How Smart is /sci?

>>8611019
so, what exactly are you asking us to do?

Determine the role of each person in the theft

Alex is the thief
Blair is the accomplice
Casey is innocent

>>8611019
A solution is Casey is innocent, Alex is the thief, Blair is the accomplice. Casey said Alex is not the accomplice and Blair is not the thief, both true statements and about other people. It doesn't matter who but either Alex or Blair said Casey is not innocent.

Alex is accomplice, Blair is theif, Casey is innocent

>>8611049
jk switch Alex and Blair

Blair is innocent. Alex is thief/Accomplice and Casey is Accomplice/Thief

>>8611053
Who says Blair is not the thief?

>>8611054
Blair said because he is innocent and told the truth. Therefore if one of the others is lying for sure, one of the statements 1 or 3 must be false. This logic is linear and can be solved with tensor algebra. The matrix to be solved is symmetric and blair is the diagonal element

>>8611019
OP you didn't mention their respective skin colors silly.

>>8611057
How do you know hes telling the truth?

>>8611057
Can't be, because
>(I) Each statement refers to a person other than the speaker

How smart is /sci/? I hope we're smart enough to read the question...

Two possibilities can be seen immediately: Casey is innocent and being lied about, or is guilty and the innocent Alex or Blair was telling the truth.

So: first possibility: if Casey is innocent then he made a true statement about A or B. (mark this point *) If 2, B is not the thief is true, then B is the accomplice. In this case B could have made statement 1, lying about Alex. But A made the statement B is not the thief which would be true so the conditions for the test are not met.

So back to *; change 2 for 1; "if Casey is innocent then he made a true statement about A or B..." If 1, then A is the thief, and both B and A made true statements so the conditions aren't met.

So Casey cannot be innocent. If that is correct, if someone else wants to carry on, I'll be away for a bit.

So we know:
i) Casey is guilty
ii) Statement 3 is true therefore...
iii) ...was made by an innocent A or B

Unless I missed something in the question,
> Each of these statements was made by one of the three people

It doesn't say, 'each' one of the three people. If that isn't so, I'm not sure it's do-able.

>>8611677
If this is the case, that it isn't one statement per person, then I guess there's some math rule that says at a certain number of levels of complexity it becomes too big or impossible to resolve. Any comments OP?

A accomplice, B Thief, C innocent.

Assume C innocent

If (3) is false then either (1) or (2) must be true as C is innocent therefore truthful (III) and made a statement (II) about someone other than himself (I).

Therefore if (1) or (2) is true then both (1) and (2) must be true as assuming C is innocent A&B must make false statements (IV). If either one (1) or (2) is true then the other must be true as a false answer would place A&B as either both the thief or the accomplice and it was stated that one was a thief and one an accomplice.

If C is innocent and (1) and (2) are true A must be thief and B must be accomplice.

It is unknown who made statement (3), A or B could make the statement.

>>8611875
I meant A thief, B accomplice, C innocent.

The solution is that its not solveable with the statements and rules specified in the OP

Assuming its not solvable unless you add another condition

>>8611890

Why do you say that?

>>8611942
you run into situations where a person is both an accomplice and not an accomplice

do your own homework fucking undergrad retard.

>>8611942
Run through each statement assuming it's true and saod by the innocent party and the other two are false and said by the guilty parties.

If you don't understand it I'll make a post explaining after I finish my commute back home.

>>8612029

I dont get?

2 options can be true he did not constrain us with each (A,B or C) having to make a statement. (I) means each can speak up to twice and (IV) says 'or' not 'and' meaning it is not necessary for either to speak.

If Casey is innocent he can says statements 1 and 2 right? Then A is thief and B is accomplice?

Or is it something deeper i'm missing?

>>8611019
Just a question regarding the last rule

Is it possible that only one between the thief and the accomplice is lying or they have both to lie at the same time with only the innocent one telling the truth?

>>8611019
I assume there is only one liar
Case 1 true
Casey = 1 (Alex, !accomplice)
Alex = !2(Blair, thief)
Blair = !3(Casey, innocent, the one not lying, so 1)
For this case, I could also assume that Alex isn't lying, making Blair not the thief

Case 2 true
Blair = !1(Alex, accomplice)
Casey = 2(Blair, !thief)
Alex = !3(Casey, innocent, so 2)
For this case, I could assume that Blair isn't lying, making Alex not the accomplice

Case 3 true
Casey = !1(Alex, accomplice)
Alex = !2(Blair, thief)
Blair = 3(Casey, !innocent)
Impossible according to rule II and III, there is no innocent person

Alex is thief, Blair is accomplice, Casey is innocent.

>>8611047
>>8611048
>>8611049
see IV
if that's the case statement 2 is true, and then we have 2 true statements

>>8612386
>if that's the case statement 2 is true, and then we have 2 true statements
Yes, indeed. So?
(1) and (2) are said by Casey. (3) is said by either Alex or Blair. This is consistent with OP's constraints.

>>8612386
>>8612397
he's right.

>>8612397
they all gave a statement, and the accomplice and the thief lied

>>8613694
>they all gave a statement, and the accomplice and the thief lied
No, it doesn't say they all gave a statement.

>>8614007
>Each of these statements was made by one of the three people:

File: iamge.png (28KB, 1024x594px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 1024x594px

>>8611047
>>8611048
>>8611049
>>8611050
>>8611053
There's no solution.
OP is trolling you guys :^)

>>8612346
Wrong.

>>8615718
Which isn't the same thing as "Each one of the three people made a statement".

>>8615850
And reinforced by
>(II) The innocent person made at least one of the three statements.
The 'at least one' implying they could have made more.

OP, this thread has been up for a while, any comment before it 404's?

>>8615736
Then it's as >>8615733 says, no solution

Casey = thief
Alex = innocent
Blair = accomplice

>>8616438
Casey talked about himself not being innocent. That maes alex innocent and blair the accomplice

>>8611019
alex is the thief, blair is the accomplice, casey is innocent
statement 1 and 2 were made by casey, statement 3 by either blair or alex
all three facts check out