@Oray Nope, it's not given

@JMP they will point to one of the other 2 keys, of course.

@JMP I did say they will point to 1.

@SayedMohdAli Yes I know the answer

@hdsdv now that is a good question, you make the guard can't answer you so your question is not valid.

@hdsdv well, you can make the question so the guard a possiblity can't answer but not definitely can't. So you forced them to go with other possibility

On your question, there's a possibility for you but definitely on them

Question needs clarification. Op writes "You can only ask one specific question to both guards." This can be read a few different ways, including "You get 2 questions total: 1 for guard A and 1 for guard B." That is the way I think most people are reading the question. I got a comment on my answer suggesting that it means you get 1 question total. All of the other answers so far had required the 2 questions total approach, so I dismissed the comment, but OP has since weighed in with a comment "the fun of the "1 question total" is how you can chain multi condition to 1 question that make sense"

Further, I suggest that the "1 question total" reading that OP seems to now be supporting would make the logical puzzle have no solution. OP has clarified in comment that a guard's answer is to point at 1, and only 1 key. JMP: "So not both then?" Sinh: "I did say they will point to 1." There is no 1 single question, no matter how complicated or compounded, that can both identify 1 (and only 1) key yet still identify both keys for both locks. Not even if you knew ahead of time which guard was truthful and which the liar.

@Loduwijk I think you missing the detail about my conversation with JMP, he asked that can a guard point to multi keys as a answer to my question. I said No, they can only point to 1.

Another interpretation of "one specific question to both guards" would be 1 question total, but that 1 question is asked simultaneously to both guards and they both answer at the same time to your 1 question. However, this is logically equivalent to asking the same question twice (2 questions total) directed at one guard and then the other. The difference is so slight that any answers relying on this interpretation could be saved merely by rephrasing their answers so that the question is asked once but an answer is expected from both guards. Logically, the only constraint such a "2 question...

@Sinh I'm not missing the detail; rather, that is one of the details upon which my point is made, as that detail makes the "no solution" point even stronger.

the not equivalent part is "simultaneously" and "then", for example your answer is you point to something and ask THEN you point to something else then ask, that mean your 2 questions is not the same BECAUSE the content has changed

Another point now needs to be clarified. Second clarification request: David J. seems to be taking the interpretation of "which key unlocks which lock" that you are only interested in unlocking 1 lock, not both. I see nothing in the question to suggest that, but I think David's interpretation might still be valid. Please clarify this point as well.

@Sinh My clarification request still stands. As it now stands, you have answers making many different interpretations of your words and comments suggesting each one will or will not work based on their own interpretations of the question. So please just edit the question to clear it up.

I did ask you to make a edit suggestion

"... make a edit suggestion." I must have missed that.

But I still don't even know the rules well enough to make such a suggestion.

Also, I would suggest that someone could make a point for "I ask 1 thing of both guards at the same time" could be viewed as 2 questions. And yes, someone else could argue that it's not... arguments could be made for either way.

Instead of trying to argue my points further, I'll ask about your intentions instead, so...

Your "one question of both guards" rule, I'll start with the "one question" part. I'll save the "of both guards" part to bring up in a minute...

I think it's not worth it, you can point to a chicken and say it is a chicken and somehow someone will say it's a duck

but by all means reworded my condition

Fine, if you want to go that route... that's not the same as what I'm saying. Scenario 1) "Is my shirt blue?" Person A: Yes. Person B: No. Scenario 2) "Is my shirt blue?" Person A: Yes. "Is my shirt blue?" Person B: No. Scenario 2 is just as much "1 question" as scenario 1 is. There was 1 question asked, but in scenario 2 it just happened to be asked twice... the "1 single, specific question was asked of both Person A and Person B."

ok in your answer by pointing to 2 different keys it make the content of the question change

Scenario 3) "Is my shirt blue?" Person A: Yes. "Is my shirt red?" Person B: No. Through the annoyance of English language ambiguity, that can still be said to be "1 single, specific question asked of both guards." It is no logically equivalent to scenario 1 or scenario 2, but it still fits the English language sentence because the sentence could be interpreted to have a different subject, that being that the focus is on the fact that you can ask both guards, but "both guards" does not need

… need to be the same question to each, because each question is itself still "1 single, specific question". It all depends on how you pick apart the grammar, and all different ways are equally correct.

So scenario 3 is not logically equivalent to 1 or 2, but is still a valid interpretation of a different way of reading the sentence.

But anyway...

ok do you know what I meant about my condition?

yes/no?

You mean "one question" total, irrelevant of anything else, the rule is that the person asking a question can make 1 single question during the entire exercise, for the entire duration of the riddle solving, yes?

good

& 2 guards answer that question at the same time?

And "both guards" I now believe does not mean "both, but possibly one then the other" but rather means merely "both guards are available for questioning", yes?

2 guards answer that question at the same time

yes/no?

That is up to you. It does not need to be the case, but it can be. Is it even possible to ask only 1 guard, or do you insist that any question asked will always be answered by both guards at the same time?

so do we clear about what i meant?

If my last statement is accurate. So it is true then that any question will be met with both guards attempting to answer the question?

yes

so do we clear?

Ok, I think as far as all that is concerned that we are on the same page now.

Yes

But 1 more thing: David made a separate assumption.

David seems to think that only 1 lock needs to be unlocked. I believe that is incorrect.

You require both locks to be unlocked, yes?

it don't require you to unlock anything

Fine, to match keys with locks then.

it required you to know which key go to which lock

So let me rephrase my question then: You require both locks to have their key identified, not just 1 lock, yes?

which key go to which lock, and there are 2 locks

Right, which is why I think David's interpretation of the question is mistaken. And I am asking for clarification to make sure that David's interpretation is mistaken.

so do we on the same page on everthing?

There are 2 locks, but David seems to think that an answer where only 1 lock has its key identified is sufficient. I do not believe David is correctly interpreting your question.

You want both locks to have keys identified for them by the end of the answer. Is that correct?

yes

Then yes, I think all is clear now.

then please for a love of god just make a edit suggestion that make it clear to anyone else

I will be suggesting an edit, then I will delete my original answer and my comments.

That last comment of yours was inappropriate. You are making this just as difficult as other people are. I am trying to help.

thank you, seriously while I glad you interested in improving my question there are things call rule lawyering so no matter how or what you write someone will find a way

And no it is inappropriate, just trying to add some humor to this mess

seriously I do glad you & I having this conversation

@Loduwijk can you delete your comments first? I only need to delete what i responsed to you deletes

Ok. Then thank you for taking the time to work on this with me.

I have made an edit suggestion which I think clears up as much as is possible with the smallest change I could suggest. Deleting thing now...

@Loduwijk btw Michael still not edit his answer do you want to guess my intended answer? here is a clue: Why there are 3 keys?. If you guess before him I will gladly accept it.

I considered editing my own answer to make it conform to these rules by adding a lock-identification method as some others did, and otherwise keeping the rest of my logic, but I decided not to. I would have to make my answer more complicated if I want it to work with these rules, and at that point the top answer ("what would you have said yesterday...") is more elegant than what mine would end up like.