Monday Madness, November 26, 2012 Options

[Tomk]

Mr. Arson, Mr. Burglar, Mr. Counterfeit, Mr. Dognapper, and Mr. Ebezzlement are five convicted criminals. They were convicted of arsonry, burglary, counterfeiting, dognapping, and embezzlement. None of the men's name matches the crime for which he was convicted. Also, due to the confusion induced by these names, none of the men was convicted of the crime for which he was originally arrested and charged for. It also happens that none of the men were arrested or originally charged with the crime that matched his name. For example, Mr. Burglar was charged with the crime that Mr. Dognapper was sentenced for, and Mr. Dognapper was charged with the crime that Mr. Counterfeit got sentenced for. Mr. Arson was sentenced for embezzlement - though that is not what he was charged with. The namesake of one crime was charged with the crime of which the namesake was charged with counterfeiting.

Obviously this is confusing and a complete injustice. We must help get things straightened out!

Who has been sentenced for dognapping? How do you know?

[oldman960]

Tomk. 'Cause I saw him. Plus when the dog escaped and returned home, she tol me.

[Tomk]

So... no one can help resolve this issue?

Maybe we should just sentence them all to whichever crime carries the stiffest penalty?

[terry1966]

sorry tomk i've been meaning to sit down and try and work this one out, but with one thing and another i just haven't gotten around to it and to be honest i don't know when i will either at the moment.

[terry1966]

been a while but here's my answer.

Mr. Ebezzlement was sentenced for dognapping.

how to i know? logic and elimination. (assuming my logic is correct. )

Mr. Arson was charged with dognapping and sentenced for embezzlement
Mr. Burglar was charged with arsonry and sentenced for counterfeiting
Mr. Counterfeit was charged with embezzlement and sentenced for burglary
Mr. Dognapper was charged with burglary and sentenced for arsonry
Mr. Ebezzlement was charged with counterfeiting and sentenced for dognapping

[Tomk]

It's been so long I had a bit of trouble finding my notes. When I work it out... I get a different answer. Yet if I work backwards from your answer... I can't figure out at what point your answer doesn't meet the criteria. But... when I set up a "truth table" I cannot get your answer.

[terry1966]

well confusing you must be worth a treat anyway..




i think i had a choice of 2 near the end Mr. Burglar or Mr. Ebezzlement with my truth table (if that's what the x tick boxes are called.)

and " The namesake of one crime was charged with the crime of which the namesake was charged with counterfeiting." confused me a bit but finally got me to plump for Mr. Ebezzlement as the culprit.

i'll do another truth table and see if i get the same answers. (not guaranteed.. )

[terry1966]

ok i did another and came up with these answers, but could just as easily have came up with my original answers.

the only thing i am 100% sure of is Mr. Arson was sentenced for embezzlement and Mr. Counterfeit was charged with embezzlement.

Mr. Burglar was sentenced for dognapping.

Mr. Arson was charged with counterfeiting and sentenced for embezzlement
Mr. Burglar was charged with arsonry and sentenced for dognapping
Mr. Counterfeit was charged with embezzlement and sentenced for burglary
Mr. Dognapper was charged with burglary and sentenced for arsonry
Mr. Ebezzlement was charged with dognapping and sentenced for counterfeiting

[Tomk]

" The namesake of one crime was charged with the crime of which the namesake was charged with counterfeiting."

When I ran my truth table- this statement told me that Mr. Arson had to be charged with counterfeiting (we already knew he was convicted of embezzlement), but didn't tell me if it was Mr. Burglar or Mr. Embezzlement that was charged with arson. I had to work that out through process of elimination on my table.

Anyhow... Well done terry1966! That is the correct answer. Unfortunately, due to the time it took to resolve this issue - the defendants filed a dismissal motion claiming they were denied due process under the fair and speedy clause. The judge found in their favor and they were all released. It just so happens that three of the perpetrators have been picked up again on new charges and the other two joined the cabinet of the Obama administration where they are protected by executive privilege.

I've been making candied peanuts (very similar to toffee coated peanuts) to snack on. Have a few:

[terry1966]

they'll do just fine i love peanuts too.

yes sorry i took so long to get around to it, but one good thing the two that joined the cabinet can only make things better for you over there..

just wish more people had the time to try and work out your puzzles after the effort you put into finding them each week.

as always many thanks from me.

[chrissy72]

I kinda liked OLDMANS answer