# 350 logic/smullyan/priest.p

In a small town there are N married couples in which one of the pair
dalliance a secret from their spouse. Since it is a small town,
everyone knows about everyone else's infidelity. In other words, each
spouse of an adulterer thinks there are N - 1 adulterers, but everyone
else thinks there are N adulterers.

People of this town have a tradition of denouncing their spouse in
church if they are guilty of adultery. So far, of course, no one has
been denounced. In addition, people of this town are all amateur
logicians of sorts, and can be expected to figure out the implications
of anything they know.

A priest has heard the confession of all the people in the town, and is
troubled by the state of moral turpitude. He cannot break the
confessional, but knowing of his flock's logical turn of mind, he hits
upon a plan to do God's work. He announces in Mass one Sunday that
there is adultery in the town.

Is the priest correct? Will this result in every adulterer being denounced?

logic/smullyan/priest.s

Yes. Let's start with the simple case that N = 1. The offended spouse
reasons as follows: the priest knows there is at least one adulterer,
but I don't know who this person is, and I would if it were anyone
other than me, so it must be me. What happens if N = 2? On the first
Sunday, the two offended spouses each calmly wait for the other to get
up and condemn their spouses. When the other doesn't stand, they
think: They do not think that they are a victim. But if they do not
think they are victims, then they must think there are no adulterers,
contrary to what the priest said. But everyone knows the priest speaks
with the authority of God, so it is unthinkable that he is mistaken.
The only remaining possibility is that they think there WAS another
adulterer, and the only possibility is: MY SPOUSE! So, they know that
they too must be victims. So on the next Sunday, they will get up.
What if N = 3? On the first Sunday, each victim believes that the other
two will not get up because they did not know about the other person
(in other words, they believe that each of the two other victims thought
there was only one adulterer). However, each victim reasons, the two
will now realize that there must be two victims, for the reasons given
under the N = 2 case above. So they will get up next Sunday. This
excuse lasts until the next Sunday, when still no one gets up, and now
each victim realizes that either the priest was mistaken (unthinkable!)
or there are really three victims, and I am ONE! So, on the third
Sunday, all three get up. This reasoning can be repeated inductively
to show that no one will do anything (except use up N - 1 excuses as to
why no one got up) until the Nth Sunday, when all N victims will arise
in unison.

The induction can also be run "top down" on the priest's statement. What
must everyone believe about what everyone else believes?
N victims of adultery believe there are N - 1 victims, and that all of these
N - 1 victims believe that there are N - 2 victims, and that all of these
N - 2 victims believe that there are N - 3 victims, and that all of these
...
2 victims believe that there is 1 victim, and that this
1 victim believes there are no victims.
Suppose the priest says, "There are N adulterers in this town." Then
all the adulterers will know immediately that their spouses have been
unfaithful, and will denounce them the next Sunday. Now, suppose the
priest says, "There are at least N - 1 adulterers in this town." On
the first Sunday, the offended spouses all wait for each other to stand
up. When none do, they all know that they have all been horribly
mistaken, and they stand up on the following Sunday. But what if the
priest says, "There are at least N - 2 adulterers in this town." On
the first Sunday, the victims reason, those N - 1 victims are going to
be surprised when no one stands up, and they'll stand up next Sunday.
On the second Sunday, the victims reason, wait a minute, since they
didn't stand up, I must be one of the deluded victims. And everyone
stands up on the third Sunday. This resoning applies inductively,
adding one Sunday at each step, until the priest's original statement
is reached, which takes N Sundays for everyone to unravel.

By the way, the rest of the town, which thinks there are N adulterers,
is about to conclude that their perfectly innocent spouses have been
conclude that the door swings both ways. So the priest is playing a
dangerous game. A movie plot in there somewhere?

This problem is an analogue of the "dirty children" problem discussed in
the seminal paper on common knowledge by Halpern and Moses (JACM 1990).

If the information of each victim is less than perfect, the problem is
related to the "frame" problem of AI, cf. J. M. McCarthy & P. J. Hayes,
"Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence"
(1968) in _Readings in Artificial Intelligence_ (pp. 431-450),
Tioga Publishing Co., Palo Alto, CA (1981).

Continue to: