elderbear Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 A man was being tried for having robbed a caravan. Three witnesses came forth and made the following statements: First Witness - The defendant has committed over a dozen robberies in the past! Second Witness - That is not true! Third Witness - He has certainly committed at least one robbery! As it turned out, only one of the witnesses had told the truth. Did the defendant rob the caravan or not? Have fun - first to solve it with correct reasoning gets to post the next one (or pass). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I don't know if he robbed the caravan, since the witnesses only have things to say about previous robberies (unless I understand it the wrong way) or they don't mention what robbery they are referring to, but only the second witness told the truth. It's simplest to explain by the following reasoning: If 1 told the truth, 2 lied and 3 also told the truth. That is impossible since only one witness told the truth. If 1 lied, 2 told the truth and since only one witness told the truth and also 1 either tels the truth or he doesn't, it is clear that 3 lies and only 2 tells the truth! Simple really! :rolleyes: I don't have a puzzle right now, but if anyone else does, be my guest and post, I'll try to find a nice one, but that may take a while... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted July 1, 2005 Author Share Posted July 1, 2005 I don't know if he robbed the caravan, since the witnesses only have things to say about previous robberies (unless I understand it the wrong way) or they don't mention what robbery they are referring to, but only the second witness told the truth. It's simplest to explain by the following reasoning: If 1 told the truth, 2 lied and 3 also told the truth. That is impossible since only one witness told the truth. If 1 lied, 2 told the truth and since only one witness told the truth and also 1 either tels the truth or he doesn't, it is clear that 3 lies and only 2 tells the truth! Simple really! :rolleyes: I don't have a puzzle right now, but if anyone else does, be my guest and post, I'll try to find a nice one, but that may take a while... You've already established that you know whether or not he robbed the caravan. If witness 3 lied ... B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I don't know if he robbed the caravan, since the witnesses only have things to say about previous robberies (unless I understand it the wrong way) or they don't mention what robbery they are referring to, but only the second witness told the truth. It's simplest to explain by the following reasoning: If 1 told the truth, 2 lied and 3 also told the truth. That is impossible since only one witness told the truth. If 1 lied, 2 told the truth and since only one witness told the truth and also 1 either tels the truth or he doesn't, it is clear that 3 lies and only 2 tells the truth! Simple really! :rolleyes: I don't have a puzzle right now, but if anyone else does, be my guest and post, I'll try to find a nice one, but that may take a while... You've already established that you know whether or not he robbed the caravan. If witness 3 lied ... B) Ah, I see. You mean the witness are of the 'all-knowing' kind and are not just referring to previous robberies, but their statements also reflect this accusation. Well, I guess than he's innocent! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I concur... the only possibility that allows for only one person saying the truth is the second person telling the truth. If the first one is saying the truth, the third is also telling the truth. If the third one is telling the truth and the first is lying, then the second automatically is also telling the truth. If the second one is lying and the third is telling the truth, then the first is also telling the truth. Therefore, the first and third must be lying, and the man is innocent, just as TetsuoShima said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest c4evap Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 A man was being tried for having robbed a caravan. Three witnesses came forth and made the following statements: First Witness - The defendant has committed over a dozen robberies in the past! Second Witness - That is not true! Third Witness - He has certainly committed at least one robbery! As it turned out, only one of the witnesses had told the truth. Did the defendant rob the caravan or not? Is the Second Witness replying to both the First Witness and Third Witness statements or just the First Witness statement? I ask because I think that might put a different spin on it. c4 :thinking: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weyoun Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 A man was being tried for having robbed a caravan. Three witnesses came forth and made the following statements: First Witness - The defendant has committed over a dozen robberies in the past! Second Witness - That is not true! Third Witness - He has certainly committed at least one robbery! As it turned out, only one of the witnesses had told the truth. Did the defendant rob the caravan or not? Is the Second Witness replying to both the First Witness and Third Witness statements or just the First Witness statement? I ask because I think that might put a different spin on it. c4 :thinking: True, as it is written, if you take it in the order given as if that is the order in which they made their statements, then you don't actually know whether or not the defendant committed THIS robbery, since none say it specifically. However, if the second is refuting both statements as not true, including the third, then he would be telling the truth, and the man is innocent, since that would mean he committed NO robberies if the third man is lying. At least that's how I see it. could be wrong of course. Easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted July 3, 2005 Author Share Posted July 3, 2005 A man was being tried for having robbed a caravan. Three witnesses came forth and made the following statements: First Witness - The defendant has committed over a dozen robberies in the past! Second