Once,a law teacher came across a student who was willing to learn but couldnt pay the fees...the student struck a deal saying he will pay his fees as soon as he wins his first case in the court of law..the lawyer agreed and proceeded with the course...after the course was over,the lawyer demanded his fees.but the student kept postponing it.the lawyer got fed up and filed a case against him.each of them decided to fight the case on their own.the lawyer thought if he wins the case,then the student has to pay him his dues.but even if he loses the student would have to pay him becos he had won his first case!!!!the student thought if he wins the case he need not pay the lawyer... and even if he loses the case he need not pay becos he hadnt won his first case!!!!!Whats your say ??
ps: This is not my original thought / puzzle... its picked from internet. But I found it interesting enough to discuss
5 comments:
YEah I got this forward too - good one right? :) And indisputable!
No.... If the student wins, this is a situation where he has won his FIRST case. Eventhough the case was won by the student, he has to pay the teacher to stick to the above condition.
You see shyam, the case itself is about the Student paying the lawyer or not. So, if he wins, it implies that he need not pay the lawyer ... so why would he pay ??
Good One. Well, Kurt Godel proved there is no solution to this kind of tautology, unless you put one more axiom
http://plus.maths.org/issue39/features/dawson/
Thanks for visiting Hemanth.
I liked the analogy made by Kurt Godel : "It is true only if it is unprovable, and unprovable only if it is true"
Seems to definitely have close resemblance to the current lawyer problem
Post a Comment