Larian Studios Forums General Chat Chat (Anything) Riddles

Raze

>>If conditional questions that can not be answered (thus providing information) with a yes or no do not count as questions

I never said the question doesn't count as question... I said the whole sentence is one question, and not two, as you stated.

"If A and B are different, is A a liar?" <- Is this one question or two?

-> Answer me this question: "If A and B are different?"



<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />



The only really misleading aspect I see is the "yes or no" questions: however, the fact that they are questions that can only be answered by yes or no, doesn't rule out they simply can't be answered.

Compare it to a paradox. Maybe you know this one:


On a card there are 3 statements.

----------------------------------
a. This sentence has five words.
b. This sentence has two verbs.
c. Exactly one sentence on this card is true.
----------------------------------

Question: is statement c true or false?


Do we agree that the question is a "true or false" question? Altering the question a bit, even turns it into a "yes or no" question:

----------------------------------
Question: Is statement c true?
----------------------------------

So there, I've asked a yes or no question. But can you answer it?

don't understand this sentence (2x one). But yes, I'd say one sentence of these 3 is correct => sentence A has 5 words.
Sentence B does not have 2 verbs.
So statement c is true.
Kiya

Exactly one sentence on this card is true?

Errh, correction: Statement c is WRONG: there are 2 correct statements on this cards (A+C) >1 => untrue

Beegee

That's the difference between a story and a (serious) riddle: they don't take place in our universe, they're bound by the rules given. They have their own universe. A monk is not a human being anymore, it's a mere object that lives by the rules of the riddle. Since nobody wants to read a 100-page description of a universe, before even being presented with the problem itself, the universe of a riddle is usually given in only a few lines. Hence, you can "assume" certain basic consequences, given the basic rules. If it is said the monks with a dot have to jump, you have to assume they will jump. You can't assume they would doubt or stall, because then there's no point in giving rules anymore. The result is pure luck (or "guessing"), and a (serious) riddle never has luck or guessing as an answer. Again, that's the point of a riddle, it's purely theoritical, it doesn't have to be credible in the universe as we know it. It's not a story.

I know dozens of riddles that could be "solved" by assuming the "objects" have doubts, use their mobile phone to call for a helicopter, just think by themselves "up yours" or suddenly get super-powers. But what's the point of presenting a problem in a different universe if that's how you're gonna solve it?

You're possibly not convinced by that little speach <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> but let's just wrap it up like this: if you're figuring out an answer to a riddle, and your answer involves luck or guessing, you can be pretty sure you're wrong. That's the way riddles work. But it doesn't mean you have to like it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

See, that's what I mean with the paradox:

If C is true, then we have the following situation: A is true, B is false, and C is true. However, in this situation we have two sentences that are true. Since C says "there is exactly one sentence true", statement C can't be true.

So C is false? Suppose C is false, that would mean there is more than one (or none) sentences true. We now have the situation: A is true, B is false, C is false. However, in this situation there is exactly one statement on the card that is true. Hence, statement C can't be false.

Paradox: C is neither true or false. There is simply no way to answer the question. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" />

Whops, typo. Corrected it. If that caused the confusion, I'm truly sorry <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shame.gif" alt="" />

[color:"orange"]I never said the question doesn't count as question... I said the whole sentence is one question, and not two, as you stated.

"If A and B are different, is A a liar?" <- Is this one question or two?[/color]

That conditional question can be broken down into two separate questions that provide the same information (except the liar is not prevented from answering if the condition is not true);

'Are A and B different?' / 'Is A a liar?'

These could be better phrased such as;

"If I asked you 'does A tell the truth?', would you say yes?'

so that a liar and a truth teller would answer the same way.


[color:"orange"]-> Answer me this question: "If A and B are different?"[/color]

The fact that the condition is not phrased as a question doesn't change the fact that you can link several questions into one by using a conditional question. The example I gave (asking a question about a question) is valid, IMNSHO, since it is a straight yes/no question, rather than yes/no/'your condition is not true' and gives you one piece of information, rather than one or two (with the first impossible to lie about).


[color:"orange"]The only really misleading aspect I see is the "yes or no" questions: however, the fact that they are questions that can only be answered by yes or no, doesn't rule out they simply can't be answered.[/color]

Then why the methodical reasoning on the two guards / two doors riddle? Why not just ask;
'if the door on the right leads to paradise, is red your favourite colour?'
That would simplify the explanation, since you would not have to follow the logic of asking which door the other guard would point to, depending on whether you were talking to the liar or the truth teller.