Witness - That is not true! Third Witness - He has certainly committed at least one robbery! As it turned out, only one of the witnesses had told the truth. Did the defendant rob the caravan or not? Is the Second Witness replying to both the First Witness and Third Witness statements or just the First Witness statement? I ask because I think that might put a different spin on it. c4 :thinking: The way Smullyan usually phrases puzzles, one has to assume that the second witness was refuting the first witness, and was not mistaken. If you like this kind of thing, Raymond Smullyan is a must read - this one came from his book The Riddle of Scheherazade and other Amazing Puzzles. I can post more if you like, or anybody else can toss one out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weyoun Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Ok, I am going to re-evaluate my reasoning. Lets have another crack at this. The first person can NOT be telling the truth, because that would mean the third would be as well. That would mean the second person would HAVE TO BE TELLING THE TRUTH. If it is given that only one person is, and we have established that the second is it, then the third is lying as well, and the defendant ROBBED NOTHING. EDIT: One more piece of reasoning. If the third person is telling the truth: That would mean that the robber at least robbed something, however, if that were true than one of the first two people would ALSO be telling the truth. (If he robbed something, than he either did or didn't rob a dozen other things, as argued between 2 and 1)That can not be, since again, only one person can tell the truth. So again, the only way that works is number 2 only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Didn't I say that...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weyoun Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Didn't I say that...? Hmm. Yes you did. I have no idea how I missed it. Well, it's your turn for a riddle, unless of course we somehow missed the answer? Elderbear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Actually I was the first to solve it! ;) But I gave my turn away to anyone willing to post a new riddle because I still haven't found one that is challenging enough. So, be my guest... Or Elderbear, if you have another one, more difficult please, post it, O looooove riddles! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S0V13T Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Fellas / lassies, /I/ broke into the caravan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverick Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 try this - not too hard There are 3 black hats and 2 white hats in a box. Three men (we will call them A, B, & C) each reach into the box and place one of the hats on his own head. They cannot see what color hat they have chosen. The men are situated in a way that A can see the hats on B & C's heads, B can only see the hat on C's head and C cannot see any hats. When A is asked if he knows the color of the hat he is wearing, he says no. When B is asked if he knows the color of the hat he is wearing he says no. When C is asked if he knows the color of the hat he is wearing he says yes and he is correct. What color hat and how can this be? your starter for ten :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted July 3, 2005 Author Share Posted July 3, 2005 C's hat must be black. If B+C = White, A knows Black If B sees White on C and A doesn't know -> B knows Black, C knows White If B sees Black on C and A doesn't know -> B could be black or white, so B doesn't know. C knows Black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted July 3, 2005 Author Share Posted July 3, 2005 Another from Raymond Smullyan's The Riddle of Sheherazde (and I'm not posting them until after I've figured them out w/o looking at the answers): "It has reached me, O Auspicious Kig, that one of Ali Baba's famous forty thieves stole into Abdul's shop and robbed him of some diamonds. Fortunately, they were all recovered, and then it was determined that the thief was either Sabit, Salim, or Shamhir - all of whom were in Ali Baba's famous robber band. At the trial, each of the three accused one of the others, but Shamhir is the only one who lied. Is he necessarily guilty?" "Not necessarily," replied the king. "An innocent man might lie in order to protect his friend." Is Shamhir necessarily guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 C's hat must be black. reached the same conclusion as you Elder, though in a slightly different way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Another from Raymond Smullyan's The Riddle of Sheherazde (and I'm not posting them until after I've figured them out w/o looking at the answers): "It has reached me, O Auspicious Kig, that one of Ali Baba's famous forty thieves stole into Abdul's shop and robbed him of some diamonds. Fortunately, they were all recovered, and then it was determined that the thief was either Sabit, Salim, or Shamhir - all of whom were in Ali Baba's famous robber band. At the trial, each of the three accused one of the others, but Shamhir is the only one who lied. Is he necessarily guilty?" "Not necessarily," replied the king. "An innocent man might lie in order to protect his friend." Is Shamhir necessarily guilty? He IS necessarily guilty! Say: Sabit is A, Salim is B, Shamhir is C: Suppose A accuses B, then B can accuse C or A. In both cases either A or B lied, wich is in contradiction with the given data, since "each of the three accused one of the others", so they can't accuse themselves. This means A accused C and was telling the truth, so C is guilty! You can work this out a little further, but for the solution of this riddle that is not required! EDIT: get me some more, this is fun!!! :cyclops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 <- has no good ones on hand ;p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest c4evap Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 Yo! How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-roll pop? I know it's a tuffie... c4 :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now