 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmail isthebestcom> wrote:
> > 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!
It wouldn't work in the original situation where you can only ask *one*
question (which implies that you can interact with the guards just once).
If you can ask them limitless questions or interact with them in an
unlimited way, the task becomes trivial.
I thought about another way of restricting the situation: The guards
will never answer to questions (or to actions) which would directly reveal
whether they are lying or telling the truth. (The solution to the original
problem never actually reveals which one is lying and which one is telling
the truth, and thus it's still a solution in this situation.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:47:27 -0500, Warp wrote:
> It wouldn't work in the original situation where you can only ask
> *one*
> question (which implies that you can interact with the guards just
> once).
I disagree - there's no explicit implication in the original riddle for
this. That would be a matter of interpretation.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I disagree - there's no explicit implication in the original riddle for
> this.
If that's the case then the original riddle doesn't make any sense.
It's too trivial.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:29:43 -0500, Warp wrote:
> If that's the case then the original riddle doesn't make any sense.
> It's too trivial.
Well, I disagree with that as well. Within the confines of the riddle
itself, asking one question is what's allowed - doing other things is
undefined within the scope of the riddle. Being undefined doesn't mean
it can't be done - most people don't think outside the scope of a
question being asked, particularly in the case of a riddle.
Q. Why is a duck?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
