[waitingforgo]

Lies, Damn Lies, and Sadistics

[scooter22]

Re: Computers always lie

[Renoroc]

 Computers always lie

[Doctroid]

Re: Computers always lie

[Rob0412]

chico_can wrote:

I'm still stuck on the last part - I can't understand what to do ... Spoiler (Rollover to View): What is the "slanty" cipher/technique?

A synonym for "slant" is...

Spoiler (Rollover to View):

"diagonal". Look for a cipher/technique that has a diagonal variant.

[Renoroc]

Computers always lie

[Doctroid]

cgeorg wrote:

I believe I have the right list of names... I now have no idea what to do with any of them. Any hints on the next/last step?

Spoiler (Rollover to View):

As hint 3 indicates, you need to use the numbers corresponding to the list of names to index into... something. Something with (at least) 10 letters, obviously. Each name has 10 letters but there's no preferred name and none of them work anyway.

Need more?

Spoiler (Rollover to View):

There are 10 names so you could try the first letter of each name, or the last, or the third, or... but those don't work either. But at that point you'd be really close to discovering the correct method. Check hint 3 again. And don't do what I did and mis-transcribe the names, or you'll think the correct method is wrong because it's yielding nonsense.

[Doctroid]

Quote:

If you've found the correct solution to the logic puzzle... Spoiler (Rollover to View): ...then you've found the alternate solution. Just invert it. I did as M suggested in the solution text, and the "As it turns out..." is incorrect. The 6/4 split is the only thing that indicates which is the correct solution. That, and the next part of the puzzle doesn't work.

That's not a solution, because it doesn't have the correct numbers of computers and humans. It satisfies the logic statements but not the full statement of the puzzle.

[cgeorg]

I believe I have the right list of names... I now have no idea what to do with any of them. Any hints on the next/last step?

[The Baffled King]

Rob0412 wrote:

If you've found the correct solution to the logic puzzle... Spoiler (Rollover to View): ...then you've found the alternate solution. Just invert it. I did as M suggested in the solution text, and the "As it turns out..." is incorrect. The 6/4 split is the only thing that indicates which is the correct solution. That, and the next part of the puzzle doesn't work.

Well, that's not a legal solution. (But I see what you mean about M's little phrase on the solution page being incorrect. Good point, but that's a flaw in his gloss, not a flaw in the puzzle.)

I worked on it a little more and I'm satisfied that there is only one solution consistent with the stated constraints.

[chico_can]

I'm still stuck on the last part - I can't understand what to do ...

Spoiler (Rollover to View):

What is the "slanty" cipher/technique?

[Rob0412]

The Baffled King wrote:

Thomfabian wrote: A few hints in case anyone is stuck Spoiler (Rollover to View): Any time one entity refers to another entity as a human those two entities have to be the same (human or computer), and the reverse is true. Any time one calls another a computer they must be different This is a nice point, but actually I think it's not clear that it's correct. For example, take Margarette's statement, "Francisqui and I are humans." Now, Spoiler (Rollover to View): I can see why Thomfabian says we can conclude that Francisqui and Margarette are the same type, but in fact it's possible that Margarette is a computer and Francisqui is a human. Because the statement is a conjunction, it is made false by the falsity of the first conjunct. Thomfabian's rule would be correct if Margarette asserted each conjunct separately. There's a similar defect in the next rule/hint: Spoiler (Rollover to View): Any time one entity refers to more than one other entity as the same thing, they must be alike Very disappointing, because the rules are almost right and they are very elegant. I adopted puzzler's trick of using the fact that there is supposed to be exactly one solution. I did hit fairly quickly on the intended solution. But because the logical compounds make the problem trickier than it looks, I do wonder whether there is another, unintended solution. I might work on this later -- but Rogi Ocnorb post the alternative? Or is that not allowed in this forum? My assessment: relatively easy puzzle, but still fun.

If you've found the correct solution to the logic puzzle...

Spoiler (Rollover to View):

...then you've found the alternate solution. Just invert it. I did as M suggested in the solution text, and the "As it turns out..." is incorrect. The 6/4 split is the only thing that indicates which is the correct solution. That, and the next part of the puzzle doesn't work.

[The Baffled King]

Thomfabian wrote:

A few hints in case anyone is stuck Spoiler (Rollover to View): Any time one entity refers to another entity as a human those two entities have to be the same (human or computer), and the reverse is true. Any time one calls another a computer they must be different

This is a nice point, but actually I think it's not clear that it's correct. For example, take Margarette's statement, "Francisqui and I are humans."

Now,

Spoiler (Rollover to View):

I can see why Thomfabian says we can conclude that Francisqui and Margarette are the same type, but in fact it's possible that Margarette is a computer and Francisqui is a human. Because the statement is a conjunction, it is made false by the falsity of the first conjunct. Thomfabian's rule would be correct if Margarette asserted each conjunct separately.

There's a similar defect in the next rule/hint:

Spoiler (Rollover to View):

Any time one entity refers to more than one other entity as the same thing, they must be alike

Very disappointing, because the rules are almost right and they are very elegant.

I adopted puzzler's trick of using the fact that there is supposed to be exactly one solution. I did hit fairly quickly on the intended solution. But because the logical compounds make the problem trickier than it looks, I do wonder whether there is another, unintended solution. I might work on this later -- but Rogi Ocnorb post the alternative? Or is that not allowed in this forum?

My assessment: relatively easy puzzle, but still fun.

[Rogi Ocnorb]

Doctroid wrote:

Rogi Ocnorb wrote: Any body else find multiple ways to do the logic part? I did and one of the other way s comes out to a phrase. (That doesn't work) No, and I convinced myself there was only one solution. Are you sure of both of yours?

Both ways seem equally valid. But then again, There's no way I could ever solve it in the 1-2 minutes the fastest solvers did, so maybe I'm missing something.

The explanation of the solution makes a statement beginning, "As it turns out...". The "other way" proves that to be untrue.

[jonnois]

I got it not knowing who was human or not using Thomfabian's last clue "A hint about finding the final answer:"