The White Knight was recounting the story of one of the trials he had recently attended:
“Ah yes, it was a fine trial. Let’s see if I can remember it…
If I recall there were three defendants. Each of them made one statement accusing one of the others, I think, but I’m afraid I can’t remember who accused whom. Can you work out who was guilty?”
“Of course not!” you reply. “You haven’t told me anything yet! Could you at least tell me who lied and who told the truth?”
“Hmmm... Interesting that you should ask that. When I was describing the trial to the Red King he asked me the same question. When I told him the answer, he worked it out. Unfortunately I’ve now quite forgotten what I said.”
“Well, I guess it’s hopeless for me then…” you sigh.
“Interesting that you should say that, too. When I was describing the trial to Humpty Dumpty he asked me the same question, and when I told him I had forgotten what I told the Red King, he too claimed to be at a loss. But then he asked me another question, I can't quite remember what, but when I told him the answer he was able to solve it. I think he either asked me whether two consecutive statements were true, or whether two consecutive statements were false. Unfortunately I can neither remember which one he asked, nor what I answered. I think I’ve given you quite enough information now though, so tell me: who was guilty?”
Adapted from Raymond Smullyan's Alice in Puzzleland
(In reply to
Through the looking glass...... by Penny)
On the contrary, we all know very well that "red" is used oftentimes as a pejorative reference to those of native american descent.
Knowing full well that the "White Knight" was of such sufficient lack of complexion to have robbed him and his forefathers of rightful land, the "Red King" or "Chief" would have immediately grown suspicious of any true/false statements this white knight would have told him. Furthermore, this suspicion would have made it impossible for either the truthful and logical Chief to have worked out the solution correctly or the white knight to have been telling the truth in the first place. As we are told in the problem by the White Knight that the Chief did arrive at the correct solution, we can conclude that the White Knight is therefore the reprehensible liar the Chief believed him to be in the first place.
Now, following Penny's answer and running under the assumption that two consecutive answers that are either true or false would *not* give us the solution, it is easy to see that either the first or second defendants are the real guilty parties. If the second defendant knew who committed the crime and he had no rational reason to not point to the guilty party, we can well assume that whoever he accuses did the deed.
(NOTE: My apologies if anyone finds this post offensive. I consider the atrocities committed by white men to the native americans in our nation's history as nothing short of deplorable. I can well side with the Chief on this one.)
Edited on April 6, 2004, 9:50 pm
re: Through the looking glass......
