Puzzle: The Candy Thief

boing
21

Donald:

  1. I didn’t take the box of candy.
  2. I took the box of candy. That makes me a good businessman.
  3. I didn’t know Vladimir until this year.
8 Likes
22

Too much work, go to your rooms. You’re all grounded.

3 Likes
23

In this case, everyone lies twice and is truthful once. But there is one exception to that rule.

Putin:

  1. I didn’t talk to the russians.
  2. I have no conflicts of interest.
  3. Spicer did it.

Trump:

  1. I didn’t talk to the russians.
  2. I’m rich and I can buy anyone I want.
  3. Conway knows who the crook is.

Bannon:

  1. I didn’t talk to the russians.
  2. I didn’t know Conway until this year.
  3. Spicer did it.

Spicer:

  1. I didn’t talk to the russians.
  2. Conway did it.
  3. Putin is lying when he says I talked to the russians.

Conway:

  1. I didn’t talk to the russians.
  2. Trump is guilty.
  3. Bannon can vouch for me, because he has known me since the Bowling Green massacre 8 years ago.

Here’s the analysis…

[spoiler]Putin: Does talk to Russians (daily), has indeed no conflicts of interest (with Russia), and Spicer didn’t do it.

Trump: Did talk to the Russians, only thinks he can buy anyone he wants, and Conway does indeed know who talked to the Russians.

Bannon: Did talk to the Russians, did know Conway before, and Spicer didn’t do it. OK actually Bannon just lies all the time. But whatever - FAKE LOGIC!

Spicer: Did talk to the Russians, Conway didn’t do it, and Putin actually never said he talked to the Russians.

Conway: Did talk to the Russians, and there wasn’t a Bowling Green massacre. So that just leaves #2. Trump is guilty.

So to conclude, everyone talked to the Russians, Bannon just can’t be trusted, everyone’s usually lying, and Trump’s guilty. Not exactly sure of what, but he’s guilty.
[/spoiler]

7 Likes
24

It’s a strong argument for collective punishment, really.

3 Likes
25

I’m pulling this car over RIGHT NOW!

2 Likes
27

I, too, thought that this problem was a little too easy (noticing from the start that Ivan couldn’t be guilty, and then seeing that the same deduction held for every other kid but one), but I wonder whether this would still be solvable if we had the exact same statements, but gave it the “White Knight who Couldn’t Remember”-treatment from the Raymond Smullyan books.

That style of puzzle (there may be a different name for them) is where you’re missing some pieces of information, but you know the puzzle is solvable. That knowledge allows you to fill in the pieces of information and solve the puzzle.

An example was in the “When Cheryl’s birthday” puzzle that went around a while ago.

I bet that this would still be completely solvable if the last sentence were replaced by something like

“During the trial, it was determined that each child made the same number of false statements as every other child. How many, I can’t recall… but I do remember that this allowed the court to find the little rascal guilty beyond reasonable doubt.”

1 Like
28

Fes. Duh.

29

There was a slightly less complicated version of this puzzle in Borderlands 2 which took a fun few minutes to work out then execute the offender.

1 Like
30

Sylvia has shifty eyes.

1 Like
31

Frank Yankovic, no relation to Weird Al Yankovic.

2 Likes
32

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.