• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Logic Puzzles

Unknown Soldier

Banned
Banned
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
1,541
Location
Williamsport, PA
Basic Beliefs
Truth Seeker
Suppose you visit a palace. Before you enter the throne room you are told that either the prince or the queen will be there. If the queen is there, then the regent will be there. If the prince is there, then the regent will be there. Of the three, who is sure to be in the throne room?

Suppose you visit a palace. Before you enter the throne room you are told that either the prince or the queen will be there. If the queen is there, then the satrap will be there. If the prince is there, then the regent will be there. Aside from the queen or the prince, which two people might be in the throne room?

Suppose you visit a palace. Before you enter the throne room you are told that if the prince is there, then the queen will be be there. Can you be sure that you won't see the prince there without the queen?

Suppose you know that if anything is a frog, then it is green, and if anything is green, then it hops. What else can you then say about anything?
 
Keping with degree of difficulty in the OP.

A plabe crashes on the border between two countries. All are killed. Where are the survivers burried?

A puzzle I heard when I was about 10 yearss old.
 
Keping with degree of difficulty in the OP.

A plabe crashes on the border between two countries. All are killed. Where are the survivers burried?

A puzzle I heard when I was about 10 yearss old.
Hopefully in the countries they came from.
 
Keping with degree of difficulty in the OP.

A plabe crashes on the border between two countries. All are killed. Where are the survivers burried?

A puzzle I heard when I was about 10 yearss old.
Hopefully in the countries they came from.
uhhhh...if they all died so how could there be surivors to be buried?
 
Keping with degree of difficulty in the OP.

A plabe crashes on the border between two countries. All are killed. Where are the survivers burried?

A puzzle I heard when I was about 10 yearss old.
Hopefully in the countries they came from.
uhhhh...if they all died so how could there be surivors to be buried?
Everybody dies.
Says who?
Says entropy.
 
Keping with degree of difficulty in the OP.

A plabe crashes on the border between two countries. All are killed. Where are the survivers burried?

A puzzle I heard when I was about 10 yearss old.
Hopefully in the countries they came from.
uhhhh...if they all died so how could there be surivors to be buried?
Everybody dies.
Says who?
Says entropy.
Who dat?
 
Suppose you visit a palace. Before you enter the throne room you are told that either the prince or the queen will be there. If the queen is there, then the regent will be there. If the prince is there, then the regent will be there. Of the three, who is sure to be in the throne room?
All these puzzles I was afraid were too easy. But I evidently I need to offer some help!

So you know that either the prince or the queen will be in the throne room. In either case, who will also be there?
 

Puzzle: Who murdered Fyodor Karamazov?​


I've composed a wide variety of logic puzzles off-and-on for several decades. Mostly for fun, but Dell Logic Puzzles paid me $100-$125 for very difficult puzzles. Here's one I composed two years ago for this message board! ... Getting only one solution and minimal applause I'll repost it. :cool:


In a certain district of Russia, many of the men are members of either the Cult of Knights or the Cult of Knaves. The Knights utter only true statements; the Knaves only false. Even when guilty of a crime they are, strangely, bound by this code.

A few years ago, Chief Inspector Plato was called upon to solve some crimes in that province, and usually was able to test guilt by asking
"If Someone of your cult was witness to this crime and I asked him if you were guilty, would he say Yes?"

He had trained the local police about this technique, and was seldom called to help anymore. He could spend much of his time contemplating how to attract interest from the lovely Anastasia. But today he was called in urgently. One of the notables had died in suspicious circumstances.

The local citizenry had adopted a counter-measure to inquisitive police: they would ignore the questions asked and just make arbitrary statements that happened to be True (if they were Knights) or False (if they were Knaves). This created a lot of extra work for the detectives but they had workarounds. For starters they often water-boarded the suspects for a while, then asked whether they wanted the torture to stop. This separated the Knights from the Knaves very easily! But they couldn't do that with the Chief Inspector in town!

Anyway, C.I. Plato was surprised that he was called on to attend an inquest. And he had mixed feelings when he learned that it was the death of Fyodor Karamazov that was being investigated.

You see, Fyodor was neither a Knight nor a Knave, but a Knucklehead: He always spoke two sentences at a time, with exactly one of the sentences (either the 1st or the 2nd) true and the other sentence false. Although it was disrespectful to say so aloud, Plato was somewhat relieved that Fyodor was the deceased: the times he had questioned this old man got very confusing. But now it was Fyodor's murder that was under investigation.

