They would point at each other and 3 of the 'deceitful' modules for a total of 4 FO modules. Now, if the other 'truthful' module wasn't fully operational, we would see a contradiction (one truthful module is fully operational and points at other 3 fully operational modules, while the other points at the 1st one truthful and two other modules, which would mean a discrepancy (one 'truthful' would point at 3 of the 'deceitful' modules, and the other 'truthful' would point at 2 'deceitfuls', leading to a contradiction, as both reports are supposed to be accurate).ġ-Minimum number of FO modules is three, since all modules report 3 and two of them are 'truthful'.Ģ-At least one of the 'truthful' modules is also FO, otherwise two of the reports would be identical (the two 'true' ones).ģ-If the other 'truthful' module wasn't FO, there would be a logical contradiction since they would give a different number of 'deceitful' modules as FOīoth 'truthful' modules have to be fully operational. But there are not two identical reports, which means at least one of the 'truthful' modules is also fully operational. All reports consist of 3 modules, which means that at least 3 are fully operational.
What bugs me is that 2 modules are supposed to give accurate reports (of which other modules are fully operational ).
