## Tuesday, January 29, 2008

## Links

## Search

## Share

- Tom Chrome Extension
- ToM @ Twitter
- MeeT ToM
- Daily Tricks Widget
- Vista Gadget 1.5
- iPhone Widget
- Windows XP Widget
- Google Toolbar Button
- Suggestions

## Favorite Links

- Vista Sidebar Gadgets
- Widgets for Web 2.0
- C Sharp Tricks
- Interview Information
- Illustrator - Elar Alexander

## Bookmark Us

## Previous Posts

- Newspaper Fold
- Bob and Betty
- Adam and Eve
- Red Wine or White Wine
- Case of Two Clocks
- Magic Square
- Fake Records
- On Planting Trees
- The Mystery of Alphabet
- There's Something in the Air

## 48 Comments:

Michael and Paul have mutually exclusive statements. One of them must be true and one of them must be false.

Because there is only one true statement, that means that James and John both had false statements. John was there and Michael didn't do it.

I don't know how to tell whether Paul or Michael is lying, but I assume that since John was there, that means he's guilty, or at least an accomplice.

I think it is John, and Paul is the only one telling the truth.

If James is true that means the other statements are wrong.

James: "It was Michael!"

Michael: "Paul did it" So Paul did not do it

John: "I was not even there." He was there

Paul: "Michael lied when he said I did it." Michael is not lying (so Paul did it)

Wait there then. Paul is saying he did it but James is right that Michael did it.

So let’s say Michael is true

James: "It was Michael!" Michael did not do it

Michael: "Paul did it"

John: "I was not even there." He was there

Paul: "Michael lied when he said I did it." Michael is telling the truth

So Paul did it

John’s is not relevant him being there or not changes nothing as it would end up being between Michael and Paul

Let’s say Paul is true

James: "It was Michael!" Michael did not do it

Michael: "Paul did it" Paul did not do it

John: "I was not even there." He was there

Paul: "Michael lied when he said I did it."

So there was no Criminal suspect

This means that Paul did it

So that means Michael was telling the truth.

Mickey93

paul did it!

but john was there.

Paul did it (so Michael is telling the truth) because otherwise how would he know that Michael accused him of a crime ?

The question says they are all criminals, so they all did it so it means they are all false and the person telling you that one person is telling the truth is lying and he is also in on the crime

But then again I think that John is lying because why would they accuse him if he wasn't there

It's Paul.

Accounting when only one person is telling the truth, if Micheal is telling the truth, the only last certain remaining suspect is Paul. Whereas if a different person was telling the truth, multiple certain suspects still remain, or two statements contradict each other leading nowhere.

no theoretically either james or paul must be right, but i still think i am right.....

Facts

- 4 criminals

- 1 commits a crime

- only 1 testimony is true

Question

- Who did it?

Their Statements

James: It was Michael.

Michael: Paul did it.

John: I was not even there.

Paul: Michael lied when he said I did it.

Scenario 1: James tells the truth

The facts become:

James - It was Michael

Michael - Paul did not do it

John - I was there

Paul - Michael told the truth when he said I did it

James' statement and Paul's statement contradict each other.

Scenario 2: Michael tells the truth

The facts become:

James - It was not Michael

Michael - Paul did it

John - I was there

Paul - Michael told the truth when he said I did it

Everything works out! Paul did it.

Scenario 3: John tells the truth

The facts become:

James - It was not Michael

Michael - Paul did not do it

John - I was not even there

Paul - Michael told the truth when he said I did it

Michael's statement and Paul's statement contradict each other.

Scenario 4: Paul tells the truth

The facts become:

James - I was not Michael

Michael - Paul did not do it

John - I was there

Paul - Michael lied when he said I did it

"With these facts, both John and Paul could have committed the crime.

This cannot be right since only one person did it."

well I'm too lazy to think through the 4 scenarios, so all i know is, if they're all telling the truth, it was michael. Other than that, have fun thinking, I'm gonna play bf2142.

