Here is a curious old story that is something like a puzzle: A crocodile stole a baby, ‘in the days when animals could talk,’ and was about to make a dinner of it. The poor mother begged piteously for her child. ‘Tell me one truth,’ said the crocodile, ‘and you shall have your baby again.’ The mother thought it over, and at last said: ‘You will not give it back.’ ‘Is that the truth you mean to tell?’ asked the crocodile. ‘Yes,’ replied the mother. ‘Then by our agreement I keep him,’ added the crocodile; ‘for if you told the truth I am not going to give him back, and if it is a falsehood, then I have also won.’ Said she: ‘No, you are wrong. If I told the truth you are bound by your promise; and, if a falsehood, it is not a falsehood, until after you have given me my child.’ Now, the question is, who won?
– Pennsylvania School Journal, March 1887
Found in the always-delightful Futility Closet.
Oh my. Is there an answer or is this a secret test to see if I'm a robot and make my head explode?
ReplyDeleteHow about: "You do not intend to give him back?"
ReplyDeletei suck at word puzzle. I read them and then the more I think the less they make sense.
ReplyDeleteThe croc is right.
ReplyDeleteWhile the mom intended to win by creating a situation where the rules forced her to get the baby, she made a mistake.
The mom's fatal flaw was making her truth-statement in the future tense..... "will not".
Since that statement's actions are in the future, the croc can keep the baby.... and will still always have the option to give it back (in the future that the statement references). This allows the situation to stay true to the rules indefinitely.
Only when the croc gives the baby back, do the rules become violated. Giving the baby back makes her statement 'will give the baby back' no longer true. Her statement is for the future, and since he already gave it back, his actions are in the past, and her statement could never become true anymore. Giving her the baby destroys the possibility that her statement about the future is true. And thus the croc should get the baby.
AND... as long as the croc NEVER gives the baby back, the universe is aligned with their agreement. Clearly not what the mother intended.
So what should the mother have said? You'd think something simple and obvious that could not be disputed would be best. "The sky is blue" "You have my baby", etc.... but those CAN be debated. What if either has color-blind problems? After all, color is only a reflection of our perception of light. PERCEPTION makes this a disputable fact. MOST people see blue, but maybe the croc sees purple.
And what about "You have my baby"? Seems debatable since the croc has the baby. Its his baby now. The mom could say 'my son' or 'my daughter' - - but the debate over genetic linkage is hard to prove standing in the swamp.
So - where does that leave us?
The mom must make a statement about the situation that, by action or statement, they have both already agreed is true.
"You agreed to give it back if I made a true statement"
If its true, and it is, then he has to give it back.
If its not true, well, then he doesn't have to give it back and nothing changes.
As long as the croc intended to uphold his part of the bargain, the mom gets the baby.