Exactamundo…
As I said, I have head-ache.
At the end of the problem it says some monks are found dead. So can you not assume the antecedent that x amount of monks have the disease. Or not, is the last statement a paradox? Are they saying some monks died even though none had it , if so can you explain why logically? It’s unnecessary to claim at least one monk had it because clearly some monks died, not 1: from dropsy or scrofula or anything, some not 1 monk actually did die and it’s clear from the context (surely they would mention if a monk got up one day and just decided to end it all, cause like My Chemical Romance had just split up), or as is more likely was it from the disease not Shatner’s Palsy or the shaking bode. Now we can claim they died from natural causes, they died from the willies. But we cannot change the fact that they died, 'cause they did it’s an absolute in the problem. And I would personally prefer that the problem is self contained, it doesn’t have to be, and in that case no proof will ever work, even if you say one person had it at the start, because lets face they could of all died of wankers rickets or too much peanut butter and bacon burgers or Rodan’s finger ( the bane of all people who point the finger).
I suggest you accept the fact that at least one monk had it is a given instead of claiming people died spontaneously from their imagination or whatever. Some monks are dead at the end of the time, you need to move on to why. Although if you like you can invent outlandish reasons as to why more than one monk was dead, but I would suggest that is kinda pointless. I didn’t give this problem to mess with you, nor is there no solution, but we can all go round in circles forever saying well they just spontaneously combusted in their cells, despite being perfectly healthy, sure it’s a possibility but given the fact that there’s a disease going around and the problem is about that…
Check yourself in the mirror, do you have a read spot on your head? 
I don’t think you understand my problem with the problem. It’s not ME who’s not accepting that one monk had it. I’m fine with accepting that. Read my post again, try to understand what’s going on. What I’m saying is that, given the wording, no Monk necessarily has to die. It has nothing to do with me, it has to do with the Monks and the wording of the problem.
“The disease kills everyone who knows they have it”
“Some monks may have the disease”
I showed already how this wording affects the situation of 1 monk having the disease: he will never know he has it, and so he doesn’t have to die.
I also showed how this wording affects the situation of 2 monks having the disease: each will think that the situation is that 1 has the disease, and it’s not him.
The same logic can be applied to n monks having the disease: if 3 have the disease, each will think that 2 monks have it, and not himself, and so on and so forth.
Now, contrast that to the following wording:
“The disease kills everyone who knows they have it”
“At least one monk has it”
How does this wording affect the various situations?
1 monk has it: none of the other monks he sees have a dot on their head, so he can conclude that he’s the one who has it. He dies.
2 monks have it: they each see the spot on the other monk’s head, so they know that either 1 monk has it or 2 monks have it. If he dies after the first meal, they know that only he had it (as above, in the ‘1 monk has it’ example), and if he doesn’t die after the first meal, they know that the other monk sees another monk who has a red dot, and since they don’t see anyone else with a red dot, they know it must be themselves. They die after the second meal.
The same logic applies for n monks.
If you change the wording, the monks have to die from the disease. The wording, as it is, means the monks don’t know that they have it, and the disease is not lethal to those who don’t know. I’m not inventing outlandish reasons for them dying, I’m just saying that, as worded, they don’t die from the disease, because they don’t know. They would know, if they were told “At least one monk has it” as opposed to “Some may have it”.
Is that alright pal? You seem angry.
How does some monks die affect your argument?
I don’t understand why this is an issue, personally some monks do in fact die, by logic we can assume that no one or one monk dies is not part of the problem. You have an issue perhaps with antecedent logic. An issue you should perhaps not be so keen to persue. But by all means pursue it you seem to have all the means to solve this problem, but no impetus.
At the end some monks are dead, why? Is it magic or the fact the Sugar Babes split up?
Of course as I know well this is going to go on forever with you inventing ever more fantastic reasons why it is not certain some monks died, even though it is an absolute truth. But I do wish you wouldn’t.
Some monks are dead here not 1 not 20,000 not even none, why?
Think like you are Poirot or Sherlock Holmes not actually knowing why the monks died but called in to solve the mystery of why some did, then gather up all the usual suspects put them in a room and accuse The Butler or whatever. Take the end of the problem, put that in your think box and then work out why. SOME, monks are dead, natural causes, ennui about the fact without the 60s great music has gone downhill… personally I think it’s coming on strong, but I am not a monk who is likely to commit suicide over the 90s which was shit let’s face it. 
I always sound angry, I am an angry, angry man. Well not really but it is my thing. Cross me and I will cut you, seriously cut you up bad blud.
I’m not talking about why they died. You’re still not getting it.
As worded in the problem, no monk knows that he has the disease. No monk knows.
No monk knows.
No monk knows.
No monk knows.
Do you get it yet?
This time, take your time as you read my previous post. Try to figure out why no monk knows given my reasoning. Take it slowly, work your brain out a little bit.
It does not say no monk knows he has the disease. And you are of course forgetting the fact that your logic is completely flawed as you take the fact that some monks die, as the fact that no monks know they have the disease. Let alone the fact that your conclusions simply do not follow if we ignore that. Let your brain rest a while, take it slowly, even brain exercise needs some rest periods.
