Abstract
Rabern and Rabern (Analysis 68:105–112 2) and Uzquiano (Analysis 70:39–44 4) have each presented increasingly harder versions of ‘the hardest logic puzzle ever’ (Boolos The Harvard Review of Philosophy 6:62–65 1), and each has provided a two-question solution to his predecessor’s puzzle. But Uzquiano’s puzzle is different from the original and different from Rabern and Rabern’s in at least one important respect: it cannot be solved in less than three questions. In this paper we solve Uzquiano’s puzzle in three questions and show why there is no solution in two. Finally, to cement a tradition, we introduce a puzzle of our own.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boolos, G. (1996). The hardest logic puzzle ever. The Harvard Review of Philosophy, 6, 62–65.
Rabern, B., & Rabern, L. (2008). A simple solution to the hardest logic puzzle ever. Analysis, 68, 105–112.
Roberts, T. S. (2001). Some thoughts about the hardest logic puzzle ever. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 30(4), 609–612.
Uzquiano, G. (2010). How to solve the hardest logic puzzle ever in two questions. Analysis, 70, 39–44.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wheeler, G., Barahona, P. Why the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever Cannot Be Solved in Less than Three Questions. J Philos Logic 41, 493–503 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-011-9181-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-011-9181-7