A liar who always lies says "All my hats are green."
theguardian.com
A liar who always lies says "All my hats are green."
1–10 of 419 posts
Re: A liar who always lies says "All my hats are green."
#2My take (possible spoiler):
If he had no hats, then his statement would technically be true. Therefore he has at least one hat.
He may have some green hats and some non-green hats, but must have at least one non-green hat. He could have any number of green hats, including zero, as long as he has at least one non-green hat.
So the only derived statement that we can conclude to be true is A.
Re: A liar who always lies says "All my hats are green."
#3My take (possible spoiler): If he had no hats, then his statement would technically be true. Therefore he has at least one hat. He may have some green hats and some non-green hats, but must have at least one non-green hat. He could have any number of green hats, including zero, as long as he has at least one non-green hat. So the only derived statement that we can conclude to be true is A.
Yeah, I'm a bit confused there is no option "he has at least one non-green hat", which is what I would answer.
Perhaps that means I'm wrong.
Re: A liar who always lies says "All my hats are green."
#4My take (possible spoiler): If he had no hats, then his statement would technically be true. Therefore he has at least one hat. He may have some green hats and some non-green hats, but must have at least one non-green hat. He could have any number of green hats, including zero, as long as he has at least one non-green hat. So the only derived statement that we can conclude to be true is A.
Yeah, I'm a bit confused there is no option "he has at least one non-green hat", which is what I would answer. Perhaps that means I'm wrong.
Agree it must be true that it has at least one hat, and it must be non-green (he might have other green hats).
Re: A liar who always lies says "All my hats are green."
#5It is either that:
a) they don't have any hats, i.e. that they are lying about having any hats at all.
b) they have some number of hats (n >= 1) and at least one is not green, because they are lying about the color of all their hats.
I would be happy to learn how I am wrong.
Re: A liar who always lies says "All my hats are green."
#6My take (possible spoiler): If he had no hats, then his statement would technically be true. Therefore he has at least one hat. He may have some green hats and some non-green hats, but must have at least one non-green hat. He could have any number of green hats, including zero, as long as he has at least one non-green hat. So the only derived statement that we can conclude to be true is A.
No, the liar having no hats would not make the statement true. ‘All my hats implies’ implies the liar stating they have hats.
The liar either has zero hats or some amount of hats. The only thing we know for certain is that if they do have hats, there is at least one non Green hat.
Re: A liar who always lies says "All my hats are green."
#7This is why we need while-else. Not the pythonic version, mind you.
Re: A liar who always lies says "All my hats are green."
#8¬[∀hat ∊ hats, IsGreen(hat)] ⇔ ∃hat ∊ hats, ¬IsGreen(hat)
Re: A liar who always lies says "All my hats are green."
#9It is either that: a) they don't have any hats, i.e. that they are lying about having any hats at all. b) they have some number of hats (n >= 1) and at least one is not green, because they are lying about the color of all their hats. I would be happy to learn how I am wrong.
I wonder what color is a hat that doesn’t exist.
If a person doesn’t have any hats, is the statement ”All my hats are hats” false?
Re: A liar who always lies says "All my hats are green."
#10My take (possible spoiler): If he had no hats, then his statement would technically be true. Therefore he has at least one hat. He may have some green hats and some non-green hats, but must have at least one non-green hat. He could have any number of green hats, including zero, as long as he has at least one non-green hat. So the only derived statement that we can conclude to be true is A.
No, the liar having no hats would not make the statement true. ‘All my hats implies’ implies the liar stating they have hats. The liar either has zero hats or some amount of hats. The only thing we know for certain is that if they do have hats, there is at least one non Green hat.
Perhaps I'm being a bit too logical, but in mathematics and logic the statement
For all x in A, x has XYZ property