# Answer to "The world's most difficult logic puzzle"

6 views

### Peter Douglas Zohrab

Mar 19, 2008, 2:43:10 PM3/19/08
to
On the webpage http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/hardest.php there is
something that is billed as:

"The World's Most Difficult Logic Puzzle."

It goes like this:

"Three gods A , B , and C are called, in some order, True, False, and
Random. True always speaks truly, False always speaks falsely, but whether
Random speaks truly or falsely is a completely random matter. Your task is
to determine the identities of A , B , and C by asking three yes-no
questions; each question must be put to exactly one god. The gods understand
English, but will answer in their own language, in which the words for yes
and no are "da" and "ja", in some order. You do not know which word means
which. "

I have thought up a solution to the world's so-called most difficult logic
puzzle, and I am publicising it because:

1) I have not read the book which apparently contains the answer;
2) It is unlikely that I will ever read the book; and
3) My answer may be different from the one in the book (but still correct).

SOLUTION

There is one single question, and it is asked to each god in turn:

"Will Random answer this question by saying 'Da'?"

1. If the answer is 'Da' or 'Ja', then the god speaking is Random.
2. If the god says that he does not know the answer, then the god speaking
is True.
3. If the god gives the impression that he does know the answer, but does
not specifically answer 'Da' or 'Ja', then the god speaking is False.

NB The puzzle does not state that the gods must answer 'Da' or 'Ja'.

Peter Zohrab

--
Conflict of Interest & Family Court
http://equality.netfirms.com/conflint.html Next President is Batterer
equality.netfirms.com/hillaryc.html Woman Rapes Ropati, Name Suppressed
equality.netfirms.com/tearopat.html Repeated Scenario
equality.netfirms.com/scenario.html Males Suffer Horrific Psychological
Abuse equality.netfirms.com/abusdmal.html NZ Domestic Violence Research
equality.netfirms.com/nzdvrsch.html Feminists Can't Think, Can Bully
equality.netfirms.com/nothink.html Lynda, Man-Hater
equality.netfirms.com/manhater.html Bull Buster Video
http://antimisandry.com/vbdr/bullbusters

### William Elliot

Mar 20, 2008, 6:30:19 AM3/20/08
to
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Peter Douglas Zohrab wrote:
> On the webpage http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/hardest.php there is
> "The World's Most Difficult Logic Puzzle."
>
> "Three gods A , B , and C are called, in some order, True, False, and
> Random. True always speaks truly, False always speaks falsely, but
> whether Random speaks truly or falsely is a completely random matter.
> Your task is to determine the identities of A , B , and C by asking
> three yes-no questions; each question must be put to exactly one god.
> The gods understand English, but will answer in their own language, in
> which the words for yes and no are "da" and "ja", in some order. You do
> not know which word means which. "
>
> I have thought up a solution to the world's so-called most difficult
> logic puzzle, and I am publicising it because:
>
> 1) I have not read the book which apparently contains the answer;
> 2) It is unlikely that I will ever read the book; and
> 3) My answer may be different from the one in the book (but still correct).
>
> SOLUTION
>
> There is one single question, and it is asked to each god in turn:
>
> "Will Random answer this question by saying 'Da'?"
>
> 1. If the answer is 'Da' or 'Ja', then the god speaking is Random.
> 2. If the god says that he does not know the answer, then the god speaking
> is True.
> 3. If the god gives the impression that he does know the answer, but does
> not specifically answer 'Da' or 'Ja', then the god speaking is False.
>
Unacceptable. You better read the book

> NB The puzzle does not state that the gods must answer 'Da' or 'Ja'.
>

Being a god, he knows the answer.

