What town would someone from the other town say was the one full of liars. Then go there.
Interesting, but I think it would be a mistake
For clarification:
T = Town of truth tellers
L = Town of liars
If the person at the cross roads is not a liar (he's from town
T)
He would say "the people in town
T would say that town
L is full of liars" because this is the truth.
If the person at the cross roads is a liar (he's from town
L)
He has a real problem. To wit:
He could not say the people in town
T would say those in town
L are liars, because this would be the truth, and as a liar himself, he couldn't do this.
So the burden falls on what those of town
L would say, which is where the problem arises.
First of all, the people in town
L would
actually say the people in
T were liars (because this would be a lie)
But in order to lie about this, which the liar at the cross roads is obligated to do, he would have to say the people in town
L would say the people in town
T are not liars. However, the question was one of, "which IS," not, "which IS NOT." So the problem then is to rephrase this into a positive assertion, which I don't see as possible. Of course the implication of "The people of town
L would say the people in town
T are not liars" is that they themselves are liars. Which means that they would assert that "the people in town
T are liars."
So, we have the person at the crossroad who is from town
T asserting that those in town
L are liars, AND, by reflection, we can conclude that the people of town
L would assert that the people of town
T are liars.
But not knowing where the person at the cross roads is really from, we can't determine which town to head for.
So, as I read all this I don't believe your question works.