Posted by brent on August 13, 2001 at 20:25:43:
In Reply to: very nice!!! (n/t) posted by T.G. on August 09, 2001 at 11:13:58:
Just a sec - let's label the men 3-2-1 from back to the front - 3's response can only be dunno - the only impossible combo in front of him is two white hats - otherwise he answers black.
But to say:
"The (2) did not see a white hat on (1) - otherwise he would have known that he was wearing a black hat (from 3 s response)
: - So -
: A black hat is on (1)"
is making an assumption - there is a possibility that 2 has on EITHER black or white, his answer is correct as dunno - but - 3's answer leaves two possibilities. There are three black hats and one white hat or two of each as possiblilities for 2 to see, reguardles of what he is wearing, and reguardless of 3's answer (unless 3 had answered black). I believe your logic is flawed in assuming 2 saw a black hat on 1. In other words - 2 could not draw a conclusion from what he saw or heard unless 3 had answered black. How can 1 draw any conclusions when he has no elimination of possibilities as visible evidence and 3 and 2's answers still leave him the same possibilities that 2 faced with the advantage of the elimination of one hat?
But past that - I have no better answer - lol. What does the poster of the riddle have to say reguarding a solution?
Or am I missing something?