There was a crime, and it was known that either Al, Beth, Dell, or Phil (each a knight or a liar) was guilty. At the trial, the men spoke first, and said:
Phil: Dell did it.
Al: No, Beth is guilty.
Then it was the ladies' turn, who said:
Beth: Al is lying.
Dell: Phil never lies.
Then a lady accused someone, and that let me know she herself was innocent.
And next the other lady accused someone, and that let me know who was guilty.
Who's guilty?
How can "I" possibly know the ladies "accused" someone, but not pointing out a real criminal? If I can know that beforehand, there's nothing to be solved, is there?
And say that I don't know whether the ladies are accusing people or not. Then there will be two cases: first case is the solution case where Dell accuses Phil or Al. For the 2nd case, Dell accuses Beth, proving herself a liar and hence not a criminal, and Beth is not a criminal too since Dell lies. Then Beth will be a knight, pointing out Al is a liar since she is not a criminal proved by Dell. In this case, of cos I'll know who is the criminal if i heard it, but i didn't!
|
Posted by Terence
on 2005-10-27 06:07:07 |