4 ms·
I am thoroughly confused as to what your point is. What is the problem with Swizec's wording in your view? Should s/he have written "Can you make room for more
by nhaehnle 14y ago
I am thoroughly confused as to what your point is. What is the problem with Swizec's wording in your view? Should s/he have written "Can you make room for more guests?". I agree that you could argue that right now there is no room free, and that the answer should be No because of that. However, given that you can easily make one room free by having every guest go to the next room, that just seems overly nit-picky to me, and like you are intentionally trying to miss the point.
- damoncali 14y agoThe difference is an infinite number of rooms can accommodate an infinite number of guests and still have room for one more. An infinite number of full rooms can accomodate no more guests. They're all full by definition. That is, unless I am also thoroughly confused.
- mistercow 14y ago>That is, unless I am also thoroughly confused. You are, but that's OK; they call it a "veridical paradox" for a reason.
- leviself 14y agoThe part that makes the assertion false is "...all of which are currently occupied." Moving n to n+1 only works when that restriction is lifted.
- recursive 14y agoNo, because the people in n+1 simultaneously move to n+2. (and so on)