to B: YES
A is a Knight
B is a Knave
Logician 2 figured it out
Log2 Q1: Has B claimed you're both Knaves?
Knight A: No, if true then A is a Knight and B is either a Knight or Knave. If a lie then A is a Knave, telling a lie and B HAS claimed they're both Knaves which is impossible for a Knight or a Knave to do. So the answer to Q1 is true making A a Knight.
Log2 Q2: "Is B a Knave?
Knight A: Yes, knowing A is a Knight we can deduce that this is true and B is a Knave.
Logician 1 Answers if KNIGHT/KNAVE:
Q1: YES
Q2 to A: YES
OR
Q1: YES
Q2 to B: YES
A KNAVE/KNIGHT would give the same answers.
Q1: YES
Q2 to A: YES
OR
Q1: YES
Q2 to B: YES
10-08-2021, 07:55 PM
-
#79
- l2ambo
- Registered User
-
- l2ambo
- Registered User
- Join Date: May 2010
- Location: Canada
- Age: 36
- Posts: 8,380
- Rep Power: 8260
-
-
Originally Posted By capowt⏩
Heueheuheu, beat ya by a bitOk I change my answer to:
A is a Knight
B is a Knave
Logician 2 figured it out
Log2 Q1: Has B claimed you're both Knaves?
Knight A: No, if true then A is a Knight and B is either a Knight or Knave. If a lie then A is a Knave, telling a lie and B HAS claimed they're both Knaves which is impossible for a Knight or a Knave to do. So the answer to Q1 is true making A a Knight.
Log2 Q2: "Is B a Knave?
Knight A: Yes, knowing A is a Knight we can deduce that this is true and B is a Knave.
Logician 1 Answers if KNIGHT/KNAVE:
Q1: YES
Q2 to A: YES
OR
Q1: YES
Q2 to B: YES
A KNAVE/KNIGHT would give the same answers.
Q1: YES
Q2 to A: YES
OR
Q1: YES
Q2 to B: YES
A is a Knight
B is a Knave
Logician 2 figured it out
Log2 Q1: Has B claimed you're both Knaves?
Knight A: No, if true then A is a Knight and B is either a Knight or Knave. If a lie then A is a Knave, telling a lie and B HAS claimed they're both Knaves which is impossible for a Knight or a Knave to do. So the answer to Q1 is true making A a Knight.
Log2 Q2: "Is B a Knave?
Knight A: Yes, knowing A is a Knight we can deduce that this is true and B is a Knave.
Logician 1 Answers if KNIGHT/KNAVE:
Q1: YES
Q2 to A: YES
OR
Q1: YES
Q2 to B: YES
A KNAVE/KNIGHT would give the same answers.
Q1: YES
Q2 to A: YES
OR
Q1: YES
Q2 to B: YES
"Movin' ahead so life won't pass me by."
10-08-2021, 07:56 PM
-
#80
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Originally Posted By Savux⏩
Nah not about intelligence or anything like that. Some thoughtful posts being put out there by everyone ITT. Your point in the next post about being careful is correct.Yeah I've overthought myself into mush.
I wanted to try to figure it out without writing it out in tables/excel sheet.
Going to just concede on this one and wait for result. I can accept that I am not intelligent enough to figure it out at this point.
I wanted to try to figure it out without writing it out in tables/excel sheet.
Going to just concede on this one and wait for result. I can accept that I am not intelligent enough to figure it out at this point.
Originally Posted By l2ambo⏩
There's one problem with this type of solution. This problem cannot be answered by considering only one logician. It has to be shown that that one logician figures it out, but the other doesnt. Because remember, even if you could argue that some combination X,Y works for Logician 2 and allows him to deduce (and you have to rigorously show that combination allows him to deduce), anything could be going on with Logician 1. Also there are no half truths. A statement is either true or false.Logician 2 Discovered after only asking these questions
The second logician asked A whether B once claimed they were both knaves. Then he asked one of the two whether the other was a knave
AKnightNo BKnaveYes
AKnaveBKnightYes
So... I think Logician 2 has to have figured out that A is knight and B is Knave.
The Knight can't answer that the Knave has said they were both knaves cause even thoughAis a Knight and he would be lying there,Bwould technically be telling a half truth because he's a knave and knaves can't tell the truth. Then when asked the second question,Bresponds Yes,Ais a knave, lying.
I believe this is the only No/Yes combo Log 2 can come to. KnaveAcouldn't say No in the second example.
Maybe someone else has already answered this?
The second logician asked A whether B once claimed they were both knaves. Then he asked one of the two whether the other was a knave
AKnightNo BKnaveYes
AKnaveBKnightYes
So... I think Logician 2 has to have figured out that A is knight and B is Knave.
The Knight can't answer that the Knave has said they were both knaves cause even thoughAis a Knight and he would be lying there,Bwould technically be telling a half truth because he's a knave and knaves can't tell the truth. Then when asked the second question,Bresponds Yes,Ais a knave, lying.
I believe this is the only No/Yes combo Log 2 can come to. KnaveAcouldn't say No in the second example.
