Answering "I'm not going to answer that question" is to not answer 'no'.

i agree. but, of course, your reasoning there doesn't work so well with how True will respond to "Are you to answer 'no' to this sentence"

well, "Is this statement false?" is not a statement, it's a question. So I assume you mean something like "Is the answer to this question 'no'?". Notice that the lying god could answer 'yes' or 'no' to that, only True has trouble answering it. So that question does not do the trick, instead it is more complicated…

I didn't check your answer here, but I propose a new rule: if you are asking questions that, for whatever reason, gods can't answer (e.g. questions about Random's future behaviour or paradoxical head-exploding questions), then you have to solve it with only *two* questions. Allowing yourself a third question is lazy…

Assume that they all speak the same language. But for many (most?) solutions it actually doesn't matter if they speak different languages that happen to have homophonic words.

Yes, there is no doubt about what the text says. But given the way Boolos solves the puzzle in the original paper, I think it is clear that he took Random's answers to not provide information. The harder and more interesting puzzle is the one where Random randomly says 'ja' or 'da'. And there is, in fact, a way of…

"The other case B he's not the truth, (It's either A or C) and A can't be False. So we ask B if A is the god of False..." OK but B might be Random, so how do you conclude anything from his answer here. Not saying its wrong, just didn't follow

3 total. all to the same god if you like, or spread them among the gods. but only 3 total.

If Random answers 'da' at time t, and you ask True (at any time) "Does Random answer 'da' at t?", then True answers with the yes-word. There needn't be any problem here about free will, or divine foreknowledge, etc. The world is such that either Random says 'da' at t or he doesn't, True speaks the truth about the…

You've picked up on a glitch in Boolos' original presentation of the puzzle. Notice that if instead Random randomly answer 'ja' or 'da', then he spouts pure useless nonsense. This is the original spirit of the puzzle—-though you are right that there is a way to take advantage of him if he randomly tells the truth or…

If you ask True, "Is B Random?" and B is Random, True will say the word that means "yes". We don't really have to bring "knowledge" into it—-though it is natural to talk that way. But the essential fact is that True—-no matter how he does it—-answers any question of the form "Is it the case that S?", where S is any…

Isn't that more than 3 questions?

There are some interesting things here about how omniscient gods answers questions about random events, but the most straightforward solutions *do not* rely on any tricks about foreknowledge and chancy events.