Originally posted by iamatigerStill allows more than one answer. I might have pointed to WaveringTown so now I will point to LiarTown, or vica versa.
Sigh:
"Point to a road that I might have seen you point to (comfortably, within your natural inclination to lie or tell the truth or current waver preference) if instead of asking this question I had asked you to point to a road that leads to true town.
In particular, notice the phrase "...I had asked you to point to a road ..." Just one is requested, not two. So I can suggest that it is never the case that I might have pointed to more than one. Which one? I decide.
If instead, you referred to the set of roads I might have pointed to comfortably, or some alternative way to express that same thought, that set still includes TruthTown. I might have. I just would not have. I suffer no discomfort when I lie nor, as far as I know (not having the experience), would I suffer any discomfort if I told the truth. Why would I be uncomfortable, sitting here on a nice sunny day with a straw in my mouth?
My but you are stubborn! 🙂
As far as I know, my solution has none of these problems. I have yet to be convinced of a better solution. But I am open to suggestions. When you want to know the truth, it does not matter who is right. (Richard Feynman).
2 edits
Walking along the road, getting to this person, and knowing the quirky aspects of the inhabitants of this area I ask:
"Sir, I need directions. I will only need you to answer one question for me. However, if instead of this question, I had asked you 'point out any road and any set of roads leading to truth town' which way would you have pointed?"
This is a combination of solutions that forces the traveler to point you to truth town. Thanks to iamatiger for the nested part of the solution to get 2 questions answered at once (negates the need to know the trait of the speaker). Also thanks to finnegan for forcing me to remember set notation and negations.
I think this solution forces liar along this line of logic:
I could have pointed to any combination of roads leading not to truth town, but those would all be true answers...I also could have pointed to any single road that isn't truth town, yet those would be truthful answers as well now... The only way I can lie is to point to truth town.
(lets not get silly and let him point to the sky or something)
Solved?
-Jenn
edit: can he point to all three? sigh...
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganMy goodnes, "could", "might" etc mean all the roads within the liars capability to point if I ask him to pojnt to truth town. You alternatively argue that it is within his capability to point to truth town (which it is not), and that it is not within his capability to point to liar town (which it is).
Still allows more than one answer. I might have pointed to WaveringTown so now I will point to LiarTown, or vica versa.
In particular, notice the phrase "...I had asked you to point to [b] a road ..." Just one is requested, not two. So I can suggest that it is never the case that I might have pointed to more than one. Which one? I decide.
If in ...[text shortened]... estions. When you want to know the truth, it does not matter who is right. (Richard Feynman).[/b]
Originally posted by iamatigerArguably they do not have to "mean all the roads within the liars capability to point if I ask him to point to truth town." They can just mean "all the roads within the liars capability to point" end of.
My goodnes, "could", "might" etc mean all the roads within the liars capability to point if I ask him to pojnt to truth town. You alternatively argue that it is within his capability to point to truth town (which it is not), and that it is not within his capability to point to liar town (which it is).
Here is a plausible sentence for the Liar:
"I could point to any of the three roads. Of these, I could point to TruthTown, but that would be true and I always lie."
Language can mean what you want it to mean, but it can quite correctly mean in addition what you do not want it to mean. It seems wishful to ignore that.
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
Originally posted by finneganThat is a strange meaning of could. If I "could" do something, it usually means things I can actually do. For instance if I have no bread, I would not think that I could make some toast.
Arguably they do not have to "mean all the roads within the liars capability to point if I ask him to point to truth town." They can just mean "all the roads within the liars capability to point" end of.
Here is a plausible sentence for the Liar:
[i] "I could point to any of the three roads. Of these, I could point to TruthTown, ...[text shortened]... rectly mean in addition what you do not want it to mean. It seems wishful to ignore that.
Originally posted by iamatigerI could be a truly amazing chess player but I make too many mistakes and have not put in the hours required.
That is a strange meaning of could. If I "could" do something, it usually means things I can actually do. For instance if I have no bread, I would not think that I could make some toast.
You may disagree with my assertion but that does not make it in-valid or meaningless.
Being "strange" does not make anything false either. Quantum Physics is strange.
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
Originally posted by finneganLets agree to differ on this 🙂
I [b] could be a truly amazing chess player but I make too many mistakes and have not put in the hours required.
You may disagree with my assertion but that does not make it in-valid or meaningless.
Being "strange" does not make anything false either. Quantum Physics is strange.[/b]