Interesting. I don't understand why one cant continuously modify the theory to accommodate each new fact, even if each amendment becomes increasingly convoluted, as long as it remains technically congruent. You seem to imply that this is not probable because the lier doesn't have an incentive. Could you specify/elaborate?
It's certainly possible to just constantly amend a theory and keep it technically cohesive, but I've found that even dedicated liars eventually throw in the gauntlet after their contortions become too much to bear. Even if a liar refuses to give up, they still have to grapple with trying to unseat the truthful (and much less convoluted) theory. That's why there's two parts to this exercise: surviving the gauntlet and dethroning the other survivor.
Interesting. I don't understand why one cant continuously modify the theory to accommodate each new fact, even if each amendment becomes increasingly convoluted, as long as it remains technically congruent. You seem to imply that this is not probable because the lier doesn't have an incentive. Could you specify/elaborate?