This post has been removed by the author.

This post has been removed by the author.

No there is not 4 different statements you can make, there is ONLY two because if you think of it as geometry James is J John is K Paul is ~M and Micheal is M so if you use the property of Disjunctive Syllogism Which says it is M or ~M the other two doesn't matter so if Micheal is true than everyone else is wrong and Paul did it, or Paul could be true and no deduction can be drawn so no 4 different scenario's just 2

I don`t know who you people are, but you need to stop dropping out of college!

i think it was john... the others are blaming each other but john stays out of the arguments... i think it was john.

I think it was john because james blames michael, assuring his presence. michael blames paul assuring his presence. paul goes back to michael who we already know was there. nobody mentioned john. this could be to take the heat off of him so that he doesn't get caught, seeing as they are all criminals and probably in this together. john also doesn't imply an "it" that was committed like the other guys do, he refers to a location as to generalize his statement which furthers his chances of not getting caught so he doesn't lose track of details.

the end.

It is impossible that James and John are telling the truth. If we assume that James or John are telling the truth then it's impossible that Michael and Paul are both lieing. So, it's either Michael is telling the truth and Paul had done it or Paul is telling the truth and James or John had done it.

Paul is telling the truth.

John did it.

Jesse

Your conclusion from scenario 4 is incorrect.

You say

"With these facts, both John and Paul could have committed the crime. This cannot be right since only one person did it."

In fact if Paul is telling the truth then his own statement means he can't of done it.

If Michael lied when he said Paul did it then Paul can't of done it otherwise Michael wouldn't have been lying.

So in your scenario 4 John must have done it.

This turns out to be a poor problem as there seem to be two correct solutions.

1. Paul is telling the truth and John did it.

2. Michael is telling the truth and Paul did it.

Paul did it!

the butler did it! Haven't you guys learned anything from books?!

Well, after playing good/bad cop roles they are all guilty of the crime. Unless, John was telling the truth then he should have an alias and I dont think he does so they should be condidered guilty until further information is given.

all are criminal so 3 are accomplices and one is the murderer (assuming there was a murder)

JA(James) M(Michael) JO(John) P(Paul)

JA=true then...

It wasnt P

Jo was there

M is saying the truth

conclusion for this: Ja says its M but Jo was there

M=true then

it wasnt M

Jo was there

micheal is telling the truth

conclusion for this: M says it's P but Jo was there

Jo= true then

It isnt M

it isnt P

M is not lieing

conclusion of this: Jo wasnt there, M didnt do it and P didnt do it... Ja must have done it

P=true then

it wasnt M

it wasnt P

J was there

conclusion of this: P says it must be Jo or Ja

my conclusion: James committed the crime... no one claims his innocence even though no one accuses him directly. He doesn't have anyone protecting him.

Shawn... it's innocent untill proven guilty... you must find proof of his guilt... so if police have no evidence and you say nothing you are presumed innocent

if Paul did it then john would have said he witnessed Paul... if John was there then he would say who did it not he was not there... therefore john must be telling the truth which leads to...

John: it wasn't Micheal

Micheal: it wasn't Paul

Paul: Micheal is telling the TRUTH

since only one can be telling the truth and not two... and in here there is one person who was not defended ... that is John... therefor john is at fault

(btw i'm responsible for the last 3 posts)

OMG HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO REALIZE THERE IS ONLY 2 ways to do this M is true or ~M is true can't be more than 2 dumbbbbbb people

John did the crime. Paul's is the only true statement.

As for saying there is a second solution that Paul did the crime and Michael was telling the truth, I have a slight problem with that. If Michael is telling the truth, then John is lying and he was actually there. And if John was there, then he's at least guilty of aiding and abetting which is a crime but there is only one criminal.

- Rim

wow did i mess what i wanted to say up big time oops

if Paul did it then john would have said he witnessed Paul... if John was there then he would say who did it not he was not there... therefore john must be telling the truth which leads to...

