Page 1 of 3 [35 Posts] Goto page: 1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
Rogi Ocnorb
Okay, I finally see where the other way is invalid. It falls apart at SHIRLYANNE's statement.

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:18 pm
The Baffled King
Re: Lies, Damn Lies, and Sadistics

 waitingforgo wrote: I eventually muddled through this (thanks to the hints here), but I'm not sure this is solvable unless you make some assumptions about what "lying" is. (I've read many books by Raymond Smullyan, so this is a topic that is close to home.) If I'm understanding correctly, M. is assuming that everything that a liar says is a lie. However, it seems at least as likely that a liar merely needs to lie... in other words, some aspect of their statements are untrue. For example, let's say you know I'm a liar, and I say, "Bob and I were at the store today." Regardless of my statement, there are actually four possible outcomes for Bob and I having been at the store: 1) Bob was at the store. I was at the store. 2) Bob was at the store. I was not at the store. 3) Bob was not at the store. I was at the store. 4) Bob was not at the store. I was not at the store. In only one case -- #1 -- would the statement I made be true. In all other cases, I'm lying; it is not the case that "Bob and I were at the store today" is true.

Yes, exactly.
"Lie" just means "untrue" here, or "not true". So a "liar" can say "A and B", when A is true and B is not true.

 Quote: Similarly, take Subject #5 (Margarette)'s statement: "Francisqui and I are humans." Again, regardless of Margarette's statement, there are only four possibilities: 1) Magrarette is a human. Francisqui is a human. 2) Magrarette is a computer. Francisqui is a human. 3) Magrarette is a human. Francisqui is a computer. 4) Magrarette is a computer. Francisqui is a computer. If we assume that Margarette is a human, then the logic train is clear (#1 is the only possible answer). However, if we assume Margarette is a computer, then it gets muddier; both #2, 3, and 4 would all render Margarette's statement untrue, but I believe for the puzzle to work you need to assume that #4 is reality if you conclude that Margarette is lying.

No, I don't think so -- Margarette lying just means that (1) is out of the question. (Well, of course, it also means (3) is out, because (3) *says* she's human.)

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:06 pm
chico_can
BAH I'm such a moron. I always saw that and figured it was only *part* of the solution, not the *whole* thing.

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:56 pm
Tredegar
Re chico-can

chico_can wrote:
Alright, indexing in a similar fashion to the
 Spoiler (Rollover to View): Crayola Madness

gives us

 Spoiler (Rollover to View): MESKAYSNET

I can't for the life of me wrangle this into the right answer!

You are on the right track.

 Spoiler (Rollover to View): Preforming the alternative Turing Test that M gives you (and answering his question) is vital to your conclusion.

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:54 pm
b0b
chico_can wrote:
Alright, indexing in a similar fashion to the
 Spoiler (Rollover to View): Crayola Madness

gives us

 Spoiler (Rollover to View): MESKAYSNET

I can't for the life of me wrangle this into the right answer!

EDIT: Spolier deleted.

See Tredegar's spoiler below, better way to say what I had originally said here.

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:53 pm
chico_can
Alright, indexing in a similar fashion to the
 Spoiler (Rollover to View): Crayola Madness

gives us

 Spoiler (Rollover to View): MESKAYSNET

I can't for the life of me wrangle this into the right answer!

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:42 pm
Guest
Logic

There is no twisted logic here. M says:

"So in this example, I know for a fact that humans always tell the truth and computers always lie. "

always lie implies that everything that the computers say is a lie. M is not careless, the theorem text is always carefully constructed, o lead you to a specific solution. The specific ways that theorem text are constructed are designed to push you towards the answer.

Don't get hung up on the logic puzzle, it is very simple. It is easy to read a more general statement into what M says in the side text, but it is always very specific.

And for those who have gotten past the names,
 Spoiler (Rollover to View): you are not looking for a cipher, but words hidden within words

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:19 pm
chico_can
ARGH I feel like I'm so close but nothing works!!!!

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:07 pm
Rogi Ocnorb
I'd appreciate it if someone who has a better mind for logic than I do and has also finished the puzzle could work backwards and tell me where I may have gone awry given a final output of "ME SAYS". I keep finding that to be a fine alternate solution; But, since I'm the only one, I must be missing something.

Alternatively, just PM me with the reason the opposite of "As it turns out" is invalid. i.e.: Which step does that fail at?

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:57 pm
scooter22
Re: Computers always lie

chico_can wrote:
Renoroc wrote:
I figure points don't matter much the following day.

The third hint stymies me.
 Spoiler (Rollover to View): I've written out the names of the 6 and 4 into a 100 square grid. None of the diagonals form words or groups of letters that turn into words.

I've looked into different cipher types which may utilize diagonals but I'm still not getting it.

I thought about this too, but there are too many possibilities to do it this way; brute forcing it can't work unless you have a lot of time. By computer maybe it would be simple but I can't find an easy way to do that online (my programming skills have evaporated - I know it would be easy to code but not for me).

This final step me eluded me until the first sentence of the 3rd clue, which reminded me instantly of
 Spoiler (Rollover to View): the Crayola Madness puzzle
whose final step was the same method and then I got it. Make sure to write your
 Spoiler (Rollover to View): 10x10 grid in order (i.e., #1 - NAME, #2-NAME...) first and then note which six are Humans
before trying to solve. Or, do the
 Spoiler (Rollover to View): 10x10 slant cipher first to get your 10 letters and then note which six are humans.

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:42 pm
Renoroc
Computers always lie

I solved it finally. All I can say is:
 Spoiler (Rollover to View): Take care in how you spell SHIRLYANNE or you will be stuck there forever.

Thanks, all!

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:35 pm
BryonW
Re: Computers always lie

After solving it, I realized that I had made a mistake - I somehow got it in my head that there were 4 humans and 6 computers, not the other way around; the description of the solution therefore gave me pause when the "as it turns out..." phrase ended exactly wrong for me. But, as others have mentioned here, as long as you get the two separate groups, the last step is pretty easy...IF you don't overthink it.

 Quote: I've looked into different cipher types which may utilize diagonals but I'm still not getting it.

 Spoiler (Rollover to View): Have you tried using only a subset, rather then all ten?

 Spoiler (Rollover to View): Calling it a 'cipher' is a bit of a stretch, actually.

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:04 pm
chico_can
Re: Computers always lie

Renoroc wrote:
I figure points don't matter much the following day.

The third hint stymies me.
 Spoiler (Rollover to View): I've written out the names of the 6 and 4 into a 100 square grid. None of the diagonals form words or groups of letters that turn into words.

I've looked into different cipher types which may utilize diagonals but I'm still not getting it.

I thought about this too, but there are too many possibilities to do it this way; brute forcing it can't work unless you have a lot of time. By computer maybe it would be simple but I can't find an easy way to do that online (my programming skills have evaporated - I know it would be easy to code but not for me).

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:43 am
Renoroc
Computers always lie

I figure points don't matter much the following day.

The third hint stymies me.
 Spoiler (Rollover to View): I've written out the names of the 6 and 4 into a 100 square grid. None of the diagonals form words or groups of letters that turn into words.

I've looked into different cipher types which may utilize diagonals but I'm still not getting it.

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:39 am
chico_can
Rob0412 wrote:
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.

Thanks Rob, I must have had the list wrong.

Looking through the rest of the posts here, I now have (what I believe to be) the right mix of humans/computers. Still coming out with gobbledygook for the "decrypted" answer though.

Argh!

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:22 am
 Page 1 of 3 [35 Posts] Goto page: 1, 2, 3 Next