We don't know who he is. The point is...IF he's an honestant and says "a swindlecant did it" then he's telling the truth and goes free. IF he's a swindlecant and says "a swindlecant did it" then he's lying and still goes free.
One always tells the truth and one always lies.
You are assuming that a swindelcant committed the crime because they are liars when in fact ANYONE could have committed the crime. Which, I noticed, you yourself stated from the beginning and yet you contradict yourself. So if he is a swindlecant he CAN say that, and since he always lies that would mean an honestant did it. Essentially, he IS a liar saying a liar committed the crime...but that just means a liar DID NOT commit the crime.
1. the question doesn't allow for the chicken pieces to be distributed equally so saying "6 kids 6 pieces each" is incorrect.
2. if each son gets 1/7 of the remaining then there would only be 1 for the last son from the remaining, leading one to believe that there are 7 sons as each gets 1/7.
3. the question doesn't state that the sons only get 1/7...they get some pieces AS WELL AS 1/7. you have to take into account all of the other pieces which are separate from the 1/7 remaining.
I think the point is IF you were to only use coupons, as the question does ask how many toys must you purchase to ensure a fair price at checkout with coupons. What would be the point of the store hiding the actual prices (or even the point of the question itself) if you could also use your own cash? The coupons were designed so that the store would make a profit after poor Black Friday sales.
ok so i feel really stupid for over thinking this and trying to figure this out mathematically.
the size of the planets is completely irrelevant. right at the beginning you are informed that the two earths are completely identically in every way and function to our earth except in size. meaning that even though it may take more or less rotations to make up 1 day it's still just 1 day.
There are three ways to look at this but before we can get there we need to understand eternal bliss.
What is "Eternal Bliss"?
eternal: without beginning or end, lasting forever (dictionary.com)
bliss: supreme happiness, utter joy or contentment (dictionary.com)
1. So we can say that bread is in fact better than eternal bliss because in our most basic nature we require food to survive. how can we have eternal bliss if we do not have the means to stay alive and enjoy it?
2. Or we can say that bread isn't better than eternal bliss due to the fact that eternal bliss would last forever whereas bread is only temporary due to spoiling or eating.
3. But if you really think about it, we should be treating the bread and eternal bliss as equals. bread may not last long but it sustains us while we have it and if we feel sustained then we are content. if we continue to be sustained then we continue to have bliss. the two go hand in hand. eternal bliss cannot exist without the bread, and the bread cannot exist without the want of eternal bliss (the more bread we have the longer we are blissful essentially which could easily lead to "eternal" bliss).
Ok so this might irritate a few people but here is how i see this paradox:
I liken it to the idea that I was taught when I used to attend church which is that God already knows who is going to be saved and how they will come to him. Now my first thought upon hearing this was "why bother with repenting for my sins or living a god fearing life if God already knows whether or not I will be saved? Nothing i do it going to change what has already been predetermined."
And the reality of both situations is that it all depends on your belief system. If you choose to believe that destiny or God or fate determines how your life plays out then you will make all your decisions based on that belief. On the other hand, if you believe that you control your life then all your decisions will be made based on your choice of control.
Ultimately it all boils down to the simple fact that you are going to make whatever choice you want based on your feelings and desires at the time.
in the first instance, he could easily be telling the truth.
saying "all cretans are liars" only clearly states that all cretans lie. it doesn't mean that they only lie and are incapable of speaking truth.
in the second instance it's harder to believe that he speaks the truth.
he tells them that all cretans are liars but then contradicts himself by saying that all he speaks is truth. Which, i feel, is what caused the greeks confusion. how can one person claim that his race lies but then exclude himself from that generalization.
or you could look at it this way: he believes in both cases that what he speaks stands as a fact and so to him it is truth and he isn't lying. which goes back to the idea that he says "all cretans are liars" meaning that they lie but are also capable of speaking truth.