No monks have to die, they still did though.
Yeah but some monks did die. More than 1. 
How many monks then die?
Maths Fun
Oxymoron of the Week award!
This problem only exists because maths models the universe as a set of integers, or fractions of integers.
I can show that this paradox is false with the use of a bow and arrow.
If you feel strong enough that the arrow can never reach its target then please be my guest and let me sue you as a target.
Well I am having fun. 
Quite, but unfortunately seeing is no longer believing.
What if the messenger has a red dot on his head? We can’t know if he does or does not but how does that change things. What ifs are great, but we only know one thing for sure, that some monks die. The messenger is not going to say x people have the disease or no one has it, because he cannot know that absolutely with the information given. All he can know is that they may have it. And if he can see they do, why would he tell them and hence kill them?
Some monks may have the disease means they may or may not, but then diseases have incubation periods, if monks are dead at the end we can assume at least some did have disease or that Kylie Minogues recent battle with cancer has unhinged their mind, and made them question the validity of someone with such a nice ass, having to go through that. Life isn’t fair. Let’s take the assumption that the disease has no incubation period and hence no monks have it when the messenger arrives, since they eat rice and it is not contagious, what happens then, let’s take the assumption that we cannot assume this what happens then? Let’s say that on their first meal which contains rice 1 or x contract the disease. Let’s not assume anything without knowing it to be true, if it is not mentioned in the question. Let’s only take what we know for sure, some monks die, they have 3 meals a day.
Monk’s and Red Dots.
The problem is internally incoherent. And that makes ME a philosopher.
Here’s the problem
300 monks…no communication between monks … mirrors are forbidden. The monks have their three meals a day…
Messenger " a rare disease…the monks may have the disease. The main symptom a large red spot on the head of the afflicted. The disease kills everyone who knows they have it within two hours.
On the morning of the eleventh day after the messenger arrives, some of the monks don’t turn for breakfast and are found dead in their beds.
Question: How many monks died?
No monk can die of the disease, as no monk can ever “KNOW” that he has it as no monk can tell him and he cannot see his own head.
The phrase;“the monks may have the disease.” does not amount to knowledge of having a disease.
In fact if another person told him, he would still no “know it”.
Thus the assertion that some of the minks don’t turn up for breakfast, due to the illness is not warranted by the information.
One can only presume that as they washed that night they saw their own reflections.
But that cannot help us answer “How many” as there is no information as to how many might have noticed the red dot by whatever method is not mentioned.
That is of course untrue, if someone dies, they then know someone has the disease, you are maybe assuming they all die on the same day, at the end. All it says is on the last day some monks are found dead, it does not say that that was the only day that monks were found dead just that some monks are found dead in their beds on the last day.
If someone told him he had the disease there are two possibilities, one how the hell did he do that since communication is impossible and two, eh?
I’m not assuming anything at all. I’m only taking the problem at face value, and telling you that it is internally incoherent.
No monk can die, so the question how many die, is bogus, and the claim that some monks die (on whatever day it matters not), is also false given the rest of the problem.
The problem is badly worded.
This is a confusion, not a problem.
So if the problem says that some monks die on the last day it is rendered untrue because you say so? Where did you get that logic from, how can no monks die if they are dead. The question renders the idea that no on can or did die false, because some people did. Why?
[tab]If someone dies surely it means to the monks that some people have the disease, if they can see no disease on anyone and yet on the last day some monks die…[/tab]
Don’t view this it basically gives away the answer. The problem has to start from a condition where someone dies. the number is only dependant on you avoiding conclusions you cannot in fact justify.
Are you kidding?
There are only two possible outcomes:
- Either you can tell me exactly HOW many monks die, and by what means.
OR - The problem is shit.
As There is no way to determine 1, then solution 2 is the only option.
Tell me what your solution is and I’ll tell you why you are wrong, because due to the information IN THE PROBLEM, no monk can die, because no monk can KNOW that he has the disease.
SO if you are up to it: take the challenge!
And yet someone made this problem and probably several hundred people have solved it. Is it that they were all wrong or that you don’t get it?
I’m not going to tell you the solution just because you are too lazy to work it out. Fuck that. It’s not an easy problem to solve ok. But the only way I will give away the solution is when everyone has agreed they cannot solve it and do not want to. It’s not fair on other people who might like to take a punt.
No I am not kidding, I have no kid to kid with, I am not a kidder, it has a solution.
“Fuck that”?? I think you need to behave yourself!
Are you taking the piss?
Put up or shut up!
Tell me your solution if you are man enough. Otherwise stop wasting my time buddy!
Fact is you ain’t got a solution that can work given the information.
Prove me wrong and PM me.
No I wont. I don’t take orders from Orc maggots. It can work you just aren’t able to figure it out. That is not my problem.
I will give the answer only if no one can figure it out. I’m not ruining a perfectly good problem because someone is throwing his weight around.
Answer will come but not because you demand it.