A prisoner is trapped in a room with two doors. He knows that there is a dangerous monster behind one door and the other leads him to freedom.
On the doors there are inscriptions, which read as follows:
Can the prisoner determine which door has a monster behind it?
Warning (Hint): Do not make any implicit assumptions
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.
One might indeed incorrectly reason as follows: Suppose the inscription on the left door is correct, in that case the inscription on the right door is wrong, which means the monster is behind the left door. On the other hand, if the inscription on the left door is false, the inscription on the left door has to be false as well, meaning that the monster is behind the left door, again.
Doesn't that show that the monster must be behind the left door? Well, not quiet.
We are missing just one point. The prisoner cannot guarantee with certainty that the messages on the doors have got something to do with what is actually behind the door. The problem never mentions that the inscriptions in fact are related to what is behind the doors. It is indeed physically possible to hide the monster behind the right door, and still write down these inscriptions on the doors
Inspired by this blog post , consider the following scenario:
Suppose you have two boxes. You know one of them has some treasure inside it, the other one does not. But you have two labels with you, "Exactly one of these labels is correct." and "The treasure is inside this box". If you arbitrarily paste these labels, you could go through the same deduction. But does that mean just pasting labels on the boxes let you figure out which box had the treasure?