Intelligence test

[Faith No More]

The OP sounds like a garbled and not well thought out version of this old nut shell:

You are faced with two doors.  One leads to death, the other to freedom.  You must choose a door.  Outside the doors stand two guards.  One guard always tells the truth, the other always lies.  You don't know which guard is which.  You are allowed a single question to a single guard.  What should you ask?

---

You should ask:  

If I asked the other guard which is the door to freedom, what would he say?

If you asked that question of the guard who always lies, he would point to the door that leads to death.
If you asked that question of the guard who always tells the truth, he would also point to the door that leads to death.  Then you could pick the other door and escape.

---

There's another solution:

---

If I were to ask you which is the door that leads to freedom which door would you point to?

Obviously, the guard who always tells the truth would point to the door that leads to freedom.  But because the question is phrased as what would you say, the guard who always tells lies would have to point at the the door that leads to freedom too as that is the only way to lie about what he would say if asked.

---

Did you not watch my video? Jim Henson did a great demonstration of it in Labyrinth.

[robvalue]

I realized I misread the opening post so I guess I failed after all.

I don't know anything, except these brothers are weird. What did I do to deserve this?

[Exian]

Ask any question you feel you need to pertaining to the question.


Which one lies, and which one tells the truth?

I've got it! But I need to know one thing. My question is:

Which one lies, and which one tells the truth?

[JesusHChrist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox

Thomas Fowler (1869) states the paradox as follows: "Epimenides the Cretan says, 'that all the Cretans are liars,' but Epimenides is himself a Cretan; therefore he is himself a liar. But if he be a liar, what he says is untrue, and consequently the Cretans are veracious; but Epimenides is a Cretan, and therefore what he says is true; saying the Cretans are liars, Epimenides is himself a liar, and what he says is untrue. Thus we may go on alternately proving that Epimenides and the Cretans are truthful and untruthful."[1]

The Epimenides paradox in this form can however be solved. A paradox only results when the statement is assumed to be true. Namely, if the statement "all Cretans are liars" (stated by Epimenides, himself a Cretan) is true, then Epimenides, being a Cretan, would be a liar; making the assumption that liars only make false statements, the statement should be false. So assuming the statement is true leads us to conclude that the statement is false and cannot be accepted, therefore it must be true, continuing in a self-referential paradox.

Brain hurts. Owww! Smrt peple suk. Hate them sew much.

[Knight000]

The solution to the riddle is that any answer was correct, whether you picked either man and said either he told the truth or lies.

I understand that this was a rather lamely worded, and overall bad riddle. I am indeed still getting used to actual philosophical debate.

I'm glad, though, that I got some of you to stop giving me snide remarks and actually look at the question. (Even though to you probably didn't have to look at it more than once).

Forgive me, oh holy philosophers, for I am only a freshman.

[I_am_not_mafia]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox

Thomas Fowler (1869) states the paradox as follows: "Epimenides the Cretan says, 'that all the Cretans are liars,' but Epimenides is himself a Cretan; therefore he is himself a liar. But if he be a liar, what he says is untrue, and consequently the Cretans are veracious; but Epimenides is a Cretan, and therefore what he says is true; saying the Cretans are liars, Epimenides is himself a liar, and what he says is untrue. Thus we may go on alternately proving that Epimenides and the Cretans are truthful and untruthful."[1]

The Epimenides paradox in this form can however be solved. A paradox only results when the statement is assumed to be true. Namely, if the statement "all Cretans are liars" (stated by Epimenides, himself a Cretan) is true, then Epimenides, being a Cretan, would be a liar; making the assumption that liars only make false statements, the statement should be false. So assuming the statement is true leads us to conclude that the statement is false and cannot be accepted, therefore it must be true, continuing in a self-referential paradox.

Brain hurts. Owww! Smrt peple suk. Hate them sew much.

Similar to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grelling%E...on_paradox

Heterological and Autological, words that do not describe themselves and words that do.

[Alex K]

The solution to the riddle is that any answer was correct, whether you picked either man and said either he told the truth or lies.

I understand that this was a rather lamely worded, and overall bad riddle. I am indeed still getting used to actual philosophical debate.

I'm glad, though, that I got some of you to stop giving me snide remarks and actually look at the question. (Even though to you probably didn't have to look at it more than once).

Forgive me, oh holy philosophers, for I am only a freshman.

Can you clarify the wording now?

[Knight000]

The solution to the riddle is that any answer was correct, whether you picked either man and said either he told the truth or lies.

I understand that this was a rather lamely worded, and overall bad riddle. I am indeed still getting used to actual philosophical debate.

I'm glad, though, that I got some of you to stop giving me snide remarks and actually look at the question. (Even though to you probably didn't have to look at it more than once).

Forgive me, oh holy philosophers, for I am only a freshman.

Can you clarify the wording now?

I tried to make it as simple as possible, but I suppose I could clarify it even more.

Actually, upon retrospect, stripping it of any more wording would in fact change the outcome, so I can't, sorry.

But I will tell you how I worked a weasel through this twisty test.

First man points to second and says one of us lies, the other says and one of us tells the truth.

Man one states an undeniable fact. Through this the obvious conclusion is that they both are inherent liars, but we can humor them for a second and take both sentences as true, because we know that first has told a truth. But we also know that through telling you that second man has told a truth by saying "And one of us tells the truth". So, we can then decide that both of them are telling the truth. But one of them tells lies! You say in your mind. Well, if he is telling the truth about the true fact, he must be being truthful about lying, making the second man a liar. So indeed, the second man is a liar. But if he is a liar, he then lies about the first man telling the truth? And through this evidence you can conclude, both of them lie and tell the truth.

You can also tell because no human can tell only lies or only truths.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The only question needed to be asked (and it doesn't matter which brother you ask) is:

'Would you like to tell me which of you is which, or would you rather see the colour of your kidneys?'

Boru

[Brian37]

The question which remains is now - did the poster understand the implications of their own riddle?

The same delusional way I'd like a blowjob from Angelina Jolie. Difference is I know that won't happen.