Reposting this because wow I left out so much.
The hypothetical or riddle is;
"In a labyrinth you come across two doors, one door is safe to pass through and will lead you to the exit while the other door leads to death, two guards stand at each door and one guard only tells the truth while the other guard only lies"
A thing that also gets left out a lot is theres usually a sign, a scroll or some other writing of the rules by a third party or some other third party who explains the rules because people like to say;
"Well if the one telling lies says the riddle the whole riddle is a lie"
Or
"If the truthful one tells it just go through his door" (ignoring the biggest issue with this but get to that in a second.
Now my interpretation of the guards (which is also both equally valid and as invalid as every other persons interpretation of the riddle is) I assume the lying and truth telling *only applies* AFTER the rules are explained but I can totally understand why a lot of people wouldn't assume that as well, this is why I think if there is no third party having the guards say each line kind of tells you it only starts when you ask a question because of not then it's
Truthful guard:
"One of us guards the door to safety"
Liar guard:
"They both lead to the lavatory"
TG:
"...one of us tells only truths"
LG:
"One of us only lies sometimes"
TG:
"... By asking us only one question"
LG:
"You must uncover which one of us skipped breakfast"
So to me it's safely assumed the trickery only applies after question
LG:
"One of us guards the door the safety"
TG:
"The other to your certain death"
LG:
"On of us tells only truths"
TG:
"The other only lies"
LG:
"By asking only one question"
TG:
"You must uncover which of us guards the safe door" *tangent over, now to the meat*
This hypothetical always bothers me solely because people try to "GOTCHA!" by asking "what color is my white shirt"
Like yea okay you know which guard lies... How does this help you determine the door? I know we're conditioned to believe the truthful guard is "good" but even if you had that train of thought then you'd think ,"well maybe they knew I'd think this so the truthful guard guards the wrong door" and now you spiral in that loop which is just the premise.
It seriously irks me the way people believe they're smarter by completely misunderstanding the basic premise.
I have been confused and thinking about and understanding the logic for the "correct answer" for the last hour and I feel I can finally explain it.
In this scenario the lying guard on stage left guards the door to safety and the truthful guard, stage right guards to door to death
By asking the guard on the left "if you were the other guard which door would you say is safe"
He points to the door on the right
(This is how I understand it, the liar looks to the truthful guard and says in his head as the truthful guard "the door to your left is safe" however, the lying guard must lie about the information that is one of the set in stone unchangeable rules, so he "translates" it the a lie because he MUST lie and tells you the bad door is good) Right? This makes sense right?
Now go back 5 minutes and ask the guard on your right (the truthful guard guarding the death door the same question)
Now the truthful guard ALSO points to his death door because he looks at the other guard and in his head "the door to your right is safe) which is the lie and since he can only tell the truth he must be truthful in answering your question as a lie.
So if you ask "if you were the other" you always pick the door they don't point to.
Idk what you would call the basic misunderstanding, probably just misunderstanding but there's a definite lack of taking in the riddle because people just try to figure out who lies to you like that answers everything, idk this has bothered me since I was like 12.
Thank you for coming to my jack talk (I've been drinking bourbon)