yet another puzzle
So what happens? There is an actual solution.
This because the Lawyer as guard makes his own rules and enforces them. Since the contract offered did not make the guard responsible, the guard as lawyer can lie about throwing the Philosopher into the pit, thus any response other than holding the Guard/Lawyer responsible for lying, means the pit for the Philosopher.
2) The lawyer, reasoning that a bottomless pit is not actually a pit but a tunnel, pushes the lawyer into the abyss.
3) The lawyer, acting as counsel for the troll under the bridge, used ethically-justifiable deception in his negotiations with his client's adversary (the philosopher) and promptly pushes him into the pit.
4) There is no consideration and therefore no valid contract. The lawyer pushes the philosopher into the pit.
5) The lawyer allows the philosopher to pass. As the philosopher exits the bridge on the opposite side of the chasm, the lawyer runs up behind him and pushes him into the pit. Allowing the philosopher to pass and pushing him into the pit are not mutually-exclusive.
6) The word "but" in the clause "but if you lie" indicates an exception to the previous conditional. Therefore, the lawyer trips the philosopher who sprawls out on the ground at the edge of the abyss. Because the philosopher is now lying, the lawyer pushes him off the edge into the pit.
Quote: MathExtremist1) The lawyer allows the philosopher to step three paces onto the bridge, then cuts the rope and watches as the philosopher plummets (without being pushed) into the pit. The lawyer did not push the philosopher.
2) The lawyer, reasoning that a bottomless pit is not actually a pit but a tunnel, pushes the lawyer into the abyss.
3) The lawyer, acting as counsel for the troll under the bridge, used ethically-justifiable deception in his negotiations with his client's adversary (the philosopher) and promptly pushes him into the pit.
4) There is no consideration and therefore no valid contract. The lawyer pushes the philosopher into the pit.
5) The lawyer allows the philosopher to pass. As the philosopher exits the bridge on the opposite side of the chasm, the lawyer runs up behind him and pushes him into the pit. Allowing the philosopher to pass and pushing him into the pit are not mutually-exclusive.
6) The word "but" in the clause "but if you lie" indicates an exception to the previous conditional. Therefore, the lawyer trips the philosopher who sprawls out on the ground at the edge of the abyss. Because the philosopher is now lying, the lawyer pushes him off the edge into the pit.
This is great stuff, ME!
Quote: MathExtremist5) The lawyer allows the philosopher to pass. As the philosopher exits the bridge on the opposite side of the chasm, the lawyer runs up behind him and pushes him into the pit. Allowing the philosopher to pass and pushing him into the pit are not mutually-exclusive.
Yes! That is the "correct" answer. Your #1 doesn't make sense to me but #6 is hysterical (and I suppose also logically correct).
Quote: jon#6 is hysterical (and I suppose also logically correct).
Quote: MathExtremist1) The lawyer allows the philosopher to step three paces onto the bridge, then cuts the rope and watches as the philosopher plummets (without being pushed) into the pit. The lawyer did not push the philosopher.
2) The lawyer, reasoning that a bottomless pit is not actually a pit but a tunnel, pushes the lawyer into the abyss.
3) The lawyer, acting as counsel for the troll under the bridge, used ethically-justifiable deception in his negotiations with his client's adversary (the philosopher) and promptly pushes him into the pit.
4) There is no consideration and therefore no valid contract. The lawyer pushes the philosopher into the pit.
5) The lawyer allows the philosopher to pass. As the philosopher exits the bridge on the opposite side of the chasm, the lawyer runs up behind him and pushes him into the pit. Allowing the philosopher to pass and pushing him into the pit are not mutually-exclusive.
6) The word "but" in the clause "but if you lie" indicates an exception to the previous conditional. Therefore, the lawyer trips the philosopher who sprawls out on the ground at the edge of the abyss. Because the philosopher is now lying, the lawyer pushes him off the edge into the pit.
Bravo Maestro Bravo
Since jon revealed "the correct" answer, I will reveal my answer in paraphrase with extended remarks.
Philosopher: "If you lie, I will throw you in the pit." (he should say this but does not ensuring a hidden advantage to reletive position)
But the Philosopher actually says, "You will throw me in the pit.".
The Philosopher has rationalized the scenario correctly. (the Philosopher is doomed)
Though doomed, the Philosopher now puts the Lawyer's life at risk. In short a Mexican Standoff that raises the Philosopher's odds to 50/50.
There are four futures in the scenario.
1.) The Philosopher is doomed.
2.) The Lawyer is doomed.
3.) Both are doomed.
4.) None are doomed.
Since its a bridge that all must cross when needing to cross, the correct answer to this solution is future #3. Now the bridge is unguarded, and all others may pass without being thrown into the pit. The Philosopher's life is sacrificed to spare others. The Lawyer has made the first and last mistake ever made... misjudging the Opponent.
The Philosopher played poker and played close to the vest, the Lawyer by the Philosopher's utterance alone, misjudged the Philosopher's ability to rationalize.
Consider the Mexican standoff, Mutual Assured Destruction, and Dan'l Webster v. Devil. Some truths are better unspoken.
I had to edit this a few times to remove sexuality of Opponents, add the parentheticals and the finale. I remember this Q&A from years back. But, no one wins, anyway.
Quote: 98ClubsThe Lawyer lied, and threw the Philosopher into the pit anyway. Seems this is a one sided contract, no?
+1
This was easy. Who would possibly assume the lawyer would tell the truth?
This would have made a good Kung Fu episode (but of course THAT answer would have been #2, cause its TV),
and it HAS been a part of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy... the Philosopher is Gandalf!
Quote: SOOPOO+1
This was easy. Who would possibly assume the lawyer would tell the truth?
LOL! It wasn't my intent, but apparently using "lawyer" as the gateskeeper threw people off because they assumed he would be lying! What has my profession come to?!
See, there is a happy ending for Lawyers !
Quote: jonA lawyer is guarding an entrance to a bridge over a bottomless pit. A philosopher approaches the entrance and wants to cross the bridge. The lawyer says to the philosopher, "if you speak the truth I will allow you to pass. But if you lie, I will push you into the pit." The philosopher thinks about it for a minute and says to the lawyer, "you will push me into the pit."
This is a variation of Bertrand Russell's paradox: The barber shaves all the men in town who do not shave themselves. Who shaves the barber?
I assume there is significance in the guardian being a lawyer. In that case he lets the philosopher pass even though he lied because that is the only way he could send him a bill.
