testing if my approach also works here ...

The difference is that you have positive clauses like The programmer likes cherries , which result in 12 zeroes instead of only 3:

• 6 for (programmer)x(apples,pears)
• 6 for (blacksmith,fisherman) x (cherries)

That's why you fewer clauses than the OP to be decisive.

Applying all clauses:

FRUITS     PROFESSIONS  NAMES

              P B F   
cherries      . 0 0
apples       0 0 .      John
pears       0 0 0 

cherries      0 0 0
apples       0 . 0      Patrick
pears       0 . 0 

cherries      . 0 0
apples       0 0 0      Edward
pears       0 0 0
[download]

• => (Edward,programmer,cherries)
• => (fisherman,John, apples)
• excluding other possibilities

FRUITS     PROFESSIONS  NAMES

              P B F   
cherries      0 0 0
apples       0 0 1      John
pears       0 0 0 

cherries      0 0 0
apples       0 0 0      Patrick
pears       0 . 0 

cherries      1 0 0
apples       0 0 0      Edward
pears       0 0 0
[download]

• => (Patrick, blacksmith, pears)

I'd say a bit too easy. :)

But I think it's obvious now how we could use this "hyper-cube" solver for creating riddles in low dimensions.

update

Though I'm not sure if a "solvable" riddle (i.e. only one solution possible) is always as obvious as the examples given so far.

For instance what if every cut has at least 2 undefined points, such that the first step is not obvious.

update

This riddle is even easier and already solved right away without eliminations. since there is only one possibility for pears after initially filling the matrix.