 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:11:40 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > (Curiously, that also means that having two guards is redundant. One
> > guard is enough.)
> Not the way I've heard the question asked, which is:
> "Which door would the other guard say is the safe door?"
With one guard you simply have to introduce the question with something
like "assume that there's another guard here and that he always tells
the truth if you always lie and vice-versa".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:33:19 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> Invisible wrote:
>> http://www.xkcd.com/246/
>
> I saw a great solution where the wizard started explaining to everyone
> how the logic works and the warrior just shot one of them in the foot.
>
> Left: "Ow! You shot me in the foot!"
> Right: "No he didn't!"
> Left: "I can't believe you just did that!"
> Right: "Yes you can!"
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0327.html
I've a soft spot for that solution too.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:59:34 -0500, Warp wrote:
> With one guard you simply have to introduce the question with
> something
> like "assume that there's another guard here and that he always tells
> the truth if you always lie and vice-versa".
I suppose that would work as well, though my way of asking was much
shorter.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I suppose that would work as well, though my way of asking was much
> shorter.
I don't think it works.
Let's assume that door A is the save one and door B isn't.
If you ask the question to the sincere guard he would answer "if I were
to lie to you, I would say that B is the safe door".
That's the truth. Thus the lying guard would have to lie and claim the
opposite: "If I were to lie to you, I would say that A is the safe door."
Thus you can't know which door is the safe one.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:30:38 -0500, Warp wrote:
> I don't think it works.
>
> Let's assume that door A is the save one and door B isn't.
>
> If you ask the question to the sincere guard he would answer "if I
> were
> to lie to you, I would say that B is the safe door".
>
> That's the truth. Thus the lying guard would have to lie and claim the
> opposite: "If I were to lie to you, I would say that A is the safe
> door."
Hmmm, I'm going to have to think about this one now.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:38:08 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:30:38 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> I don't think it works.
>>
>> Let's assume that door A is the save one and door B isn't.
>>
>> If you ask the question to the sincere guard he would answer "if I
>> were
>> to lie to you, I would say that B is the safe door".
>>
>> That's the truth. Thus the lying guard would have to lie and claim
>> the
>> opposite: "If I were to lie to you, I would say that A is the safe
>> door."
>
> Hmmm, I'm going to have to think about this one now.
>
> Jim
OK, I think I've got it:
"If you were to lie about telling me the truth about which door was safe,
which door would you indicate was safe?"
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson escribió:
> OK, I think I've got it:
>
> "If you were to lie about telling me the truth about which door was safe,
> which door would you indicate was safe?"
>
Just shoot him on the foot!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:28:08 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson escribió:
>> OK, I think I've got it:
>>
>> "If you were to lie about telling me the truth about which door was
>> safe, which door would you indicate was safe?"
>>
>>
> Just shoot him on the foot!
That wouldn't get you the right door, though. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson escribió:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:28:08 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Just shoot him on the foot!
>
> That wouldn't get you the right door, though. ;-)
>
Yes it would, didn't you see Darren New's post on this thread?
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0327.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:15:18 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson escribió:
>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:28:08 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> Just shoot him on the foot!
>>
>> That wouldn't get you the right door, though. ;-)
>>
>>
> Yes it would, didn't you see Darren New's post on this thread?
>
> http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0327.html
No, I missed that one somehow.....Now I have to explain why I'm laughing.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