John: it wasn't Micheal

Micheal: it wasn't Paul

Paul: Micheal is telling the TRUTH

since only one can be telling the truth and not two... and in here there is one person who was not defended ... that is james**... therefor James** is at fault

It says that only one of them is telling the truth, Paul says: "Michael lied when he said I did it." It is true that Michael said he did it, so Paul is telling the truth. If all the rest are lying it must be John.

Blatently, Colonel Mustard did it with a knife in the kitchen.

But for this riddle, my guess is Paul did it and Michael is telling the truth!

Paul did it!

Micheal is telling the truth

Paul did it!

Micheal is telling the truth

Paul did it!

Micheal is telling the truth

i'm tiered of this someone show some logisticks on how you work it out and prove to me paul did it... not jump to conclusions because you wana go with the most popular answer... logically it's james who did it because john is telling the truth... if john were there he would say who did it not hide that fact... think using an investigative mind... plus it also depends on hoe you change pauls statement... to me when he says "micheal lied when he said i did it" the i did it at the end is to specify what miheal was lieing about... remove that (or change it to the opposite because he's lieing) it becomes michael is telling the truth (when he said i didnt do it)... thus making him innocnet and james has no one saying that it was not him... so he would blame micheal... micheal thought paul did it but was wrong and john not being there makes it so he cant tell us who dunnit

blaze stop spamming

The question does not say that the one who told the truth is the one who did it although it may be that. Nor does it say that those who lied were the ALLEGED (I hate that word-- overused) perp.

Though it could have been more than one of the people named. Just because one person told the truth doesn't eliminate them from being one of four who did the job.

I think they all could have done it together. so there. hahah JohnR

Teo:

One correction to my scenario 4:

Both James and John could have committed the crime based on the facts, not Paul and John.

Therefore, scenario 4 is inconclusive, and only scenario 2 works. Hence, PAUL DID IT. This is absolutely indisputable.

everyone forgets you must turn the whole statement to the opposite and not just one word

First of all, all four are criminals, then all four are lying, then every statement is false.

James:"It was Michael" False

Michael: "Paul did it" False

John: "I was not even there" False

Paul: "Michael lied when he said I did it" False.

Then if Paul did not do it and Michael is lying we have incongruent statements, then James said it was Michael but it's not and Jhon WAS THERE. Finaly ALL four where there but none going to say the truth because avery one is going to save their own souls, because all did it

!!!Weird!!!

OR

James, Michael and Paul known each other, but John it's an unknown person for them, then Jhon really was not there, then James is accusing Michael, and Paul too, then we have two accusations against Michael, So Michael did it!!!

i think its john

James??? James, by accusing others is kinda trying to get away from others thinking that he did it . . . I think

James did it! I saw him, I was there!

No I didn't!

OMG...Everyone knows you can't trust a criminal...so they are all lying...there is no possible way to tell...

to find out you just go through each statement.

eg start with

James: "it was michael"

say if thats true then the rest of them have to be false and that cant work coz what michael said is false and so is what paul said. Also john says he wasnt there but that has to be false so he was there so he's guilty

i went through them all and i think John did it and paul was telling the truth.

ANSWER = JOHN

-----------------------

DETAILS

-----------------------

If you assume James did it, John and Paul statement are true.

If you assume Michael did it, James, John, and Paul statements are true.

If you assume Paul did it, Michael and John statements are true.

Therefore John is the criminal and only Paul statement is true

GOT RIGHT

-----------------------

Holden Caulfied, smarts12 , ryu087, Rim and the alst anonymous guy

thanks Rim, for the prespective on Paul being the criminal

"As for saying there is a second solution that Paul did the crime and Michael was telling the truth, I have a slight problem with that. If Michael is telling the truth, then John is lying and he was actually there. And if John was there, then he's at least guilty of aiding and abetting which is a crime but there is only one criminal."

i didn't think about this much

but i think paul told the truth and john did it

Post a Comment

## Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home