THE RUNES

The Babel puzzles become complicated later so it is really important to develop a robust method for solving these. I tend to start by assuming that the first statement is true and working through each statement marking them true or false and checking that this introduces no inconsistency. Upon finding that the initial assumption leads to inconsistency, I change that assumption and work though again. How do you do it?

Let me share my system, which is merely a slightly longer version of Gauntlet's.

I did everything on a spreadsheet, using letters instead of symbols for the characters. The great advantage here is that I could highlight a row with a colour (I used Green for True and Red for False) which meant that after a while I could register the status of a statement almost without thinking.

Otherwise I followed Gauntlet's method. I mark one statement with a 1 to show that's where I started, and colour it Green (assuming that it's true.) I then follow that statement through (colouring the other lines as I go) until either I hit an inconsistency (so I can clear all the colours!) or they are all Green/Red. If that happens, I then check down each statement in turn to make sure it still works, and if it does then I do it again just to be sure

One comment I will make is that always starting with the first statement isn't necessarily the best thing to do. Where there are several statements, sometimes it can pay you to check the whole set and see if there are two obviously contradictory ones (e.g. one person says the Doctor lies and another person says the Doctor tells the truth.) They can't both be right, and that's often a good place to start making your assumptions.

The method I tried on the most recent ToB (which seemed to work) was to write down the two main characters and the four possible outcomes

Dr ........ T...............T................F............F
Sch .......T...............F................T............F

and then add rows for the other characters and when a situation became impossible crossed that column out. A bit like a complicated alphactor, but simpler (I think)

(Not sure if that made sense)

Scurra is quite right about not always starting with the first statement. Sometimes one can see self-referential statements that can only have one value. In those cases, they are a good place to start.

my method for these is the same as Gauntlet's - choose a statement, assume it's true, then go through the other statements until I either find an inconsistency or reach the end (at which point I check all the statements again and cheer)

I'm sure there are better ways of doing it, but I never did dig out my symbolic logic book and see what it recommended!

I'm totally in the dark here and would appreciate someone explaining how an answer is arrived at from the letter square with the symbols.
I'm probably just being totally thick or the general anesthetic I had last week has killed off my brain cells. (It's probably both)

Kathlyn,

I have some notes on how the this Tower of Babel puzzle works. There is also a write-up on a more complicated puzzle, together with a step by step solution.

If you would like to look at these, please send me a message and I will send you the link.

Please can I have a note of the link regarding these puzzles? Thanks

Sure - I have sent it to you.

Can I have that link as well please

OK I seem to be making a little progress now. But could someone please spare a minute to explain "could say" to me please?

Cheers.

BB

if the builder says that the scholar could say that the judge was lying, then it's just like getting an extra level of info.

if the builder is lying and the scholar is telling the truth, then it's saying the judge is telling the truth.

if the builder is telling the truth and the scholar is lying then it's also saying that the judge is telling the truth

if they both are telling the truth, the judge is lying, or if they are both lying the judge is lying.

Any clearer???

Eirian that is as clear as mud.(The problem is me , not you!) It makes me want to run round screaming.

I'll go and sit in a darkened room for a while and then try reading it again slowly.

"Builder: Scholar could say that Judge is lying" means:

Builder: (Scholar is true AND Judge is false) OR (Scholar is false AND Judge is true)

Ah Ha!! Thanks Eirian and Gauntlet. I get it now. OK back to test it out on P11.

Thanx. BB.