My take (possible spoiler):
If he had no hats, then his statement would technically be true. Therefore he has at least one hat.
He may have some green hats and some non-green hats, but must have at least one non-green hat. He could have any number of green hats, including zero, as long as he has at least one non-green hat.
So the only derived statement that we can conclude to be true is A.
No, the liar having no hats would not make the statement true. ‘All my hats implies’ implies the liar stating they have hats.
The liar either has zero hats or some amount of hats. The only thing we know for certain is that if they do have hats, there is at least one non Green hat.
You are correct, and anyone that couldn’t come to that conclusion needs to stop overthinking the problem it is pretty basic 101 intro to logic type question.
Not sure why so many people got it wrong maybe ESL is at play here
Yeah, I'm a bit confused there is no option "he has at least one non-green hat", which is what I would answer.
Perhaps that means I'm wrong.
That's the conclusion I came to as well. That said, for whatever reason, the part that was most confusing to me was realizing that the logic puzzle was about the idea that the statement itself had to be false. For whatever reason, I glossed over the phrase "a liar who always lies" the first time and just read "liar" everywhere else, so it wasn't obvious to me what the intent was behind using the word "liar" was.
Personally, I'd change the original wording (from the quoted italic section) to "someone who only tells lies" if I were the author. It's probably specific to me, but I'm always thrown by phrases like that because it seems like it's trying to differentiate in some way from someone else; surely there isn't anyone who "always lies" who _isn't_ a liar, so why say that? It's distracting to me in the same way as if someone said "the speech-capable human being who speaks only in lies". Normally it wouldn't bother me, but because puzzles like this often seem to be used to try to illustrate some smug point about how bad people are at logic, phrasing things in an unnecessarily confusing way just makes it seem even more smug (see https://xkcd.com/169/).
Wait, is there are any color space in which Turquoise gets classified as green?
Speaking mathematically, you are right. However, linguistically I disagree. Consider: Someone tells you that "all of their kids are doing great in school". Turns out they have no kids. They obviously were trying to deceive you, and make you think they do have kids - in fact, since plural, more than one kid. Hence, it is effectively a lie.
So if the liar speaks of "all my hats" while having none, that is deceptive. I would consider it a lie.