All about flooble | fun stuff | Get a free chatterbox | Free JavaScript | Avatars    
perplexus dot info

Home > Logic > Liars and Knights
A greek guilt (Posted on 2005-09-04) Difficulty: 3 of 5
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?

See The Solution Submitted by Federico Kereki    
Rating: 4.0000 (3 votes)

Comments: ( Back to comment list | You must be logged in to post comments.)
A big question (somehow a flaw)for this problem | Comment 10 of 11 |

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
Please log in:
Login:
Password:
Remember me:
Sign up! | Forgot password


Search:
Search body:
Forums (0)
Newest Problems
Random Problem
FAQ | About This Site
Site Statistics
New Comments (3)
Unsolved Problems
Top Rated Problems
This month's top
Most Commented On

Chatterbox:
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 by Animus Pactum Consulting. All rights reserved. Privacy Information