Or was he even murdered? The local police had determined that Fyodor's three sons were all present at the death and all knew exactly what had happened. Either one, or two, or all three had participated in the murder of their father. Or maybe it was an accident, and all three were innocent. There was nothing whatsoever to go on; the butler had blundered and cleaned up all the material evidence.

Plato prepared to question the three brothers. "Which are knaves and which are knights?", he asked. The local police became apologetic. "Nobody knows, they kept to themselves all these years. And — sorry about this Chief Inspector — it's very possible that one or more of them are Knuckleheads like their father. At least we're sure that each brother is in one of the three cults. And of course the brothers know which cult each of their brothers are in."

What The F**k, Plato thought to himself in Russian, as he prepared his questions.
"Did you kill your father?", Plato suddenly yelled at Dmitri, hoping to take him by surprise.

Dmitri answered
  • (1) Exactly one of us three brothers is guilty of the old man's murder.
  • (2) Exactly one of us three brothers is a Knucklehead.
Plato couldn't make much of this. How many Knuckleheads were there? What if they are all Knuckleheads, he groaned. Great, thought Plato, just great. He tried again, shouting the same question at Ivan.

Ivan answered
  • (3) Exactly two of us three brothers are guilty of the old man's murder.
  • (4) Exactly one of us three brothers is a Knight.
Without being prompted, Alexei chimed in.
  • (5) I am not guilty of my father's death.
  • (6) None of us three are Knuckleheads.
It was Dmitri's turn again. He said
  • (7) None of us three are Knights.
  • (8) Papa had a mole on his left ankle.
"Go check the body for moles," said Plato decisively. "Fyodor has already been cremated" was the sheepish reply. On inquiry it turned out that nobody except for the sons had ever seen the old man with his boots off, even when he was taking comfort at the local brothel.

"Are you guilty of your father's death, Ivan? A simple yes or no, please."
  • (9) No, I am not guilty.
  • (10) Papa had a mole on his right ankle.
By now the Chief Inspector was whimpering. "Can you help me, Alexei?" That brother answered
  • (11) Exactly one of us three brothers is a Knave.
  • (12) There are exactly two true statements among (1), (7) and (10).
Now we might be getting somewhere, thought Plato. They're beginning to slip. But just then the Karamazov attorney showed up, telling his clients to shut up. And they'd all be leaving the next morning on a train to Paris if C.I. Plato couldn't crack the case by dawn.

Can you help? Which, if any, of the brothers killed their father? Which cults are they in, anyway?
 
Suppose you visit a palace. Before you enter the throne room you are told that either the prince or the queen will be there. If the queen is there, then the regent will be there. If the prince is there, then the regent will be there. Of the three, who is sure to be in the throne room?
All these puzzles I was afraid were too easy. But I evidently I need to offer some help!

So you know that either the prince or the queen will be in the throne room. In either case, who will also be there?
I give up, I am stumped.
 
Suppose you visit a palace. Before you enter the throne room you are told that either the prince or the queen will be there. If the queen is there, then the regent will be there. If the prince is there, then the regent will be there. Of the three, who is sure to be in the throne room?
All these puzzles I was afraid were too easy. But I evidently I need to offer some help!

So you know that either the prince or the queen will be in the throne room. In either case, who will also be there?

Ooh! Ooh Ooh! Pick me! Pick me!!!
 
If you insist.

Suppose you visit a palace. Before you enter the throne room you are told that either the prince or the queen will be there. If the queen is there, then the regent will be there. If the prince is there, then the regent will be there. Of the three, who is sure to be in the throne room?

if q || p then r, regent is present in both cases.

Suppose you know that if anything is a frog, then it is green, and if anything is green, then it hops. What else can you then say about anything?

Within the logical bounds of the statement nothing else can be said. Unless you are playing semantics with the word anything.

P1 A frog is green
P2 Anything green hops
C1 Frogs hop

Suppose you visit a palace. Before you enter the throne room you are told that if the prince is there, then the queen will be be there. Can you be sure that you won't see the prince there without the queen?

It all depends on the truth of the premise. If the premise is true, if p then q, then the conclusion is true. That is if by the last statement you mean only in the room. If by the last statement you mean anywhere outside the room, then you can't be sure.


