Well, well, what do we have here? ... Lateral Thinking XXIV! Anyone remembers these problem???
For anyone to enjoy, I leave three problems.
Logic Problems In the Court of Law I
And now a few cases from the island of honestants and swindlecants. A prisoner at the bar was allowed to say one sentence to defend himself. After a while he said: "A swindlecant committed the crime."
Did it rescue him? ( Honestants: always speak the TRUTH. Swindlecants: always LIE
Logic Problems In the Court of Law II
A man accused of a crime, hired an attorney whose statements were always admitted by the court as undisputable truth. The following exchange took place in court.
Prosecutor: “If the accused committed the crime, he had an accomplice.â€
Re: Lateral Thinking XXIV (Three problems)
Posted: July 31st, 2009, 1:10 pm
by Sayumi
hmmm.... I haven't done this for a while but let's try!
Spoiler:
1. It does save him
-if he is a honestant it really was a swindlecant who commited the crime.
-if he is a swindlecant it would have been a honestant who commited the crime, so it couldn't have been the swindlecant.
2. It doesn't really help. They only know that if the man commited the crime he didn't have the accomplice. instead it suggests or at least leaves the possiblity that he man commited the crime by himself. (btw if I had an attorney like that I would get him to say that I'm innocent and that's it...)
3. I won't write an explanation to these just play it through in you head....
- I'm guilty
- Is that possible?
-I'm innocent
- The crime was commited by someone who is less honest that me. not too sure about this one... for the swindlecant it could either mean "the crime was commited by someone who is more honest than me" and prove his innocence. But one could also say that "the crime was not commited by someone who is less honest than me" so it could also be some with "the same degree of honesty" and still leave the possibility of him being the culprit. But I guess the first possibilty is closer to being the complete opposite of the truth, so this might be the solution...
Not 100% sure since i only had a few minutes to do them, but i did my best...
Thanks Holmes!!!
Re: Lateral Thinking XXIV (Three problems)
Posted: July 31st, 2009, 3:03 pm
by Holmes
Hey Sayumi, such a long time since last time, how are you?
Nice to see you in the threads, and again in the LTs. :)
Your answers:
I -
Spoiler:
Correct!
II -
Spoiler:
Corect! I really leaves the crime only commited by his client.
III -
Spoiler:
1: Correct. 2: Your guess is correct, there is no such sentence :P. 3: Correct! 4: Just there, but the answer is wrong.
Spoiler:
So, this was just a "minute" thinking ... mmm ... you impress me as you always did :)
Re: Lateral Thinking XXIV (Three problems)
Posted: August 1st, 2009, 7:00 pm
by Found
Spoiler:
I - Yes it did. If he was H [back to last thread's abbreviations] then it was true that an S did. If he was an S, then it was an H, so it can't be him 'cause he's S.
II - But he could have committed a crime without an accomplice. In short, it didn't help.
III - a) I'm committed the crime. [Obvious explanation.]
b) I'm innocent. [Same as above]
c) I'm innocent. [The real criminal won't lie.]
d) If the crime was committed by a normal person, then I am the criminal.
Re: Lateral Thinking XXIV (Three problems)
Posted: August 2nd, 2009, 2:10 am
by sstimson
Holmes wrote:
Well, well, what do we have here? ... Lateral Thinking XXIV! Anyone remembers these problem???
For anyone to enjoy, I leave three problems.
Logic Problems In the Court of Law I
And now a few cases from the island of honestants and swindlecants. A prisoner at the bar was allowed to say one sentence to defend himself. After a while he said: "A swindlecant committed the crime."
Did it rescue him? ( Honestants: always speak the TRUTH. Swindlecants: always LIE
Spoiler:
if H and S then T; if S and H then T; if S and S then X; if H and H then X
where first spot is what he is, second spot is which did the crime; and T if possible and X for not possible
So if H then an S did it and as he is an H he is not guilty; and
if S then an H did it and as he is an S he is not guilty
Logic Problems In the Court of Law II
A man accused of a crime, hired an attorney whose statements were always admitted by the court as undisputable truth. The following exchange took place in court.
Prosecutor: “If the accused committed the crime, he had an accomplice.â€
Is that possible?