Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

"Are you a liar" won't work. Both True and False Gods answer the same: "No". So it tells you which word is true and false, but not which God is which.

Your third question "Is contestant #2 the random one?"

Again, since you still do not know which God was lying, you have no way to tell whether they're telling the truth on this question. You can either find out who was the liar or the word for true/false in one question, not both.

[GlyphGryph]

"Are you a liar" won't, but "Is 'blart' true?" will, I think, and it's simpler than you more convoluted version. (where 'blart' is whatever their answer is to the last question)

The truthteller will say blart, the liar will say the other answer. Regardless of the truth or falsity of those answers.

Then use the last question to distinguish between the other two using the known factor.

[Reelya]

that's what mine is doing, but packed into a single question:

If i hypothetically asked "question X", would you answer with "phoneme Y"?

Two for the price of one. You have to ask in terms of the God's language because just asking if something is true or false doesn't tell you which answer is which.

[Pnx]

"Are you a liar" won't work. Both True and False Gods answer the same: "No". So it tells you which word is true and false, but not which God is which.

Except of course you know the answer to the question "Is the sky blue" (if we assume the answer really is yes and there isn't any funny business).

[GlyphGryph]

But you have one more question to determine which is which. No need to overcomplicate here.

[Leafsnail]

Except of course you know the answer to the question "Is the sky blue" (if we assume the answer really is yes and there isn't any funny business).

But it looks cooler if you never work out which word is which!

[Reelya]

Hmm maybe, because this is actually an easier version of the standard puzzle, where you don't get to ask a "group" question.

[Criptfeind]

* Criptfeind skips the last six pages and sees people are still talking about the god thing.

Hey. I got a idea. Although excuse me if someone has already pointed out a way this does not work.

Q1: Ask a easy to verify question. Outcome: The random god lies and you now know who the truthful god is/The random god tells the truth and you now know who the lying god is.

Q2: If you know who the truthful god is, pick one of the other two gods and ask truth god if they are the lying god. Yes=That is the lying god. No=That is the random god. If you know who the lying god, pick one of the other two gods and ask lie god if they are the truthful god. Yes=That is the random god. No=That is the truthful god.

That way you should know the identity of the two gods you found out, and the third one must be the unknown god.

[GlyphGryph]

Criptfriend fails on part 1.

You have no wait to tell who's lying.

[Reelya]

One problem is that the God's use their own language and you don't know which of "bloorp" and "blurp" means yes and no. That adds a level to this type of puzzle.

[Frumple]

Hell, they're gods. The intonation or emphasis that distinguishes yes from no in their language could well be outside the register of human hearing. It could all be "blurp", to you.

Or that whole context thing. It'd be fun if the meaning of the word changed based on the order in which they replied. So bloorp would be yes on the first and third sequential responses, while it would be no on the second and fourth (across questions, of course). Stuff like that. Could also be entirely random with the current state only discernible by divine physiology.

That language needs some limitations on it or the puzzle can potentially be functionally unsolvable. By humans, anyway

[Reelya]

If you wiki the original 3 Gods puzzle it's a lot harder than the one here.

[Criptfeind]

Ah. Alright. Then question two must be pushed back to question three. And for the question two you ask the outed god if it said yes. The truthful god will say the same thing again. But the lying god will change it's answer.

[Soadreqm]

The initial problem (the goats and doors problem) is only really tricky if you consider whether the game show person actually chose a random door, or chose one of the two doors with goats. If he doesn't know which door holds the car, then he has a 1/3 chance of opening the door with the car on the first go, meaning if you hold you STILL have a 1/2 chance of getting the car after he finds the goat. If he does know which door holds the car, and always picks the option without the car, then your chances of being correct without switching are still 1/3 and thus changing is probably better.

Are you sure? That seems kind of odd. Again.

1/3 chance: Your first pick was the car, and the host has nothing to choose but goats. Switching loses.
1/3 chance: Your first pick was a goat, and the host also picks a goat. Switching wins.
1/3 chance: Your first pick was a goat, and the host found the car. You have already lost.

But we can rule out scenario #3, so only the first two cases are things that can actually have happened, and they have equal probability.

Huh. ._.

[Reelya]

If the host is able to open the door with the car himself, it removes the big advantage of switch, switching and non-switching become equally valid.

@Soadreqm: i hope your not getting confused by the modified example. In the case where the host is obliged by the rules to reveal one of the losing goats, then you should always switch:

1/3 chance: Your first pick was the car, and the host has nothing to choose but goats. Switching loses.
2/3 chance: Your first pick was a goat, and the host also picks a goat. Switching wins.