Skip to main content
Extra information
Source Link
Thomas
  • 2.8k
  • 16
  • 29

Edit 3: 02/05/2020: It's starting to seem like it still might take the logicians quite a long time to figure out the numbers, and the logic gets increasingly difficult to follow. I wouldn't be surprised if for some pairs of numbers they might not be able to figure it out. Here's a particularly interesting (solvable!) case (shortened to aid readability). The numbers are 1 and 10:

P: I know you know that I don't know the numbers

S: I know you know that I didn't know that

P: I know the numbers now! They are 1 and 10!

Edit 3: 02/05/2020: It's starting to seem like it still might take the logicians quite a long time to figure out the numbers, and the logic gets increasingly difficult to follow. I wouldn't be surprised if for some pairs of numbers they might not be able to figure it out. Here's a particularly interesting (solvable!) case (shortened to aid readability). The numbers are 1 and 10:

P: I know you know that I don't know the numbers

S: I know you know that I didn't know that

P: I know the numbers now! They are 1 and 10!

added 119 characters in body
Source Link
Thomas
  • 2.8k
  • 16
  • 29

Edit 2: As the condition about only talking about states of knowledge is ambiguous, I have decided that a new version is: The logicians can only say either they know/don't know the numbers, or that they knew/didn't know what the previous person just said. (from which the other logician can infer that they don't know the numbers, because otherwise they would have said that)

Edit 2: As the condition about only talking about states of knowledge is ambiguous, I have decided that a new version is: The logicians can only say either they know/don't know the numbers, or that they knew/didn't know what the previous person just said.

Edit 2: As the condition about only talking about states of knowledge is ambiguous, I have decided that a new version is: The logicians can only say either they know/don't know the numbers, or that they knew/didn't know what the previous person just said (from which the other logician can infer that they don't know the numbers, because otherwise they would have said that)

added 704 characters in body
Source Link
Thomas
  • 2.8k
  • 16
  • 29

Edit 2: As the condition about only talking about states of knowledge is ambiguous, I have decided that a new version is: The logicians can only say either they know/don't know the numbers, or that they knew/didn't know what the previous person just said.

For example, if the numbers are 3 and 4, a conversation could go:

P: I don't know the numbers (could be 1 and 12 or 2 and 6)

S: I knew you didn't (even if the numbers were 2 and 5 or 3 and 4, P wouldn't have known)

P: I didn't know that (S couldn't have said that if the numbers were 2 and 6. However, this doesn't yet eliminate 1 and 12)

S: I know the numbers! They are 3 and 4! (the previous statement eliminated the other options)

Edit 2: As the condition about only talking about states of knowledge is ambiguous, I have decided that a new version is: The logicians can only say either they know/don't know the numbers, or that they knew/didn't know what the previous person just said.

For example, if the numbers are 3 and 4, a conversation could go:

P: I don't know the numbers (could be 1 and 12 or 2 and 6)

S: I knew you didn't (even if the numbers were 2 and 5 or 3 and 4, P wouldn't have known)

P: I didn't know that (S couldn't have said that if the numbers were 2 and 6. However, this doesn't yet eliminate 1 and 12)

S: I know the numbers! They are 3 and 4! (the previous statement eliminated the other options)

Extra information
Source Link
Thomas
  • 2.8k
  • 16
  • 29
Loading
added 8 characters in body
Source Link
Thomas
  • 2.8k
  • 16
  • 29
Loading
edited title
Link
Thomas
  • 2.8k
  • 16
  • 29
Loading
Source Link
Thomas
  • 2.8k
  • 16
  • 29
Loading