jlg@lanl.ARPA (11/29/84)
> What the first native said was unintelligible to "you", but the second > native was probably standing much closer to the first native and very > likely understood him. (Though of course, they might not even speak > the same language as each other, etc. etc.) You are assuming facts not given in the original problem. The correct statement goes as follows: As the first tribesman begins to speak, a wave breaks on the nearby reef and drowns out his voice. Then you hear the second say 'The first one said he is short and he is, and so am I". The third one says 'The second one is lying, he is tall and I am short'. It clearly says that the first man's voice was drowned out, not that it was inaudible ONLY to the prisoner. The implication is that, at least, the prisoner didn't hear. But since the prisoner isn't specifically singled out as the only one not to hear, we must assume that no one heard the first tribesman. Of course, this doesn't prevent the second tribesman from reading lips or some other communication with the first. The problem is really just badly stated, but it makes sense if NO ONE heard the first statement. Anyway, have you noticed that the third tribesman's statement is completely irrelevant to the solution of the problem? This is true whichever solution you decide upon.