>>16367221
You have to establish some rules here.
First the game rules:
>only n wives is poisoning you
For those of you that don't know women:
>women don't know logic
>a woman contradicting another is in a spat and can't be trusted to say anything meaningful
>a woman will never defend another woman except to attack other women
>women always lie excepting when they are gossiping, unless the gossip could be partially true, this is true enough for women
>Ex1: Wx: P! P is true (P)
>Ex2: Wx: P & Q, P or Q is true, but not both (P xor Q)
>Ex3: Wx: P v Q, P or Q, as above, except:
>Wx: P1 = P v P2 = Q, where she is making or statements about others, she doesn't remember the who, but she does remember the what. Implying: P1 = P xor Q, P2 is (P xor Q) and !P1

With that out of the way, the n=1 game translation:
Wife 1: ~(2v3v5) => 1v4v6
Wife 2: 1(~6) => 1(2345) (n>1 contadiction, ignore her)
Wife 3: xnor(4,5) => ~4~5 v 45 => 1236 v 45 (n>1 contradiction, ignore her)
Wife 4: Gossip: ~w3 => ~xnor(4,5) => xor(4,5)
We have run into a contradiction. W4 is fighting with W3, ignore W4
Wife 5: 2v6
Wife 6: Gossip, we already knew W1 and W5 were lying, but now she is saying W4 is lying. This is the partial truth scenario. And so she is in agreement with W4 contradicting W3, which means she is also fighting against W3. Ignore W6.

Wife 1: ~(2v3v5) => 1v4v6
Wife 5: 2v6

Wife 6 is trying to poison you. We also see why she brought to your attention that W1 and W5 were lying as they were ratting her out.

Assuming that there is really only one nonpoisoner and that she is truthful, then she must be Wife 1.

If the nonpoisoner was 2, then she would be lying when she says that the nonpoisoner is 1, because a truthful nonpoisoner must identify herself.
Similarly, 3 identifies the nonpoisoner as 4 or 5 (but not herself), and 5 is simply lying that there are multiple nonpoisoners.
4 says that 3 is lying, meaning that the nonpoisoner is either 1 or 2 or 3 or 6 (but not herself). Finally, 6 says (among other things) that 4 is lying, thus ruling herself out as nonpoisoner. By process of elimination, the nonpoisoner is 1.

>>16367221
My assumptions are that no wife is stupid. They all know the truth and are lying or telling the truth. If I catch a wife lying, she must be poisoning me. However, if a wife is telling the truth, she is not necessarily innocent.

Wife 5 is lying and therefore poisoning me because two wives cannot be innocent. Only one.
Wife 3 wouldn't say somebody else is innocent if she were innocent. She would be leading me to death. Therefore she is poisoning me. Therefore I don't believe what she says. Therefore Wife 4 must be poisoning me in order to make what Wife 3 says false.
Wife 2 is poisoning me for the same reason that Wife 3 and 5 are.
Wife 6 is lying by saying that Wife 4 is lying therefore Wife 6 is poisoning me.
Wife 1 is innocent.

>>16367345
>>16367699
>First wife is the only loyal one
Kek

>>16367294
Kek. This guy is correct.

>>16367221
Wife 1 looks to be in the clear. The others incriminate themselves, going under the assumption that there's only one not poisoning her husband.
>2 names 1 as the exception, not herself
>3 names 4/5 as the exception, not herself
>4 says neither 4 nor 5 is the exception
>5 names 2/6 as exceptions, not herself
>6 contradicts 4, backing 3 and indirectly shielding two women who've outed themselves, only being an exception if 2 is.
The weird thing here is that wife 2 is being truthful. Still poisoning you, but not lying.

The day has come to an end, the sun Is over my head. My polyamorous friend, she got me in a mess of trouble again!

>>16367345
Same result using equally truth weighted votes, W1 seems to be the good one:
1 -2/3
2 -1/3
3 +5/3
4 -1/3
5 +3/3
6 +4/3

>>16367221
>Wife 1 is the only non-poisoner and the only one telling the complete truth. She states that Wives 2, 3, and 5 are poisoning you. This is fully accurate, as she is the one truthful wife.
>Wife 2 confirms that Wife 1 is not poisoning you, which is true, but she fails to identify herself as the non-poisoner (and names Wife 6 as guilty). This means she is also a poisoner, but she mixes some truth with lies. She incriminates herself by not identifying herself as the non-poisoner.
>Wife 3 claims that only one of Wives 4 or 5 is not poisoning you. Since both 4 and 5 are guilty (as confirmed by Wife 1), Wife 3 is lying. Therefore, she is also a poisoner.
>Wife 4 says that Wife 3 is lying, which is actually true, but she does not identify herself as the non-poisoner either. Therefore, she is also a poisoner, despite partially outing Wife 3.
>Wife 5 claims that Wives 2 and 6 are not poisoning you. Since Wife 1 correctly identified her as a poisoner, Wife 5’s statement is false, making her also a poisoner.
>Wife 6 claims that Wives 1, 4, and 5 are lying. Since Wife 1 is the truthful non-poisoner, Wife 6 is lying. She further tries to shield herself by aligning with Wife 3 in accusing Wife 4. This strategic deflection indicates that Wife 6 is also a poisoner.
Conclusion:
>Wife 1 is the only non-poisoner, fully truthful, and not involved in the plot.
>Wives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are all poisoning you.
>Some wives, such as Wife 2 and Wife 4, mix partial truths with lies, but all of them ultimately reveal their guilt by not identifying themselves as the non-poisoner.
The strange aspect is that Wife 2, though poisoning you, manages to tell the truth about Wife 1’s innocence, making her lie more subtle but no less malicious.