What always murmurs but never talks, Always runs but never walks, Has a bed but never sleeps, Has a mouth but never speaks
[tab]A river.[/tab]
[tab]Mo[/tab]
lol I just noticed that the statements are things that the people themselves are saying. That changes everything.
The fact that you used a tab is evidence that you Googled the answer. The riddle was really a test of honesty which you failed! 
Yes, that changes everything. But, it is not clear from the language of the riddle whether one should take the statements in that way or not. One may also think that they are talking about any past event but not lying now in those statements. That is how i considered that.
with love,
sanjay
Ok. Right. Arminius I tied one one the night before. It was the second riddle, now, am I “close”?
In addition I would like to post a riddle of my own, but here is the thing, about clarification of rules pertaining to this. Must one poster participate in a previous riddle, before asking questions about that or any riddle posting?
Can one post a new riddle, without participating in one or more or all riddles?
In other words do the rules of propriety prevent a poster or any other ILP member, who may or may not have followed some or any post, to post a new riddle?
This is why, I felt reluctant to even ask about the outcome or riddle number two.
If all of the above apply, then it could be assumed that all of the points made could be answered with
A “yes”
And if so, again, is ‘Leibnitz’ the proper answer?
platopuppy, it was an easy riddle
and we use tabs to avoid spoiling the riddle to others
quit being a tool
Ok Hegel, (blush), never mind.
obe go ahead and post a riddle if you want to
arminius I have a question,
does a lie mean that the opposite of the statement is true, or simply that the entire statement is struck out?
Thanks, but there are two problems, one I am still fiendishly attached to authority, and feel Arminius should give me the go ahead, and second, I have to
Make it out out of an already published incident, which incidentally is not yet in a form , sufficiently clear to qualify.
however, thanks for that, but will try. The fact that it has been published (here) , in only an open ended form of suggesting for an analysis, will not deter me, now that this is somewhat clear. However, it is yet premature to guess on my part, as to when this can be done. I only asked as an exploratory , were this to take place.
I am having problems with it because, it seems almost opportunistic, an involvement, without little prior interest.
But I am going to work on it, and try to get into other riddles in the interim.
lol obe you can be so adorable sometimes
Perhaps that’s a paradox in it’s self .I did say it implies a call to suggestion. But that may Not raise to the level of a riddle.
Thanks for the complement ,Pho, anyway.
What are you talking about? There is nothing that changes everything!
You do not know what you are talking about. We use tabs to avoid spoiling the riddle to others. Do you understand that?
Yes. Post a riddle if you want to, Orbie.
No.
[tab]Leibniz has nothing to do with that second riddle and also nothing to do with the other riddles that have been posted till now.[/tab]
Yes. What about a new username, Obe / Orb / Orbie, for example something like Ad[u]or/u[u]b/ue or so?
Ii is meant logically, Phoneutria, thus the definition of a lie refers to the rules of logic. But do not panic, because it is not very difficult. In the following tab you can find what is meant in each case if it is a lie:
[tab]A: “B lies if and only if D is telling the truth.” If that statement is a lie, then the statement of B has nothing to do with the statement of D.
B: “If C is telling the truth, then either A or D is a liar.” If that statement is a lie, then, if C is telling the truth, both A and D are telling the truth.
C: “E lies, and also A or B lies.” If that statement is a lie, then either E is true or both A and B are telling the truth.
D: “If B is telling the truth, then A or C too.” If that statement is a lie, then, if B is telling the truth, both A and C are liars.
E: “Among the persons A, C and D is at least one liar.” If that statement is a lie,then A, C, and D are telling the truth.[/tab]
Thought it would be answered by now, but phon and Sanjay are expressing the language issue that I mentioned (the same wording doesn’t always mean the same thing if from different people).
Answer:[tab]D: “If B is telling the truth, then A or C too.”
If that is a lie, then if B is telling the truth, both A and C are lies.
We know that D is true because if it was false (and B was true) D, A, and C would all have to be lying and that makes 3 liars, not 2.
B: “If C is telling the truth, then either A or D is a liar.”
If that is a lie, then if C is telling the truth, both A or D are true.
Since D is true, then IF B is true, either A or C is also true. But then IF B is false and C is true, A and D are true. We already know that D is true, so we need to look at A for the possibility of being true.
A: “B lies if and only if D is telling the truth.”
If that is a lie, all you know is that B is independent of D.
If A is true, since we already know that D is true, B is required to be a lie. So A can be true IF B is a lie.
Again, if B is a lie and C is true, both A and D must also be true. We know D is true and are confirming if A is. But that is only a concern IF C is true. If C is a lie, B requires nothing further.
C: “E lies, and also A or B lie.”
If that is a lie, either E is true or both A or B are true.
C demands that E is a lie as well as either A or B. We need to confirm if that is possibly true which would mean that A, C, and D would be required to be true.
E: “Among the persons A, C and D is at least one liar.”
If that is a lie, A, C, and D are true.
We know that D is true and are suspecting that A and C are also true. If E is a lie then we have two liars and our suspicions are right about A, C, and D.
Thus by B lying and E lying, we can have two liars only.[/tab]
Well, logically, whenever you have two switches, you have 4 states:
A off B off (that’d be an NOR)
A off B on (that’d be an OR)
A on B off (that’d be an OR)
A on B on ( that’d be an AND)
So when you say that A on B off is a lie, that still leaves you 3 options.
That is absolutely right. =D>
Beside the logic of the statements you have to consider the logic of all statements in reference to each other too, Phoneutria.
And an “or” in a statement can be an “exlusive or” or an “inclusive or”, but which one it exactly is can depend on the context in which the “or” is used.
As I alraedy said:
In addition: James has just given the right answer and the right rationale.
Heh I am not going to read the answer. This is a good puzzle.
Btw, that problem is a good test for one’s “working memory” (very short term memory). If the working memory is having troubles, concentration becomes very difficult and one tends to feel impatient and look for the easy way out of problems (jump to a conclusion), sometimes at the expense of failure and/or frustration. It is caused by a chemical imbalance, usually the result of early viral infections that led to a series of neurological sensitivities and subtle anxiety.
[size=85]{{just FYI}}[/size]