A Baron, a Count, a Duke and an Earl met at a jousting tournament. In the first round, two met in the first joust, and the other two met in the second joust; the two winners from the first round met at the second round for the final joust. After the jousting, they declared:

Baron: I beat the Earl.

Count: I faced both the Baron and the Duke.

Duke: I didn't make it past the first round.

Earl: At the first round, I lost to the Duke.

I knew how many were knights, and how many were liars (though not who was what) but that wasn't enough to know what jousts there had been.

However, I happened to know that a certain joust had taken place (though I didn't know who won and if it had been in the first or the second round) and that allowed me to know every result.

Can you deduce this?

If you're going to figure out who won the tournament, you have to examine on the only statement that contains that info: The Baron's.  So let's assume the Baron is a Knight.

So logically, if the Baron faced the Earl, then the Earl did not lose to the Duke in the first round.  So the Earl is a Liar.

Next, the Count claims to have face both the Baron and the Duke, but if that were true, the Baron could not have faced the Earl, so the Count is a liar.

Finally, the Duke claims to have lost in the first round.  There are no statements that contradict this claim, so it is impossible to declare the Duke a Liar based on the given info.  Ergo: he is a Knight.

So, the Baron beat the Duke(a fellow Knight), while the Earl beat the Count (a fellow Liar).  And finally the Baron beat the Earl, proving that "The Truth Will Win Out".  Pretty corny.

 

Posted by Clinton Heath on 2005-08-15 19:30:15