Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fram
Fine so far? But it goes on. If there were only three people with blue eyes, one of those three would see only two people with blue eyes, wonder why they didn't commit suicide (like above), decide that he had blue eyes as well, and kill himself. Etcetera.
|
If there were three people with blue eyes, then any of the three with blue eyes who saw the other two with blue eyes could logically assume they, themselves, could have had either blue or brown eyes.
The only new info given to the tribe is that there are only two colors of eyes. Provided there are three or more people with each color, the solution is indeterminant, same as the socks in the drawer puzzle (drawer full of socks, two colors - how many socks must one pull out in the dark before they have a matching pair? Answer - three).
Wait. The man said "people" referencing the number who had each color. Thus, implying two or more. That's the info.
Thus, if there were two people who had blue eyes, then one or the other, looking around, realizing that there was only one other person with blue eyes, would kill himself. The other, looking around, seeing no more blue eyeed people would kill himself, too. The rest of the tribe, looking around, would see nothing but brown eyes, but would know because of the logical conclusion of the first two that they all had brown eyes and would kill themselves.
But with three people or more with blue eyes, this logic falls.
Thus, the tribe wouldn't do anything, as each of the blue eyed people would see four others with blue eyes and rightly conclude the requirements of the person's statement were met, regardless of their eyes, and do nothing.
But they would now know that there were only two colors of eyes among themselves.
That's the new pice of information.
[/quote]