[geocentrism] Re: Puzzle

Re: Puzzle [ From Robert Bennett Mon Apr 16 19:13:13 2007 ]
Robert,
I did not expect that you would be swayed in anything substantial by anything 
found at 
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/home.htm but thank you for making the effort. My 
intent was to help 
you to come closer to understanding my thinking. It is unclear to me whether I 
have achieved this 
-- especially it is unclear to me whether you regard my position with any 
greater respect than 
previously or whether the gentle sarcasm and ridicule you used, both here and 
previously, will 
continue to guide your attitude toward me.
You mention '...where our communication problems lie.' and define merit as 
'...merit means 
Revelation and reason ...'. There are many points you've made which I could 
comment on -- and if 
there is one (or are more) upon which you think I'm weasling out, just nominate 
and I will oblige 
you -- but I don't wish to descend into nit-picking and hair splitting. [ The 
premise '... two 
plus two ... ' really is four you know ]. Instead, I'll propose a second course 
of action, a further two 
references. Unfortunately, while one can be read in a few moments, the other, 
while only an extract 
from a longer work, nonetheless will require a greater investment in time. Both 
these references 
have the advantage that they meet your second condition rather more closely in 
that they are both 
from the biblical perspective. They are -
http://www.leaderu.com/science/crackpot.html
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm
Here you will see a further example of what I mean by arguing on merit.
==============================================
re:Puzzle [ From Robert Bennett Mon Apr 16 19:15:11 2007 ]
Robert,
Chronology:- Original; Paul D; Robert B; Paul D
 ==============================================
I must say I'm dissappointed to see so many erudite folk needing help in what I 
thought to be a simple task! OK here it is -- attached. It has just occured to 
me that you may be confused about what I thought to be a simple task. I was of 
course referring to the task of recovering the solution from the password 
protected file.

Paul D

Wondrous Pot - Solution
The king reasoned thus -
At a purchase price of $1250.000, the pot could be sold (each time for less 
than the acquisition price) a maximum of 1249999 times. This represented many 
ownership cycles and included the possibility of re-acquisition and re-sale if 
the need arose to meet some unforseen eventuality.
Being sold for zero or a negative price – paying the buyer to take it - isn’t 
excluded by the rules. Send me photostats of three items for sale for a 
negative price and I'll declare you the winner, crown you king and nominate you 
for a Nobel Prize in something-or-other.
However, at some time in the distant future, after many buy-sell cycles, the 
price at which the pot must be offered would reach the lower limit of $0.001. 
At this price, no one would buy it because it could not then be sold, thus 
condemning its owner to the fires of hell upon his enevitable death.
This glosses over the point that the pot may be unable to be sold at any time – 
a future buyer is never guaranteed…. At any price. . Photostats of three 
contracts of employment of a salesman guaranteeing that the products for which 
he is being employed to sell will sell, and I'll ...
See RB at bottom 
If no one would buy the pot at $0.001, then at the offering price of $0.002, 
any prospective purchaser would be aware that he would not find a subsequent 
buyer at $0.001 and thus no buyer would be found at $0.002 either. The same 
reasoning applies to prospective buyers at the asking price of $0.003 and by 
extension all previous asking prices.
A roundabout way of saying the same as above. 
Thus the king, knowing that he would not find a buyer, also did not buy.
Wrong auxiliary verb - may, not would – No, would is correct. May implies 
uncertainty. You seem to have forgotten the opening premise, you know, 
Utopia... land of logical thinkers?
If the king could figure this out, why couldn’t the salesman, [ At the risk of 
being repititions -- Utopia, logical ... ] before he bought the pot?? And the 
owner before that? Ad infinitum,… As previously mentioned, nothing was given or 
implied that the salesman owned the pot. Photostats of three positions vacant 
for salesmen who must purchase the stock intended to be sold and I'll ... 
(Excludes pyramid sales organisations and such like).
Thus, the question of original ownership from RB…. 
A missing info item is the origin of the pot, since the pot’s creator could not 
have bought it. Three photostats of documents attesting to the name of the 
grower of supermarket vegetables (with photographic ID) and I'll ... (this is 
getting tedious).
As Martin said – the best analog for the pot is not an albatross, but a 
millstone around the neck. 
The risk of eternal damnation outweighs any present material gain – the 
motivation for salvation, if love of God is not present. I just knew that a 
theological dimension to a puzzle presented here was a mistake but that's the 
way I heard it. If it will help you to understand the problem more clearly, for 
'condemned to hell', substitute 'An all powerful general, having no moral 
dimension, and in command of an army of ten fanatically devoted soldiers (with 
overpowering air superiority, heavy artillery and armour support) for every 
citizen of Utopia, will invade, capture all your relatives, by blood and by 
marriage, and their now living decendants, and place them, one at a time, in a 
vat of oil and bring them, one at a time, slowly to the boil and continue 
boiling until they are rendered down to the point where, with the addition 
sufficient sodium hydroxide, they will be turned into bars of soap which will 
be used to clean shower stalls.'
………………..
Nevertheless, one of the possible solutions is interesting, for its moral 
lesson. As I mentioned previously, it is a logic puzzle, not a moral puzzle. I 
would not seek to impose a logical dimension on your moral puzzle. The 
remaining issues I have covered either above or previously. The key is to 
consider why the salesman wants to sell the pot. The value is surely more than 
the asking price. The bottom line is that he must sell it to avoid hell(unless 
immortality is a permitted wish), and there’s no guarantee he will ever be able 
to sell it (unless that’s a permitted wish). Since the salesman can wish for as 
many $ as he wants, the asking price is a non-issue. 
In fact he would even give it away or pay the king to take it, but then his 
dilemma would be obvious. This is not a pot of gold, but an albatross. 
Realizing this situation, the king correctly refuses the deal. 
The moral: 
What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, yet lose his immortal soul? 
Robert
==============================

 
Paul D

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

Other related posts: