Burglars and Detectives Part2 (Modified)
Only one of four people, Alice, Beto, Carl and Mini, stole the money from Ms. Doubtfire. She hires you as a consultant detective. After interrogating each of them, you have the following:
: Carl took the money. There was a forceful entry.
: If the window was open, then there wasn't a forceful entry.
The window was open. Carl is lying.
: Mini is lying. Alice is telling the truth.
You also know that every part of each statement that everyone said is either true or each part of their statement is false. Who took the money?
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Alice : Carl took the money. There was a forceful entry.
Carl : If the window was open, then there wasn't a forceful entry.
Mini : The window was open. Carl is lying.
Beto : Mini is lying. Alice is telling the truth.
1) We're told that these people are 100% honest or 100% deceitful.
2) By Beto's statement, since we don't know yet if Beto is trustworthy or not, then we have either a liar Mini and a truthful Alice OR a truthful Mini and a liar Alice.
3) Therefore, we might have at hand either one of these two possibilities :
a) a closed window AND a forceful entry, OR
b) an open window AND NOT a forced entry.
4) Either way, with both of the possible scenarios, Carl would still be telling the truth because he was using conditional statement of if P then Q, and we found out that his P and Q are of the same truth values, so Carl couldn't have lied with either (for P = Q = false ==> IPTQ = somehow still true, while for P = Q = true ==> IPTQ = also true).
5) In the end, Carl was truthful, Mini who accused him of being a liar was lying, Beto who called Mini as a liar out was truthful and Alice was truthful when she accused a truthful but guilty Carl.