[color:"orange"]Compare it to a paradox.[/color]

Why? It is not a paradox. It is a question of semantics; what counts as a valid yes/no question and if it is legitimate to phrase a question so that the inability to answer with yes or no still provides you with information the same as a yes/no question would (actually better, since a liar can not answer if a condition is false) and being able to answer gives you two pieces of information (confirming the condition and answering the question).

I understand your reasoning. And you're right. I also agree it isn't a paradox, and it is a matter of semantics.

The part where we disagree is that I consider the question as one question, and you as two questions, right?

I agree that the conditional part in the question, provides more information than a basic yes or no question. But, if we don't consider the people who're bound by rules when they answer it, and just look at the question itself: it still has only two possible answers: yes or no. You can't consider no answer as an answer, despite the fact that we would learn from it. Not an answer is not an answer. If not an answer were an answer, then it would be an answer. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> Two opposite things can't be the same at the same time. So, the question only has two possible answers: yes and no.
I'm not sure why I'm writing that, since it's not really to the point, but it sounds good, so I'll leave it there.

Now, why do I disagree that it is really two questions? Because I don't think that because you can learn more from it than you can from an elementary yes/no question, that this means the question isn't still a yes/no question. The second part of the question, is entirely connected to the first part. They're only half questions if you'd ask them seperately (you could ask them seperately, but they wouldn't be the same questions then). One can't do without the other, they're one whole. You can tear them apart into two seperate questions, but you'd have to change the questions: then you're proving your point with different questions. You're saying they are two questions, but you prove it with other questions...

That's how I see it. Semantics, I suppose. I guess it's like taste. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

The reasons why I posted that paradox:
- To show that a yes/no question is still a yes/no question, which only has two possible answers (yes and no), EVEN if the answer can't be given. But the fact that you can't answer it (or, in the riddle, that you learn more than yes or no), doesn't mean it's not a yes or no question anymore. But I realize that wasn't your point. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
- I wanted to post that paradox anyway <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


PS: I saw the part about glutton for punishment <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />
At least it's a change from another Iraq discussion <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

"The part where we disagree is that I consider the question as one question, and you as two questions, right?"

It is one question (though functionally equivalent to two separate questions), but IMO not a valid yes/no question. I still don't see why a liar could not answer if the condition was not met; would that make the answer less of a lie?


"You can't consider no answer as an answer"

It is an answer, though. In this case the question was specifically designed to ensure that.


"The second part of the question, is entirely connected to the first part."

No it isn't. A and B can be the same or different, completely independent of whether A tells the truth or not.


"The reasons why I posted that paradox:"

That is an interesting paradox, but you don't need a paradox to ask a question that can not be answered with a yes or no. ...
Yes, or no; have you stopped beating your spouse/mate/partner yet?
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />


"PS: I saw the part about glutton for punishment"

I realized after the fact it was rather silly to ask about the two guard/door riddle, then say it was pointless to continue the discussion (unless you were a glutton for punishment {to put that in context}), even if just teasing you about being wrong.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

Because a liar wouldn't be a liar if he spoke the truth. Given the condition isn't met, his answer could be either true or false. No matter what he'd answer, there's a chance he'd tell the truth. But since he can NEVER tell the truth, he just can't answer it.


It is designed for us to draw a conclusion if the person who's supposed to answer it, can't answer the question. Maybe it's just a matter of perspective: from the person's point of view, he can't answer it. If he did answer, he could contradict his own characteristic of being a liar/truthteller, so giving an answer is not an option. So he doesn't give an answer.
From our point of view, we could consider his inability to give an answer, as an answer though. We learn from it, and if you consider any kind of feedback as an "answer", then yes, it's an answer. But I don't see a "no answer" as an answer.
Suppose I'm only allowed to ask you a yes/no question. You have to lie. I ask you "Am I showing two fingers?" and I hide them behind my back, so you can't see them.
You can't answer it because you may only answer with yes or no, and either way, you could be telling the truth.
Do you consider your inability to answer as an answer as well? I think the fact that in this case I don't learn anything from your inability to answer, is irrelevant. At least, from your point of view (the liar), it is irrelevant.


But the answer is different (if asked seperately), how can the question be the same?


I know I didn't have to, but I wanted to. So I did. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />


I don't feel teased yet <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> Or wrong <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> But do keep trying! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Ahh... Paradoxical fun!

A barber shaves everyone in town that does not shave themself. Does the barber shave himself?

Another riddle which can be answered:

A man is in a helicopter. It is running low on fuel. It is extremely foggy with only about 20 meters visibility. He is next to a building where someone is working. The pilot writes a sign "Where am I?" The office worker replies "In a helicopter." With that, the helicopter pilot knew how to return to the airfield where he landed safely.