----

### Douglas Eagleson

Mar 20, 2008, 8:57:23 AM3/20/08
to
On Mar 19, 11:43 am, "Peter Douglas Zohrab" <pe...@zohrab.name> wrote:
> On the webpagehttp://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/hardest.phpthere is
> Conflict of Interest & Family Courthttp://equality.netfirms.com/conflint.htmlNext President is Batterer

> equality.netfirms.com/hillaryc.html Woman Rapes Ropati, Name Suppressed
> equality.netfirms.com/tearopat.html Repeated Scenario
> equality.netfirms.com/scenario.html Males Suffer Horrific Psychological
> Abuse equality.netfirms.com/abusdmal.html NZ Domestic Violence Research
> equality.netfirms.com/nzdvrsch.html Feminists Can't Think, Can Bully
> equality.netfirms.com/nothink.html Lynda, Man-Hater
> equality.netfirms.com/manhater.html Bull Buster Videohttp://antimisandry.com/vbdr/bullbusters

A truth as spoken by the person was the god.

A -truth speaker?
B- falsehood speaker?
C-random oracle?

A person must determine a solution.

D- a next question asked of the random person, A,B or C. As the true
of false answer was known to the questioner a person must decide the
sequence from a single sequence of questioning.

So place the number beside each.

1- false answer correct means a one
2-false answer incorrect means three-postulate the random first

If the first answer was incorrect a random person was found to exist.
1,2,or 4

I use four as a postulated set. Who was correct!?

If two answers were found correctly negated a person of the set would
then answer all as one of two as the new set. One of two was the

Allow the first question as "So there?"

And the question would always be "He is the random answerer?"

And to ask in sequence allows all set.

1-"He number three is correctly answering right now?"
2- "He number three would be correct?"
Two questions asked of one and 2.

And so two questions determine a likelyhood! If they agree three is

Leaving one or two to answer themselves.

A test was question now, allowing statistical method.

D a meaning to he as third sequence altered the formula. If you get
two right answers the third three must be a random person answering
correctly?

Statistical method prevals

### Peter Douglas Zohrab

Mar 23, 2008, 2:05:27 AM3/23/08
to
The response to my solution copied below (by William Elliot) is similar to
the response that was emailed to me by Professor Lau, the author of the
webpage http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/hardest.php , so I will repeat
here the gist of the answer which I sent him:

I think that even gods have to obey the laws of logic, including what I
think is called the law of identity (if my memory of formal logic serves me
well), although gods may not obey empirical laws as we know them.

So, if the definition of "randomness" excludes the possibility of
prediction, then it would be imposible for any god to know in advance what
Random would say.

If the above reasoning is correct, then my solution is correct.

Peter Zohrab
--
Bull Buster Video http://antimisandry.com/vbdr/bullbusters Family
Proceedings (paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill
www.unitedfuture.org.nz/assets/sm/444/46/FamilyProceedingsPaternityOrdersandParentageTestsAmendmentBill1.pdf
Income-Splitting www.parentschoice08.blogspot.com/ Conflict of Interest &

Family Court http://equality.netfirms.com/conflint.html Next President is

Batterer equality.netfirms.com/hillaryc.html NZ Domestic Violence Research
equality.netfirms.com/nzdvrsch.html Lynda, Man-Hater
equality.netfirms.com/manhater.html

"William Elliot" <ma...@hevanet.remove.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.08...@vista.hevanet.com...

### William Elliot

Mar 23, 2008, 4:39:41 AM3/23/08
to
Top posting is wrong reason! For correct reason read

How come the lenghty ads? What cheap news server are you using?

Random means mortally unpredictable.
It does not mean the gods don't know.

Message has been deleted

### Michael Gordge

Mar 23, 2008, 5:25:16 PM3/23/08
to
On Mar 23, 6:47 pm, "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)"
<S...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> --
> Smoking Causes Lung Cancer

So how come people who smoke dont all get lung cancer?

MG

### herbzet

Mar 23, 2008, 10:17:19 PM3/23/08
to

I think that most people who smoke do not get lung cancer.

I think that most people who smoke do not die of smoking-related
illnesses, but I'm having trouble finding credible statistics
on this matter.

