RE: Intelligence test
September 8, 2015 at 10:30 pm
(This post was last modified: September 8, 2015 at 10:34 pm by Alex K.)
(September 8, 2015 at 10:26 pm)Losty Wrote:(September 8, 2015 at 9:44 pm)Alex K Wrote: Now, if "one of us" is read as "at least one of us" it gets more interesting.
TT is again contradicted by statement 1
TL is contradicted by the negation of statement 2 (none of us tells the truth)
LT is contradicted by the negation of statement 1 (none of us tell lies)
LL is again contradicted by the negation of statement 1 (none of us tell lies).
Under "at least one of us", why can't statement one and two be true at the same time?
If both always told the truth, we'd have to believe the first guy, who claims that one of them always lies. This contradicts the original assumption that both tell the truth
Edit: I indeed assume an "in this conversation, consistently", which is not written but traditionally assumed in such Paradoxes which have a long tradition going back to ancient Greece (The lying guy from Crete comes to mind). If we drop this restriction, the problem tends to become simply undeterminable from the existing information.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
