278 replies to this topic

[unreality]

this is a classic paradox from Martin Gardner's Book of Paradoxes, which has a ton.

anyway, the lady says "You will eat my baby."

If the crocodile eats the baby, the lady predicted right, so he has to give it to her. But if he gives it to her, she predicted wrong, so he gets to eat the baby... but then she will have predicted right. An endless cycle. Except it's answered easily:

I just said this: "If the crocodile eats the baby, the lady predicted right, so he has to give it to her." So he gives it to her, THEN realizes she predicted wrong. by that time, though, she's running away with the baby, and there's nothing the croc can do.

that's not what Martin Gardner wrote, but thats how i think of it

[peartree]

The dear old croc should be replied to in this manner: 'You will do with my child what you DECIDE to do with him'. The crocodile must make a decision, therefore the mother cannot be wrong. A cop out perhaps but it can't be argued that the croc's next move is not covered in this answer. If the mother had not been present then our scaley chum would surely have eaten the child. Only her presence could have induced him to prompt the question and thus cause him to make a decision. I may be wrong of course and it could be the case that the intelligent crocodile had already made up his mind that he was going to give the lad a first class education in sub aquatic lifeforms.

[unreality]

good one, except i dont think it follows the rules and the croc would eat the baby... in a simpler way, "you will do what you will do" or she couldve just said "1+1=2"

but neither of those are okay cuz the croc said "predict what i will do with your baby: will I eat him or give him back?" and if u dont pick either of those he'd probably just eat it i mean she could easily just say "2+2=4" and get the baby back cuz she said the truth, but the croc asked specifically.

[peartree]

I must beg to differ with you, 'unreality'. The croc doesn't say "will I eat him or give him back?" He says "if you guess what I will do with him, I will return him". The Mother can accurately guess that the crocodile will do with him what he will whether that be to eat the child, give it back or give it a first rate education in sub aquatic lifeforms. The strength of your arguement lies in the fact that she has not been specific, but she is not wrong in guessing the childs fate. The fate of the child IS the crocodiles action of deciding. He will indeed do with it what he will and therefore she has guessed the childs fate correctly. However, the Mother is in too high a state of emotion to see it this coldly and assumes that the crocodile means exactly as you suggest --"will I eat him or give him back? She is a good Mother and tells the croc that he will eat her instead because she's more of a meal. The croc sees the sense in this, proclaims that she is correct and lays the child safely upon the river bank. Just before he lunges at his new prize, a hippo, who has been listening sympathetically just beneath the surface, breaks through the water and sinks his misile-like teeth into the crocs head. The croc is deflected from his intended action and, after much introspection, goes on to found the first reptilian college for the study of underwater asparagus cultivation and the eradication of bullying.

[unreality]

and now he rules the asparagus industry, creating a monopoly and pushing the other firms out of business... MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

[peartree]

That's riight! When did you find out? Let me know if you're interested in buying shares.

[unreality]

how much are they?

[peartree]

I'll let check it out. Anyway, my friend, the crocodile has told me you should snap them up, and he should know!

[hughes417]

What could get the child eaten is if the crocodile has a preference or default position/decision. It's not automatic that she will get the child back unharmed simply by making any guess. The story alludes to the idea that since he is a slim crocodile, and since he snatched him to begin with, might make him prone to eat the child rather than release it. These statements are then at least partially erased when our reality is suspended by making the crocodile a great sophist, and by considering that perhaps the crocodile is slim because he values sophist principles over sustenance, and perhaps snatched the child in order to educate the child and the mother. The responders that have said, "You will either eat the child or return it to me" are correct in my book because that is the limit of absolute certainty. The crocodile may not be satisfied with the broadness of the mother's response, but he might yield to her demonstration of sophist logic. If the mother chooses to answer with either "You will eat..." OR "You will return..." then the odds are 50% that the child will be returned unharmed IF the crocodile has a default position already. If the crocodile does not have a default position then his response will be a measurable/programmable response to what the mother inputs (it is not a guess at that point). She need only say you will return..., if she says you will eat... then she only wants to satisfy the narrator who simply wanted her to gain the child back, but cares nothing to whether the child's fate is twofold and would then be eaten. She can not escape with the child after given to her because then she would be incorrect. In this case I judge that the premise is to satisfy the narrator's end question rather than the crocodile's. These are the possibilities as I see them. And if I were her, I would reply, "You will either eat the child or you will return the child to me."

[Bad Wolf]

I would think that the only way to make ANY sense of the situation is for the woman to repeat back to the croc EXACTLY what he said to HER: "If I guess right, you'll give my baby back, if I dont, you'll eat him. That's what you'll do to him." He'd have to return the baby, because she's CORRECT NO MATTER WHAT. Eh? hehehe

That's what I was thinking...