How did he do it?

"Because a liar wouldn't be a liar if he spoke the truth. Given the condition isn't met, his answer could be either true or false. No matter what he'd answer, there's a chance he'd tell the truth."

The condition not being met does not magically change the facts, though. Suppose;
A=T B=T C=L D=L

Ask D "if A and B are different, is A a truth-teller?"

A and B are not different, but asking the question does not change who is a liar and who tells the truth. If D replies 'no' it is still a lie.
If you want to say the condition then makes it a hypothetical situation different from reality if the condition is not met, then what is to prevent the question from applying to a hypothetical situation differing from reality when it is met?


In the case of being asked if someone is holding up two fingers behind their back, you do not know the truth, so can not definitely answer yes or no (information the asker already had), and the inability to answer is not an answer.
In the riddle, the inability to answer the conditional question truthfully answers the question 'are A and B different?'.

Speaking of which, lets say A and B both tell the truth, but A is a male 250lb football player and B is a female 90lb office manager. Now you ask D 'If A and B are different...' .....


"But the answer is different (if asked seperately), how can the question be the same?"

Functionally, you can phrase two separate questions to get the exact same information.


"I don't feel teased yet <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> Or wrong <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> But do keep trying! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> "

The reason you didn't realize you were being teased is because you are still in a delusional state believing you are right about the riddle.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />



The helicopter riddle;
[color:"#3A495A"]The information was 100% accurate, yet completely useless, so the pilot knew he was outside Microsoft's support building, and thus where the airport was relative to his current location.[/color] <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

the building has the airfield? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Yup! A silly one, but I tought it was necessary. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I think Kejero's riddle has a technical flaw. I do like and support Kejero's answer, but I agree with Raze that a liar can answer falsly to the question if A and B are different.

Now why do I have the feeling the "infinite loop A, B, C, D" entered this thread? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />
Kiya

"the building has the airfield?"

No, but if the building is 20 miles south of the airport, and you know you are at the building, you just need to fly 20 miles north to get to the airport.


"I do like and support Kejero's answer"

That defective riddle stole an hour of my life I'll never get back!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/memad.gif" alt="" />


"Now why do I have the feeling the "infinite loop A, B, C, D" entered this thread?"

Because Kejero is using flawed logic? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

And how long have you been arguing your point? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shhh.gif" alt="" /> HEF; Raze wants to argue back this hour <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" />
Kiya

The riddle was an exercise in futility, trying to come up with two valid yes/no questions that could be used to extrapolate more information than was readily apparent. Several attempts to link questions to reveal information about more than one person turned out to be inadequate, reducing to the equivalent of two separate, direct questions.

However, an argument (especially when you are clearly winning) can be enjoyable (at least for a time, winning this easily should start to get boring soon). <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

I know. Friendly arguments can be fun. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Hey, you haven't won yet <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

You're right: the facts aren't magically changed. But I believe you're still missing the influence the condition has on the question itself. Actually, it's more than a little difference: it has a huge impact. Let's go abstract <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/freak.gif" alt="" />

Suppose: A=T B=T C=L D=L

The facts are that A and B are the same. And D always lies. That is the reality. And you're right: these are facts. Can't change them.

Even if I ask "if A and B are different", in reality A and B are still the same. And D is still a liar.
True.

In this reality.

However: I'm asking "is A a truth-teller, supposing that A and B are different?". What does that condition change?

It doesn't change the fact that D knows, that in this reality A is a truth-teller.

But, A and B aren't different in this reality, so what I'm asking is if "A is a truth-teller" in another reality:

a reality where A and B are different. A parallel universe if you want. And there is simply no way for D to know anything about that other reality: in that reality A could be a liar as well as a truth-teller.

Hence, if D says that in that reality A is a liar, he's only guessing: he could be wrong and he could be right.

However, it is stated that he ALWAYS lies, so guessing is not allowed. He doesn't know anything about the "parallel universe" I'm asking about, so he can't lie about it.

That's the difference: if the condition isn't met, I'm not asking about the actual situation anymore. This reality has nothing to do with my question.




It was stated that in my answer to this riddle, "the same" means both liars or both truth-tellers. Similar for "different" - read the answer to the riddle again, cause I'm sensing a flaw in your argumentation <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />



I guess in some other reality, you've proven me wrong, but not in this one <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[edit]Little typo and flaw in my own argumentation. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />
Whew <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shhh.gif" alt="" />