3 ms·

"they don't eat people under the any constraints" isn't comprehensible. Do you mean the cannibals never eat people and so any solution is valid? edit: What is

"they don't eat people under the any constraints" isn't comprehensible. Do you mean the cannibals never eat people and so any solution is valid? edit: What is the solution you want? I tried plugging your exact words into the model posted and got nonsense (a repeat of the question and then the word "Mathematics"). If I add the prefix "Solve this puzzle: " I get three obviously stupid solution, including starting off with some people already across or just putting all six people in the boat and ignoring the capacity. https://pastebin.com/raw/JLu0eGkx https://pastebin.com/raw/JLu0eGkx

vidarh 3y ago
I think he means they won't eat missionaries if left in the banks with them, but will do if in the boat with them.
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  Then what about the clause about outnumbering? Regardless this is clearly an unreasonable test as phrased.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    My guess is this reading, but the grammar is so broken that it's not at all obvious or clear that I've guessed right: “three missionaries and three cannibals must cross a river using a boat which can carry at most two people, but these are nice cannibals so they don't eat people under these constraints: for both banks, if there are missionaries present on the bank, they can be outnumbered by cannibals (if they were, the cannibals would not eat the missionaries). The boat cannot cross the river by itself with no people on board how to solve this?" In other words, I think what they tried to express is that on the banks the missionaries are safe even if outnumbered. But in the boat they are not. So the rule would be that a missionary can't be in a boat with a cannibal. If so, a solution is: - Send two cannibals over - Send one back with the boat. - Send two missionaries over - here's where rule matters, as the remaining missionary is now on the bank with two cannibals, but that's fine. - Send one missionary back - Send two missionaries over. All missionaries are now on the same side. - Send one cannibal back. - Send two cannibals over. Still, I think the closest you can get to being "right" on this is to offer up a possible reading of the rules, solve it given that reading is right and ask for a confirmation. I think I wouldn't accept an answer as "correct" here without seeking clarification about whether you got the rules right, as just assuming a given reading is unreasonable when it's this unclear.

vidarh 3y ago

I think he means they won't eat missionaries if left in the banks with them, but will do if in the boat with them.

iudqnolq 3y ago
Then what about the clause about outnumbering? Regardless this is clearly an unreasonable test as phrased.
- vidarh 3y ago
  My guess is this reading, but the grammar is so broken that it's not at all obvious or clear that I've guessed right: “three missionaries and three cannibals must cross a river using a boat which can carry at most two people, but these are nice cannibals so they don't eat people under these constraints: for both banks, if there are missionaries present on the bank, they can be outnumbered by cannibals (if they were, the cannibals would not eat the missionaries). The boat cannot cross the river by itself with no people on board how to solve this?" In other words, I think what they tried to express is that on the banks the missionaries are safe even if outnumbered. But in the boat they are not. So the rule would be that a missionary can't be in a boat with a cannibal. If so, a solution is: - Send two cannibals over - Send one back with the boat. - Send two missionaries over - here's where rule matters, as the remaining missionary is now on the bank with two cannibals, but that's fine. - Send one missionary back - Send two missionaries over. All missionaries are now on the same side. - Send one cannibal back. - Send two cannibals over. Still, I think the closest you can get to being "right" on this is to offer up a possible reading of the rules, solve it given that reading is right and ask for a confirmation. I think I wouldn't accept an answer as "correct" here without seeking clarification about whether you got the rules right, as just assuming a given reading is unreasonable when it's this unclear.