Knights and Knaves

Logic word problems have recently been used to exploit individuals in thinking they help cure certain issues like Dementia, memory loss, and Alzheimer’s disease. This thought of using these logic puzzles as a remedy has been used by developers such as Luminosity. These claims made by Luminosity have proven to be false as “training” your brain to complete certain logic tasks cannot necessarily help an individual cure health problems (Day, 2013). According to George Mason University researchers, many brain puzzle games that essentially help increase an individuals brain power is due to placebo (Vlasits, 2017). Despite this information, this doesn’t change the fact that these logic puzzles cannot benefit an individual in a different aspect. Logic puzzles can be fun, but they can also provide many other benefits that will benefit an individual in many different fields

Logic puzzles became popularized through the writing of “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” by Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson). After some time, a Mathematician by the name Raymond Smullyan expanded the realm of logic puzzles and eventually popularized certain puzzles like the “Knights and Knaves” puzzles, where the reader stumbles upon Knights and Knaves and must determine their true identity. Through different problems, many people do not know ways to think of

One way to solve logic puzzles easily is to think of logic word problems as propositions. Propositions are essentially any statement that can have a true or false value as its output.

For example:

Michigan is a country.

This is a proposition cause it returns a true or false value depending on the situation. In this case, it is false. You can convert these statements to a letter to make problem solving easier, so in the above case, you can use M rather than the entire sentence.

X + 2 = 4

This is not a proposition cause it will only return a true or false value based on the value of x which could be anything

Using said propositions, you have certain symbols that allow an individual to essentially convert the logic to a easier to read statement.

V = disjunction (or) Example: A V B = A or B

disjunction is the combination of two statements by “or” which means one must depend on one statement

^ = Conjunction (and) Example A ^ B = A and B

conjunction is the combination of two statements by “and” which means the output must depend on both

¬ = Negation (not) Example ¬A = not A

→ = Condition (If Then) Example A→B = if A, then B

With the symbols used above, one needs to know what the values are when using such. In the tables, T refers to whether the statement is true, and False refers to whether they are false. These are known as truth tables.

Disjunction

A B A V B
T T T                                                (1)
T F T                                                (2)
 F T T                                                (3)
F F F                                                (4)

In order to read this first table, lets think of an example.

A = Harry is in Arizona

B = The weather was cold

In line 1 we see that if A is true and B is true, then A V B must be true because you are seeing if one value is true. In line 4, A V B is false because none of A or B are true.

Conjunction

A B A ^ B
T T T                                                (1)
T F F                                                (2)
F T F                                                (3)
F F F                                                (4)

For conjunction, we will use the same example as the one provide in disjunction. In line 1, we see that when A is true and B is true then A ^ B is both true. In line 2, we see that when A is true and B is false, then A ^ B is false because only one is true and to fulfill conjunction both have to be the same.

Negation

A ¬A
T F
F T

Conditional

A B A→B
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

Using the said information, lets walk through an example problem to get a general understanding of what to do.

EXAMPLE

As stated previously, Robert Smullyan popularized the puzzle about Knights and Knaves where pretty much you are on an island where you encounter two individuals that are either one is a Knight or a Knave . Knights always tell the truth, whereas a Knave always tells a lie. One of the individuals states that both of them are knights, while the other says that the other is a Knave. It is up to you to solve who the knight and knave is using the information at hand (Smullyan, 2015).

Step 1: The first step to do is to set a letter or variable to each individual. So the first person is P1 and the second could be P2. It could be anything as long as it sets apart who is who.

P1 = “Both are Knights”

P2 = “P1 is a Knave”

Step 2: Setup the given phrases into a table, where you can assign P1 as Knight or Knave depending on situation and the phrases stated by the individual. Pretty much set up the many possible scenarios. To determine the possible amount of scenarios, you must do 2^(x) where X is the amount of statements , in this case there are only two, where 2 distinguishes the values of True or False.

P1 P2 Both are Knights P1 is Knave
Knight Knight
Knight Knave
Knave Knight
Knave Knave

Step 3: Look at the scenarios, and determine whether the statements said by each individual are true or not and mark them in the truth table

P1 P2 Both are Knights P1 is Knave
Knight Knight T F
Knight Knave F F
Knave Knight F T
Knave Knave F F

 

Step 4: After filling up the truth table, it is now time to analyze to determine who is who. We always look out for truths and in this case only Lines 1 and 3 have truths, but these two lines have a false value as well. We look further at each line to determine this. We look at the first line and see the statements. If P1 says both are knights, then both should be knights, but P2 actually lied saying that P1 is a Knave which leads to this scenario being thrown out. We look at the third line to determine this and find out that the two statements correlate with the phrases stated by the individuals which leads to P1 being the Knave and P2 being the Knight.

 

This method should work on word puzzles similar to the one done in the example, but if it does not, one can still use certain methods like using propositional statements and determining the validity of said statement within problem.

 

Now try it yourself.

Question:

In a castle far away, we find out the King has been killed by someone and a knight has set out to find the murder of the King. For the investigation, the Knight has interviewed four different witnesses to aid in solving who killed the king. Through such investigating, the Knight has concluded certain things. The Knight has concluded that if the Bishop is telling the truth then the Lord is telling the truth; both the Lord and Prince cannot both be telling the truth; both the Queen and Prince cannot be lying; If the Queen is telling the truth that means the Lord is lying. The Knight must determine who is lying in order to get further in this investigation.

 

Answer:

 

Make sure to convert said statements as propositions using the symbols discussed.

-If the Bishop is telling the truth, then Lord is telling truth = B → L

-Prince and Lord cannot both be telling truth = ¬ (P ^ L)

– Prince and Queen cannot both be lying = ¬ (¬P ^ ¬Q)

– If the Queen is telling the truth, then Lord is lying (Q → ¬L)

You must also assume everyone is telling the truth in order to catch people in the lies. Using such, we must put in all possible scenarios in a truth table. In such problem, there are 16 possible scenarios because there are four different statements which leads to 2^4.

B L P Q B → L ¬ (P ^ L) ¬ (¬P ^ ¬Q) (Q → ¬L)
T T T T T F T F
T T T F T F T T
T T F T T T T F
T T F F T T F T
T F T T F F T T
T F T F F F T T
T F F T F F T T
T F F F F F F T
F T T T T F T F
F T T F T F T T
F T T F T T T F
F T F F T T F T
F F T F T T T T
F F F T T T T T
F F F T T T T T
F F F F T T F T

Based on the truth table, we realize that there are three possible scenarios that could actually be true.

The Bishop and Lord are guaranteed to be lying, but either the Queen or Prince could be lying or both could be telling the truth.

 

Solving problems using logic is applicable to many different situations. It can be used in day to day activities or even specific fields like Computer Science or Mathematics. The problem solving of logic puzzles helps individuals perform tasks by steps and aids in helping an individual make decisions (“Problem Solving and Decision Making”, 2006). In Computer Science, different problems that may use logic include choosing what method to choose or use reasoning on what the said method could be useful for.

References

Day, E. (2013, April 20). Online brain-training: Does it really work? Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/apr/21/brain-training-online-neuroscience-elizabeth-day

Problem Solving and Decision Making (Solving Problems and Making Decisions). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://managementhelp.org/personalproductivity/problem-solving.htm

Smullyan, R. M. (2015). What is the name of this book?: The riddle of Dracula and other logical puzzles. Mineola, N.Y: Dover Publications.
 Vlasits, A. (2017, September 14). Could a Videogame Strengthen Your Aging Brain? Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/could-a-videogame-strengthen-your-aging-brain/

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.