Nobles and Savages: Sun God's Riddle

[ILLoKWENT]

Originally Posted by ViTRiOL

CTRL + ALT + E = é

---------- Post added at 04:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 AM ----------

Now who can tell me what word has every vowel in it... in alphabetical order?

Facetious....among several others

[ILLoKWENT]

Originally Posted by ViTRiOL

CTRL + ALT + E = é

---------- Post added at 04:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 AM ----------

Now who can tell me what word has every vowel in it... in alphabetical order?

Facetious....among several others

[ViTRiOL]

Originally Posted by ILLoKWENT

Facetious....among several others

Go on...

[ViTRiOL]

Originally Posted by ILLoKWENT

Facetious....among several others

Go on...

[ILLoKWENT]

Abstemious... is the other more common word.. a couple others are more obscure and isnt relavent to normal everyday convo..

[ILLoKWENT]

Abstemious... is the other more common word.. a couple others are more obscure and isnt relavent to normal everyday convo..

[Shodan]

@ViTRiOL

Facetious comes to mind

[Shodan]

@ViTRiOL

Facetious comes to mind

[Iron Mike]

Originally Posted by ViTRiOL

Based on the information given (Savages always lie, Nobles always tell the truth):

Savages: When asked the question will always say, "I am a Noble."
Noble: When asked the question will always say, "I am a Noble."

First man: ...
Second man: He said he's a noble. I'm a noble.
Third man: They're both lying. I am a noble.

Let's hypothesise, had the first man said "I am a Noble." then the second man must be a Noble as Nobles always tell the truth, he would have to truthfully tell you what the man had said and henceforth truthfully revealed his identity. If the second man was a savage in this instance, by proxy he would have to say "He said he's a savage. I'm a Noble." The first man couldn't have said "I am a Savage." as this statement is impossible to conceive in this circumstance (which means there is no platform for a Savage to overhear the first man and say the aforementioned statement), for Nobles always tell the truth and Savages always lie.

So we now know that the first man said "I am a Noble." which, on the face of it, could be a lie or a truthful statement. Since we know that the second man is unequivocally a Noble, we know that the third man must be a savage seeing as he claims that the second man is lying, which we know to be untrue.

Henceforth, here is the full conclusion:

First man: I am a Noble. (Neutral)
Second man: He said he's a Noble. I am a Noble. (Noble)
Third man: They are both lying. I am a Noble. (Savage)

This answers our question. The third man is a Savage, so his claim that both are lying must be a lie. He therefore validates the first man's claim that he is indeed a Noble.

Answer:

First man: Noble
Second man: Noble
Third man: Savage

---------- Post added at 04:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 AM ----------

@Dave

First man is definitely a Noble, look again.

Smart man!

Originally Posted by Enfinite

I think this is Nobles conceited game to get us to say his name a bunch.

Seriously?

[Iron Mike]

Originally Posted by ViTRiOL

Based on the information given (Savages always lie, Nobles always tell the truth):

Savages: When asked the question will always say, "I am a Noble."
Noble: When asked the question will always say, "I am a Noble."

First man: ...
Second man: He said he's a noble. I'm a noble.
Third man: They're both lying. I am a noble.

Let's hypothesise, had the first man said "I am a Noble." then the second man must be a Noble as Nobles always tell the truth, he would have to truthfully tell you what the man had said and henceforth truthfully revealed his identity. If the second man was a savage in this instance, by proxy he would have to say "He said he's a savage. I'm a Noble." The first man couldn't have said "I am a Savage." as this statement is impossible to conceive in this circumstance (which means there is no platform for a Savage to overhear the first man and say the aforementioned statement), for Nobles always tell the truth and Savages always lie.

So we now know that the first man said "I am a Noble." which, on the face of it, could be a lie or a truthful statement. Since we know that the second man is unequivocally a Noble, we know that the third man must be a savage seeing as he claims that the second man is lying, which we know to be untrue.

Henceforth, here is the full conclusion:

First man: I am a Noble. (Neutral)
Second man: He said he's a Noble. I am a Noble. (Noble)
Third man: They are both lying. I am a Noble. (Savage)

This answers our question. The third man is a Savage, so his claim that both are lying must be a lie. He therefore validates the first man's claim that he is indeed a Noble.

Answer:

First man: Noble
Second man: Noble
Third man: Savage

---------- Post added at 04:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 AM ----------

@Dave

First man is definitely a Noble, look again.

Smart man!

Originally Posted by Enfinite

I think this is Nobles conceited game to get us to say his name a bunch.

Seriously?

@ViTRiOL, I don't get how you're concluding that the first man is noble. The third guy claimed they were both lying. BOTH of them might not have been lying. Perhaps only one was lying (The first one).

Also, the second guy only agreed that the first guy SAID he was noble, not that he actually was.

There is no possible way to conclude what the first man's position is.

@ViTRiOL, I don't get how you're concluding that the first man is noble. The third guy claimed they were both lying. BOTH of them might not have been lying. Perhaps only one was lying (The first one).

Also, the second guy only agreed that the first guy SAID he was noble, not that he actually was.

There is no possible way to conclude what the first man's position is.