Suppose you visit a palace. Before you enter the throne room you are told that either the prince or the queen will be there. If the queen is there, then the satrap will be there. If the prince is there, then the regent will be there. Aside from the queen or the prince, which two people might be in the throne room?

‘either the prince or the queen’ indictes mutual exclusion, one of the other but not both. Then the only other ones who ‘might’ be there are the regent and satrap. Or depending on how others is interpreted any two people might be there.
 
Last edited:
If you insist.

Suppose you visit a palace. Before you enter the throne room you are told that either the prince or the queen will be there. If the queen is there, then the regent will be there. If the prince is there, then the regent will be there. Of the three, who is sure to be in the throne room?

if q || p then r, regent is present in both cases.
That's right, but you still need to conclude who must be in the throne room.
Suppose you know that if anything is a frog, then it is green, and if anything is green, then it hops. What else can you then say about anything?

Within the logical bounds of the statement nothing else can be said. Unless you are playing semantics with the word anything.

P1 A frog is green
P2 Anything green hops
C1 Frogs hop
The puzzle is transitive in that it "connects" anything that is a frog with anything that hops. The phrase "then it is green, and if anything is green" does the connecting. You might think of the puzzle as a telescope that can be closed to have the eyepiece at one end and the objective lens at the other end.
Suppose you visit a palace. Before you enter the throne room you are told that if the prince is there, then the queen will be be there. Can you be sure that you won't see the prince there without the queen?

It all depends on the truth of the premise.
The premises in any argument are assumed to be true. So assume that the statement "if the prince is there, then the queen will be be there" is true.
If the premise is true, if p then q, then the conclusion is true.
What is your conclusion? Can the prince be in the throne room without the queen?
That is if by the last statement you mean only in the room. If by the last statement you mean anywhere outside the room, then you can't be sure.
Just try to determine based on assuming "if the prince is there, then the queen will be be there" if the prince can be there without the queen.

Hint: These two statements are logically equivalent:
  1. If P, then Q.
  2. It is not true that P is true while Q is false.
Suppose you visit a palace. Before you enter the throne room you are told that either the prince or the queen will be there. If the queen is there, then the satrap will be there. If the prince is there, then the regent will be there. Aside from the queen or the prince, which two people might be in the throne room?

‘either the prince or the queen’ indictes mutual exclusion, one of the other but not both.
No. The phrase "either the prince or the queen will be in the throne room" is an inclusive or in that both the prince and the queen can be in the throne room. But in this puzzle it doesn't matter if the or is inclusive or exclusive.
Then the only other ones who ‘might’ be there are the regent and satrap.
That is correct! The fourth puzzle is solved.
 
Yawn.

My conclusion? Too obvious to state.

If it is dark outside turn on the light, only if the light switch is off. For a digilal system derive a Boolean expression for this simple system.

I was never much for contrived puzzles. I had plenty of real logical puzzles to solve.

The puzzle is transitive in that it "connects" anything that is a frog with anything that hops. The phrase "then it is green, and if anything is green" does the connecting. You might think of the puzzle as a telescope that can be closed to have the eyepiece at one end and the objective lens at the other end.

Interpretation of informal logic. The logic of the argument says frogs hop.


If a = b and b = c then a = c. Fundamental when applying logic. Yes, transitive. Informally expressed it connects a to c, but it infers nothing about a.

If a rock is 100 degrees and a car is the same temperature as the rock and a bowling ball is the same temperature as the car then the bowling ball is 100 degrees. What can b said about the rock based soley on the equivalence? Nothing.

In practice the principle is more important then you might think.

Suppose you know that if anything is a frog, then it is green, and if anything is green, then it hops. What else can you then say about anything?

Again sementics and the word anything. It is redundant logically. If all frogs are green and that which is green hops then frogs hop.

Not all frogs are green, so the first premise is false. The conclusion is then false.
 
Yawn.

My conclusion? Too obvious to state.

If it is dark outside turn on the light, only if the light switch is off. For a digilal system derive a Boolean expression for this simple system.

I was never much for contrived puzzles. I had plenty of real logical puzzles to solve.
Please be civil. I've been respectful to you, and I expect the same treatment in return.
The puzzle is transitive in that it "connects" anything that is a frog with anything that hops. The phrase "then it is green, and if anything is green" does the connecting. You might think of the puzzle as a telescope that can be closed to have the eyepiece at one end and the objective lens at the other end.

