Logic Puzzle

>>8765953
Trick question, Jesus is the only way to get to ever-lasting paradise.

>>8765968
nice logic

What happens if you ask the question 'Will you answer this question with the word that means 'no'?'

>>8765993
not much.

because you still won't know who you're talking two because of Kek's random answers.

>>8765953
incorporate lel and lol into a question that will always give a true answer.

from this we can deduce who is who

>>8766002
this is good but how to separate from the others Kek?

>>8766012
*Kek from the others

>You're allowed to ask three yes or no questions to any one Lord to find out.
do all three questions have to be asked of the same Lord? or does it just mean that each question can only be asked of one (rather than asking all three)? because if it's the former, this is probably unsolvable; you could pick Kek at random in which case urfuckt

>>8765953
THICCCCCCCCK

>>8766022
>or does it just mean that each question can only be asked of one (rather than asking all three)?

this. you can ask any one , one at a time for each question.

The answer relies on relative position.

Left, Middle or Right

>>8765968
this

>>8766000
Ask that to at least two of them then.

>>8766012
Lemma 1: Assume the guardians speak English. For any question S, if you ask Jesus or Baphomet 'if I were to ask you if S is true, would you say 'yes'?', then you get an answer of 'yes' if and only if S is true.
Lemma 2: Assume the guardians speak English. For any question S, if you ask Jesus or Baphomet 'if I were to ask you if S is true, would you say 'no'?', then you get an answer of 'no' if and only if S is true.

Therefore: For any question S, if you ask Jesus or Baphomet 'if I were to ask you if S is true, would you say 'lel'?', then you get an answer of 'lel' if and only if S is true. (*)

So label the guardians Left, Middle, Right and ask the left one 'if I were to ask you if Middle is Kek, would you say 'lel'?' An answer of 'lel' means that either 'Middle is Kek' is true, or Left is Kek and answering randomly. Either way, Right is not Kek.
An answer of 'lol' means that either Left is Kek or 'Middle is Kek' is false. Either way, Middle is not Kek.

So you have a guardian from whom you can extract the truth using (*). The rest should be straightforward.

>>8765953
Going by probability's worst case scenario

Ask the question "you're not jesus, correct?"
Jesus answers no
Baphomet answers no
Kek answers no

Ask the question "did baphomet just tell the truth?"
Jesus answers no
Baphomet answers yes
Kek answers no

Ask the question "did kek just lied?"
Jesus answers yes
Kek answers yes however, there is a 12.5% chance that kek agrees with jesus up to this point so you can infer but not conclude that kek's voice speaks lies.

The only way to determine the difference between jesus, baphomet, and kek is to form your questions so that the answers are logically distinguished from each other and that's impossible so long as kek as random answers that can match jesus.

File: 1428292752326s.jpg (4KB, 124x124px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 124x124px

>>8765953
I figured it out in the shower.
The implications are that both Jesus and Baphomet's answers are based on the objective truth and Kek's answer is simply based on the finishing of the question because it is truly random. We are also implying the questions are not interdependent and you can remember all the answers from the 3 guardians for each of the 3 questions asked.

"Will Kek lie about this question?"
Kek immediately answers Lel or Lol (doesn't matter for now)
Jesus and Baphomet follow with either a Lel or Lol. So we've narrowed out who kek really is; The one who answered first.

"Does lel mean yes?"
Either Jesus or Baphomet says lel or lol

"Does the other guy lie?"
Jesus and Baphomet will both say either lel or lol. This means that the answer to this question is how we find out yes or no. The one that says the same answer from question 2 is Jesus and the one that does not, is Baphomet.

Example? Sure.
"Will kek lie about this question?"
1st Guardian: Answers "lel" right away
2nd Guardian: Answers lel/lol
3rd Guardian: Answers lel/lol

"Does lol mean yes?"
2nd Guardian: lel
3rd Guardian: lol

"Does the other guardian lie?"
2nd Guardian: "lol"
3rd Guardian: "lol"

Therefore, the second guardian is Baphomet and the 3rd guardian is Jesus.

>>8766152
ahh shoot, i just realized you wanted each question to be directed towards one lord. back to the drawing board. sorry op.

>>8766055
>lel or lol

>>8766054
This is pretty spot on.

>>8765953
Goto /x retard.

>>8766152
>>8766156

Let us assume that kek is still fully random and will give an answer regardless of falsity. In other words, he's dependent upon the finishing of the question and not the truth.

Question for Left: "Does lel mean yes?"
Left: lel
>jesus and baphomet both give the same amount of info.
>If lel=yes then jesus says lel and baphomet says lol. If baphomet lies and says "lol" then he's saying no which really means lol=no which means lel=yes.
>If lel=no then jesus says lol and baphomet says lel which still let's you derive the truth from their answers.
>For a question formatted for lel=yes or lol=yes, you're looking for at least 2/3 agreement among the guardians. It's just a way to trick baphomet into agreeing with jesus.
>kek would be random

Let's just assume lel=yes.
Question for Left: "Does Jesus lie?"
>Baphomet would say "lel"
>Jesus would say "lol"
>Kek would be random
>Therefore, the one's who say "lol" in this trial are liars but for the purpose of the worst case scenario, let's assume jesus and kek are still in the running and Baphomet was eliminated after this question.

Question for Left: "Would kek lie for this question?"
>Jesus would refrain from answering or he would say he doesn't know because he cannot lie
>kek would answer right away.
>Jesus would not know the answer and/or decline to answer the question
>Kek would answer right away.

>>8765968
Fpbp

>>8766054
Very nice, anon.

My first analysis at this resulted in me concluding that this puzzle is impossible for information-theoretic reasons. My reasoning was that if you first question happens to be directed at Kek, you learn nothing from that answer because it is uncorrelated to anything, and then you only have at most two bits of information left to learn with your remaining questions which cannot possibly distinguish between 6 possible permutations even in the best case.

The error in my reasoning, of course, is that while the first question to Kek is independent of anything interesting *conditional on you talking to Kek*, the answer CAN provide useful information on who is and is not Kek, i.e. it can provide evidence on the condition behind the conditional independence.

Your solution exploits that small gap very nicely. Bravo.