[ViTRiOL]

Yay! What do I win? I'll link you my Paypal account and I shall expect £3,000 by sunrise.

---------- Post added at 05:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Dave

@ViTRiOL, I don't get how you're concluding that the first man is noble. The third guy claimed they were both lying. BOTH of them might not have been lying. Perhaps only one was lying (The first one).

Also, the second guy only agreed that the first guy SAID he was noble, not that he actually was.

There is no possible way to conclude what the first man's position is.

Savages only tell lies. We're determined that the third man is a savage.

"Both are lying," (in Savage perspective) = "Both are telling the truth."

---------- Post added at 05:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 AM ----------

The third man's Savage lie validates the first man's Noble claim.

---------- Post added at 06:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 AM ----------

So to put it blatantly.

If the the third man was a Noble, the first two would HAVE to be Savages.

Surely that's understandable now?

[ViTRiOL]

Yay! What do I win? I'll link you my Paypal account and I shall expect £3,000 by sunrise.

---------- Post added at 05:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Dave

@ViTRiOL, I don't get how you're concluding that the first man is noble. The third guy claimed they were both lying. BOTH of them might not have been lying. Perhaps only one was lying (The first one).

Also, the second guy only agreed that the first guy SAID he was noble, not that he actually was.

There is no possible way to conclude what the first man's position is.

Savages only tell lies. We're determined that the third man is a savage.

"Both are lying," (in Savage perspective) = "Both are telling the truth."

---------- Post added at 05:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 AM ----------

The third man's Savage lie validates the first man's Noble claim.

---------- Post added at 06:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 AM ----------

So to put it blatantly.

If the the third man was a Noble, the first two would HAVE to be Savages.

Surely that's understandable now?

Originally Posted by ViTRiOL

Yay! What do I win? I'll link you my Paypal account and I shall expect £3,000 by sunrise.

---------- Post added at 05:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 AM ----------



Savages only tell lies. We're determined that the third man is a savage.

"Both are lying," (in Savage perspective) = "Both are telling the truth."

---------- Post added at 05:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 AM ----------

The third man's Savage lie validates the first man's Noble claim.

---------- Post added at 06:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 AM ----------

So to put it blatantly.

If the the third man was a Noble, the first two would HAVE to be Savages.

Surely that's understandable now?

He is saying BOTH are lying. This is a lie, we know this much.

But perhaps that means only ONE is lying.

Originally Posted by ViTRiOL

Yay! What do I win? I'll link you my Paypal account and I shall expect £3,000 by sunrise.

---------- Post added at 05:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 AM ----------



Savages only tell lies. We're determined that the third man is a savage.

"Both are lying," (in Savage perspective) = "Both are telling the truth."

---------- Post added at 05:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 AM ----------

The third man's Savage lie validates the first man's Noble claim.

---------- Post added at 06:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 AM ----------

So to put it blatantly.

If the the third man was a Noble, the first two would HAVE to be Savages.

Surely that's understandable now?

He is saying BOTH are lying. This is a lie, we know this much.

But perhaps that means only ONE is lying.

[Student]

I Didn't Read The Whole Thread But Savage, Noble & Savage.

Edit:
Didn't Hear The First One So We Can't Conclude What He Said.
Second Guy Said The First Guy SAID He Was A Noble But Didn't Confirm Nor Deny If It Was True, Then He Went On To Claim He Was A Noble.
Third Guy Said They're Both Lying And That He's A Noble.

They Could All 3 Be Savages Since We Don't Know Who's Actually Telling The Truth.
Or Just The Last Guy Could Be A Noble Since He's The Only One Claiming Lying Was Involved In The Others Answers.
Or First 2 Guys Could Be Nobles And The Last Guy Is Lying About They're Status.

We Also Don't Necessarily Need To Meet Both Tribes Though, Since They're All In A Listening Distance They Could All Be From The Same Tribe But Since Noble's Don't Lie The Last Guy Determines Everyone's Tribe In This Scenario.

[Student]

I Didn't Read The Whole Thread But Savage, Noble & Savage.

Edit:
Didn't Hear The First One So We Can't Conclude What He Said.
Second Guy Said The First Guy SAID He Was A Noble But Didn't Confirm Nor Deny If It Was True, Then He Went On To Claim He Was A Noble.
Third Guy Said They're Both Lying And That He's A Noble.

They Could All 3 Be Savages Since We Don't Know Who's Actually Telling The Truth.
Or Just The Last Guy Could Be A Noble Since He's The Only One Claiming Lying Was Involved In The Others Answers.
Or First 2 Guys Could Be Nobles And The Last Guy Is Lying About They're Status.

We Also Don't Necessarily Need To Meet Both Tribes Though, Since They're All In A Listening Distance They Could All Be From The Same Tribe But Since Noble's Don't Lie The Last Guy Determines Everyone's Tribe In This Scenario.

[Iron Mike]

Originally Posted by Student

I Didn't Read The Whole Thread But Savage, Noble & Savage.

Why do you think the first guy was a Savage?

[Iron Mike]

Originally Posted by Student

I Didn't Read The Whole Thread But Savage, Noble & Savage.

Why do you think the first guy was a Savage?