Four colleagues were suspicious to have discovered a secret of the highest level of classified information by outwitting the military computers. At the hearing, they have been asked who discovered the secret. But the transcript of the hearing only shows four statements, one made by each of the suspects. We do not know (and may even doubt) whether the minute taker has recorded word-for-word what they said during the hearing. But suppose, the minute taker has truly captured (maybe unintentionally) the right logical essence in all their speaking. Thereafter, according to the documents, no one in the commission had any idea what to do with the statements of the hearing.
Would you have been able to find out who discovered the secret, based on these four recorded statements?
It's not true that if I'm lying, Stone is also lying or Yates has discovered the secret.
It's a lie that if I'm not telling the truth, Atkins is telling the truth or Stone has not discovered the secret.
It is not the case that if I'm lying, Atkins and Evert have discovered the secret.
If I'm lying, then either Atkins is telling the truth or Evert is lying or Yates has not discovered the secret.
The solution given by Charlie is ingenious and highly recommended (quod erat exspectandum), whereas the official solution is woodern.
("Woodern" is also a woodern secondary solution to the word problem of 2005-01-03 "nor do we".)
Posted by ollie
on 2016-12-30 12:40:18