Interpretation of informal logic. The logic of the argument...
Puzzles are not arguments. Although the puzzles I posted in the OP are like arguments, unlike arguments they lack conclusions. To solve them, you need to supply the conclusions that can be inferred from the given premises.
...says frogs hop.
You're getting close, but the puzzle asks what can be concluded about anything, not just frogs.
If a = b and b = c then a = c. Fundamental when applying logic. Yes, transitive. Informally expressed it connects a to c, but it infers nothing about a.
A better way to understand the transitivity about the premises is to think of the following sets:

F is the set of all things that might be frogs.
G is the set of all things that might be green.
H is the set of all things that might hop.

So because F ⊆ G and G ⊆ H, then F ⊆ H.

Have you used Venn diagrams? If so, diagram F ⊆ G ⊆ H keeping in mind how sets F, G, and H are defined above.
Suppose you know that if anything is a frog, then it is green, and if anything is green, then it hops. What else can you then say about anything?

Again sementics and the word anything. It is redundant logically. If all frogs are green and that which is green hops then frogs hop.
You're close, but you really can't say that frogs hop because the premise in the puzzle is a "double conditional." It makes no statements about actual frogs but only states something about anything that might be a frog.
Not all frogs are green, so the first premise is false. The conclusion is then false.
Right, not all actual frogs are green, but the puzzle doesn't say that all frogs are green. It asks you to infer a logically valid conclusion about anything based on the premises being true.
 
Please be civil. I've been respectful to you, and I expect the same treatment in return.
"Passive aggressive" ≠ "Respectful"

If you don't like people deriding your posts as simplistic, then don't post such simplistic dreck, and definitely don't then assume (out loud) that the lack of interest from other members is due to their lack of ability.
 
You are funny.

I applied logic as part of the job.

For me math and logic are tied to physical real relity. There was never any philiopshcal debate. Logic is a sytem based on defintions and rukes. When in doubt to make a case write it as a formal logic symbolic statement. In real world problems that is all that matters. Or a sylogism. For me loc skill in part is reduing a problem to formsl logic or a syllogism. Boolean being a form of frmal symbolic logic.

If a = b and b = c the a = c is a definition beyond debate. That a =c does not infer anything about a as a class. Don't know if it goes back to Aristotle.

You frog problem was poorly designed.

It reduces to -

If a = b and b = c what what can be said about a? In yiur problem 'anything' is 'a' in the previous statement.

In your problem yod said anything is a frog. All you then say is 'anything' is frog.

Don't get me strart3e on the distributive property.
 
You are funny.

I applied logic as part of the job.

For me math and logic are tied to physical real relity. There was never any philiopshcal debate. Logic is a sytem based on defintions and rukes. When in doubt to make a case write it as a formal logic symbolic statement. In real world problems that is all that matters. Or a sylogism. For me loc skill in part is reduing a problem to formsl logic or a syllogism. Boolean being a form of frmal symbolic logic.

If a = b and b = c the a = c is a definition beyond debate. That a =c does not infer anything about a as a class. Don't know if it goes back to Aristotle.

You frog problem was poorly designed.

It reduces to -

If a = b and b = c what what can be said about a? In yiur problem 'anything' is 'a' in the previous statement.

In your problem yod said anything is a frog. All you then say is 'anything' is frog.

Don't get me strart3e on the distributive property.
OK, it looks like this puzzle is a bit too difficult, so let me post the answer. From the OP I posted:
Suppose you know that if anything is a frog, then it is green, and if anything is green, then it hops. What else can you then say about anything?
The statement is what might be called a "telescoped conditional." If you "collapse this conditional, the result is

If anything is a frog, then it hops.

That's the answer to the puzzle. Note that it's a statement about anything and not just frogs. Let's look at the formal logic:

F is the set of all things that might be frogs.
G is the set of all things that might be green.
H is the set of all things that might hop.

"If anything is a frog, then it is green, and if anything is green, then it hops" is then formalized as

∀(Fx → Gx), ∀(Gx → Hx)

So what can be concluded from these premises?

From these two assumptions we can eliminate the universal quantifiers (∀) replacing them with a particular instance, a. We then have

Fa → Ga and Ga → Ha.

Using what logicians call a "hypothetical syllogism" we can conclude from these two premises

Fa → Ha

And since there's nothing special about the instance a, this conclusion can be applied to anything, and the result is

∀(Fx → Hx)

Which translated back into English is "If anything is a frog, then it hops."
 
Back
Top Bottom