Maybe someone else has already answered this?
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
10-08-2021, 07:59 PM
-
#81
- l2ambo
- Registered User
-
- l2ambo
- Registered User
- Join Date: May 2010
- Location: Canada
- Age: 36
- Posts: 8,380
- Rep Power: 8260
-
-
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
Then it's knave , knave. no/no Logician 2, Final answer. Log 1 can suck it.Nah not about intelligence or anything like that. Some thoughtful posts being put out there by everyone ITT. Your point in the next post about being careful is correct.
There's one problem with this type of solution. This problem cannot be answered by considering only one logician. It has to be shown that that one logician figures it out, but the other doesnt. Because remember, even if you could argue that some combination X,Y works for Logician 2 and allows him to deduce (and you have to rigorously show that combination allows him to deduce), anything could be going on with Logician 1. Also there are no half truths. A statement is either true or false.
There's one problem with this type of solution. This problem cannot be answered by considering only one logician. It has to be shown that that one logician figures it out, but the other doesnt. Because remember, even if you could argue that some combination X,Y works for Logician 2 and allows him to deduce (and you have to rigorously show that combination allows him to deduce), anything could be going on with Logician 1. Also there are no half truths. A statement is either true or false.
This is the only combo in log 1 that doesn't have a duplicate
"Movin' ahead so life won't pass me by."
10-08-2021, 08:20 PM
-
#82
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Originally Posted By capowt⏩
You're gonna have to walk me through exactly what you are trying to say here, it's worded confusingly. I wish you guys would just make the dang tables above lolLog2 Q1: Has B claimed you're both Knaves?
Knight A: No, if true then A is a Knight and B is either a Knight or Knave. If a lie then A is a Knave, telling a lie and B HAS claimed they're both Knaves which is impossible for a Knight or a Knave to do. So the answer to Q1 is true making A a Knight.
Knight A: No, if true then A is a Knight and B is either a Knight or Knave. If a lie then A is a Knave, telling a lie and B HAS claimed they're both Knaves which is impossible for a Knight or a Knave to do. So the answer to Q1 is true making A a Knight.
Also, you are claiming that Logician 1 Q1 answer if Knave/Knight is Yes, I claim it could possibly be No.
Let A be knave, B be knight. Suppose B once said "A is a knave" (very possible). Then when A is asked if B said that, A being the knave he is, would respond "No"
Originally Posted By Spazzzzy⏩
If A was a knave, and B a knight, then B never would say they are both knaves. Thus A would respond "Yes" to "did B ever say you are both knaves.Log 2
Knave A
Knight B
Did B state that you are both Knaves, NO.
Did A and B state the other is a Knave, YES
This will be my answer - assuming it is stating the simple fact of what B chose. Not the other persons interpretation of what B chose.
But you can also do the one we figured out before wherein KnaveKnave and KnightKnight can be figured out in each scenario.
The above is the only unique answer.
Cheers boyos this was fun srs.
Knave A
Knight B
Did B state that you are both Knaves, NO.
Did A and B state the other is a Knave, YES
This will be my answer - assuming it is stating the simple fact of what B chose. Not the other persons interpretation of what B chose.
But you can also do the one we figured out before wherein KnaveKnave and KnightKnight can be figured out in each scenario.
The above is the only unique answer.
Cheers boyos this was fun srs.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
10-08-2021, 08:25 PM
-
#83
- capowt
- cooked
-
- capowt
- cooked
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Posts: 10,836
- Rep Power: 226391
-
-
Originally Posted By Spazzzzy⏩
So being a Knave, this is a lie which means B HAS claimed they are both Knaves.Log 2
Knave A
Knight B
Did B state that you are both Knaves, NO.
Did A and B state the other is a Knave, YES
This will be my answer - assuming it is stating the simple fact of what B chose. Not the other persons interpretation of what B chose.
But you can also do the one we figured out before wherein KnaveKnave and KnightKnight can be figured out in each scenario.
The above is the only unique answer.
Cheers boyos this was fun srs.
Knave A
Knight B
Did B state that you are both Knaves, NO.
Did A and B state the other is a Knave, YES
This will be my answer - assuming it is stating the simple fact of what B chose. Not the other persons interpretation of what B chose.
But you can also do the one we figured out before wherein KnaveKnave and KnightKnight can be figured out in each scenario.
The above is the only unique answer.
Cheers boyos this was fun srs.
A Knave can't claim another Knave is a Knave and a Knight can't claim himself as a Knave.
If A was a Knave he would answer YES to Q1. Which means B HASNT claimed both to be Knaves which means B is either a Knave or Knight
For B to be a Knight then A would have to answer YES to Q2 giving a YES/YES which is the same combo as a KNIGHT/KNAVE
10-08-2021, 08:28 PM
-
#84
- l2ambo
- Registered User
-
- l2ambo
- Registered User
- Join Date: May 2010
- Location: Canada
- Age: 36
- Posts: 8,380
- Rep Power: 8260
-
-
It's log 2AKnight/KnaveBNo/yes
It's the only thing left that makes sense with everything that has been said.