--
hz

### William Elliot

Mar 24, 2008, 12:45:02 AM3/24/08
to
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC) wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Peter Douglas Zohrab wrote:

> >> >> On the webpage http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/hardest.php
> >> >> there is "The World's Most Difficult Logic Puzzle."
> >> >>
> >> >> "Three gods A , B , and C are called, in some order, True, False,
> >> >> and Random. True always speaks truly, False always speaks falsely,
> >> >> but whether Random speaks truly or falsely is a completely random
> >> >> matter. Your task is to determine the identities of A , B , and C
> >> >> by asking three yes-no questions; each question must be put to
> >> >> exactly one god. The gods understand English, but will answer in
> >> >> their own language, in which the words for yes and no are "da" and
> >> >> "ja", in some order. You do not know which word means which. "
>

> Addressing A: Are you true Iff B is random?
>
> :o)
>
Noice true and random aren't the gods, they're adjective.
The gods are True, Random and False. Thus to clarify your
question, does not 'true' and 'random' need to be capitalized?
Are you True if and only if B is Random?
or
Are you True, if B is Random?

### Peter Douglas Zohrab

Mar 24, 2008, 2:34:55 AM3/24/08
to
I disagree that "Random" means "mortally unpredictable". No dictionary says
that. It just means "unpredictable". We have to use words with their
normal meanings, otherwise we cannot communicate with gods. Otherwise we
could assume that a god could use the word "yes" and mean "yes and no", and
could use the word "no" and also mean "yes and no".

to put there.

### Peter Douglas Zohrab

Mar 24, 2008, 2:38:49 AM3/24/08
to
I assume you mean:

Addressing God A: Are you True Iff God B is Random?

The answer to that is obviously "no", whoever God A actually is, since it is
a conditional question and not a question as to a fact.

The issue of whether one particular god is True is not dependent on whether
one particular other god is Random.

Peter Zohrab

--
Bull Buster Video http://antimisandry.com/vbdr/bullbusters Family
Proceedings (paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill
www.unitedfuture.org.nz/assets/sm/444/46/FamilyProceedingsPaternityOrdersandParentageTestsAmendmentBill1.pdf
Income-Splitting www.parentschoice08.blogspot.com/ Conflict of Interest &
Family Court http://equality.netfirms.com/conflint.html Next President is
Batterer equality.netfirms.com/hillaryc.html NZ Domestic Violence Research
equality.netfirms.com/nzdvrsch.html Lynda, Man-Hater
equality.netfirms.com/manhater.html

"Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC)" <SC...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.03...@nospam.invalid...

> Addressing A: Are you true Iff B is random?
>
> :o)
>
>

> --
> Smoking Causes Lung Cancer
>

> Franklin D Roosevelt: "We have always known that heedless self-interest
> was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics."

### William Elliot

Mar 24, 2008, 3:04:52 AM3/24/08
to
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Peter Douglas Zohrab wrote:

> I assume you mean:
>
> Addressing God A: Are you True Iff God B is Random?
>

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

### William Elliot

Mar 24, 2008, 5:45:44 AM3/24/08
to
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC) wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 21:45:02 -0700, William Elliot wrote:
>
> > Noice true and random aren't the gods, they're adjective.
>

> They are A, B, and C, in some order.
>
> And they're "gods", not "adjective".
>
Why the removal of the context? Please behave yourself.

--
Drinking causes liver failure.
Drinking causes auto failures.
Drinking causes cock failures.
Drinking causes thought fails.

Message has been deleted

### Michael Gordge

Mar 24, 2008, 7:52:13 AM3/24/08
to

One day the mob of sheeple will wake up to the fact that the anti-
smoking Nazis are.

MG

### William Elliot

Mar 25, 2008, 12:32:17 AM3/25/08
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2008, Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (SCLC) wrote:

> should be one up in the thread that you've been reading!
>