Well you should assume that both guards follow the rules all time. Meaning that the initial setup of the rules cannot be trusted, because who knows if the talking Guard is lieing or not. If one does tell nothing but the truth this must be the one explaining the rules.
However if I remember correctly it was setup that one will answer the truth while the other one will deceive me. Meaning he might tell the truth if it confused me.
Let’s suppose A always lies and B always tells the truth.
You ask A what B would say this being a correct path.
In this case B can’t lie and will tell True, A will then lie about that and will say False, you negate False -> True.
Say you ask B what A would say this being a correct path.
In this case A always lies and if road is correct they will say False, B who can’t lie will tell you A would say False, you negate that -> True.
I’ve always found it easier to just ask the question within the question. To either guard.
“If I were to ask you, ‘which path is safe?’, what would you say?”
If you asked the truth teller he will Indicate the correct path because he would have told you the correct path anyway. If you ask the liar he originally would have indicated the bad path- but now he has to lie about what he would have original told you and will now indicate the safe path. Asking what the other guard would have said just kind of adds another unnecessary logic wrinkle in my mind.
Guard 2 says: “The other one nothing but lies”, which is assumed to be true. From the guard that lies. Was that a lie?
I never liked this riddle. “Am I standing in front of you?” would tell you immediately
To actually make it a puzzle, the trick is that you get only one question. Ever.
The third guard stabs people who ask tricky questions.
Pedantic correction: you only get one answer from a single guard. You can’t ask both for an answer, even if they’re both within earshot.
The object isn’t to identify the liar, it’s to find out which path is safe. And you only get one question.
Not much of a riddle anyway. You ask any guard what other guard would say and then negate that.
Well you should assume that both guards follow the rules all time. Meaning that the initial setup of the rules cannot be trusted, because who knows if the talking Guard is lieing or not. If one does tell nothing but the truth this must be the one explaining the rules.
However if I remember correctly it was setup that one will answer the truth while the other one will deceive me. Meaning he might tell the truth if it confused me.
So no question might work.
Simple logic twisting really. Ask any guard what other guard would say, negate that answer and you got the right answer.
How though?
A truth B lies
Ask A: answer is No (truth)
Ask B: answers is No (lies)
Let’s suppose A always lies and B always tells the truth.
You ask A what B would say this being a correct path. In this case B can’t lie and will tell True, A will then lie about that and will say False, you negate False -> True.
Say you ask B what A would say this being a correct path. In this case A always lies and if road is correct they will say False, B who can’t lie will tell you A would say False, you negate that -> True.
I’ve always found it easier to just ask the question within the question. To either guard.
“If I were to ask you, ‘which path is safe?’, what would you say?”
If you asked the truth teller he will Indicate the correct path because he would have told you the correct path anyway. If you ask the liar he originally would have indicated the bad path- but now he has to lie about what he would have original told you and will now indicate the safe path. Asking what the other guard would have said just kind of adds another unnecessary logic wrinkle in my mind.
This assumes A can only lie. But I guess that is the riddl.