I believe there are more appropriate venues for solicitations of this ilk.
BTW, I was disappointed no one revived my "Knarks" Message who always make statements in pairs, one true, one false. I think the latest Dell Logic Magazine has one of my Knights, Knaves & Knarks puzzles.
James Dow Allen
Answer would never be silence; randomizer picks random answer by definition...
Even so, that Q would not work.
Sorry, Charlie, no tuna tonight.
Sorry; randomizer bu definition picks "yes" or "no" randomly; NO silence.
Robert Baer wrote: ) Sorry; randomizer bu definition picks "yes" or "no" randomly; NO silence.
Stating some well-known fact about the puzzle 4 times in a row as 'proof' that a method doesn't work doesn't make the objection any more valid.
So tell me, why does the fact that the randomizer always answers make this method invalid ?
After all, the Knave and Knight *can* answer with silence. (And by the rules of the revised puzzle, they *will* if they cannot determine the answer to the question asked.)
SaSW, Willem
Robert Baer wrote: ) ...revised? ) Allowable answers: "yes" and "no"; allowable questions: only those ) that canbe answered with a "yes" or a "no". ) So, what am i missing?
The bit where we very clearly and obviously stated that we were talking about the revised puzzle where, if a Knight or Knave cannot answer a yes/no question by their truth/lie rules, they remain silent.
SaSW, Willem
...revised? Allowable answers: "yes" and "no"; allowable questions: only those that canbe answered with a "yes" or a "no". So, what am i missing?
The answer can be silence if the question is not asked of the randomizer.
Sylvia.
ght,
nYes, it's explained at the end of this Wiki as the exploding God-Head.
In A simple solution to the hardest logic puzzle ever,[2] B. Rabern and L. Rabern develop the puzzle further by pointing out that it is not the case that 'ja' and 'da' are the only possible answers a god can give. It is also possible for a god to be unable to answer at all.
dgates wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
It's not as bad as you think.
If it weren't for the normal numbskull, it would be easy. Just ask something like "are you something other than a knight", and the knights and knaves would say no (or remain silent) as would the naysaying numbskull, the nymph numbskull would be the only one saying yes.
But since you've got a normal numbskull who will (maybe) say yes,there's no hope of guranteeing onkly one yes. So what you have to do is, guarentee that there are at most two yesses (the normal and nymph numbskulls), there are at least three noes (so you can distinguish between yes and no), and the exact number of noes depends on whether the question is put to the normal numbskull before or after the nymph numbskull.
Working out the details is fairly straightforward but tedious, but it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a compound question which the normal and naysaying knaves will always answer no to and the normal and naysaying knights will say no if the nymph numbskll is asked first and and remain silent if the normal numbskull.
George
...hmmm....would that also imply that the randomizer could choose to "answer" likewise???
Robert Baer wrote: ) Willem wrote: )> The bit where we very clearly and obviously stated that we were talking )> about the revised puzzle where, if a Knight or Knave cannot answer a yes/no )> question by their truth/lie rules, they remain silent. )> )> )> SaSW, Willem ) ...hmmm....would that also imply that the randomizer could choose to ) "answer" likewise???
No.
SaSW, Willem
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required