There is still the probability the The knave never claimed they were both knaves.
It's the only thing left that makes sense with everything that has been said.
There is still the probability the The knave never claimed they were both knaves.
"Movin' ahead so life won't pass me by."
10-08-2021, 08:35 PM
-
#85
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Originally Posted By l2ambo⏩
Ah. And this is an important consideration that I think several glossed over in their answers. Although I think Spazzzzy made reference to it, and FarmerSon actually incorporated this into his analysis of Logician 1 correctly. Just because a Knight or Knave could have said something in the past, doesnt mean theydid.It's log 2AKnight/KnaveBNo/yes
It's the only thing left that makes sense with everything that has been said.
There is still the probability the The knave never claimed they were both knaves.
It's the only thing left that makes sense with everything that has been said.
There is still the probability the The knave never claimed they were both knaves.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
10-08-2021, 08:37 PM
-
#86
- l2ambo
- Registered User
-
- l2ambo
- Registered User
- Join Date: May 2010
- Location: Canada
- Age: 36
- Posts: 8,380
- Rep Power: 8260
-
-
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
so who won? lolAh. And this is an important consideration that I think several glossed over in their answers. Although I think Spazzzzy made reference to it, and FarmerSon actually incorporated this into his analysis of Logician 1 correctly.
"Movin' ahead so life won't pass me by."
10-08-2021, 08:45 PM
-
#87
- l2ambo
- Registered User
-
- l2ambo
- Registered User
- Join Date: May 2010
- Location: Canada
- Age: 36
- Posts: 8,380
- Rep Power: 8260
-
-
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
I actually aluded to this 1 post before farmerAh. And this is an important consideration that I think several glossed over in their answers. Although I think Spazzzzy made reference to it, and FarmerSon actually incorporated this into his analysis of Logician 1 correctly. Just because a Knight or Knave could have said something in the past, doesnt mean theydid.
Knave A isn't bound to the answer of the second question so he can say anything he wants and still be lying in the eye's of the logician.
"Movin' ahead so life won't pass me by."
10-08-2021, 08:47 PM
-
#88
10-08-2021, 08:51 PM
-
#89
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Originally Posted By Spazzzzy⏩
No, this is different than that point you were making before. That hasnt changed...."No","No" means it has to be Knight/Knight.Lol, so are we then doing a 50/50 for any of the above where Knave omitting and answer matters?
This is just that if Xcouldhave said something, doesnt mean X did. This possibility has to be considered in some of those Knave/Knight situations. But not in any Knight/Knight, or Knave/Knave situations.
Edit: ok you guys want the solution? It was basically said up there recently, but not completely argued for.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
10-08-2021, 09:12 PM
-
#90
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Basically you guys got there, gjdm. This one was pretty involved, and yes I realize some above gave the actual answer...just some nuances in there. It was fun guys, you are keeping me on my toes. I repped as many as I could.
Spoiler!
Logician 2 is the one who deduced
A is a Knight, B is a Knave.
Here is why:
-We discussed why neither Knave/Knave or Knight/Knight works. In either of those cases, both Logicians deduce because those answers are unique in their respective tables. So one of A,B is a knight, and one of A,B is a knave.
-If you look at rows 2 through 5 in Table 1....the Knight/Knave or Knave/Knight rows, the answers given will be either NO,YES or YES,YES. The problem is each of these are repeated, once under Kight-Knave, and once under Knave-Knight. So in no case can Logician 1 get responses and then deduce who is who. If YES,YES is said, could either be Knave/Knight or Knight/Knave. Same with NO/YES.
-So Logician 2 must have deduced. The only unique answer in rows 2-4 in Table 2 is NO,YES corresponding to A=Knight,B=Knave. Note that YES,YES could be either Kight/Knave, or Knave/Knight. Thus A is a knight and B is a knave.
I think the trick to this problem is realizing that you need 2 rows for some entries such as Knight/Knave in table 1. One with the dash where they didnt say it, and one with the check mark where they did say it.
Spoiler!
Logician 2 is the one who deduced
A is a Knight, B is a Knave.
Here is why:
-We discussed why neither Knave/Knave or Knight/Knight works. In either of those cases, both Logicians deduce because those answers are unique in their respective tables. So one of A,B is a knight, and one of A,B is a knave.
-If you look at rows 2 through 5 in Table 1....the Knight/Knave or Knave/Knight rows, the answers given will be either NO,YES or YES,YES. The problem is each of these are repeated, once under Kight-Knave, and once under Knave-Knight. So in no case can Logician 1 get responses and then deduce who is who. If YES,YES is said, could either be Knave/Knight or Knight/Knave. Same with NO/YES.
-So Logician 2 must have deduced. The only unique answer in rows 2-4 in Table 2 is NO,YES corresponding to A=Knight,B=Knave. Note that YES,YES could be either Kight/Knave, or Knave/Knight. Thus A is a knight and B is a knave.
I think the trick to this problem is realizing that you need 2 rows for some entries such as Knight/Knave in table 1. One with the dash where they didnt say it, and one with the check mark where they did say it.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts