Why the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever Cannot Be Solved in Less than Three Questions
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Rabern and Rabern (Analysis 68:105–112 2) and Uzquiano (Analysis 70:39–44 4) have each presented increasingly harder versions of ‘the hardest logic puzzle ever’ (Boolos The Harvard Review of Philosophy 6:62–65 1), and each has provided a two-question solution to his predecessor’s puzzle. But Uzquiano’s puzzle is different from the original and different from Rabern and Rabern’s in at least one important respect: it cannot be solved in less than three questions. In this paper we solve Uzquiano’s puzzle in three questions and show why there is no solution in two. Finally, to cement a tradition, we introduce a puzzle of our own.
- Boolos, G. (1996). The hardest logic puzzle ever. The Harvard Review of Philosophy, 6, 62–65.
- Rabern, B., & Rabern, L. (2008). A simple solution to the hardest logic puzzle ever. Analysis, 68, 105–112.
- Roberts, T. S. (2001). Some thoughts about the hardest logic puzzle ever. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 30(4), 609–612. CrossRef
- Uzquiano, G. (2010). How to solve the hardest logic puzzle ever in two questions. Analysis, 70, 39–44. CrossRef
- Why the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever Cannot Be Solved in Less than Three Questions
Journal of Philosophical Logic
Volume 41, Issue 2 , pp 493-503
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Logic puzzle
- Information theory