- If you were a liar (the court does not know that) and you were innocent. And it is an established fact that a liar committed the crime.
- Same situation as above, but you are the one who committed the crime.
- If you were a truth teller (the court does not know that) and you were innocent. And it is an established fact that a truth teller committed the crime.
- If you were innocent and it is an established fact that the crime was not committed by a "normal" person. Normal people are that new immigrant group who sometimes lie and sometimes speak the truth. What sentence, no matter whether you were a truth teller, liar, or normal, can prove your innocence?
Answer:
1. "I did it - I
am guilty."
2. There is no such
sentence.
3. "I am
innocent."
4. "Either I am
an honestant and innocent, or I am a swindlecant and guilty." = "I am
either an innocent honestant, or a guilty swindlecant." The court could
think this way:
4.1 If he is an
honestant, then his statement is true and he is innocent.
4.2 If he is a
swindlecant, then his statement is a lie and he is neither an innocent
honestant nor a guilty swindlecant. This means that he is an innocent
swindlecant.
4.3 If he is normal, then he is innocent since a
normal man couldn't have done that.
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu