@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ /* Preamble; I've been trying to send this message for two days -- about 30 or more attempts -- but Yahoo!'s net nanny keeps insisting it is spam. After a process of elimination, it appears that a url which includes (between the angle brackets) <bringyou> is always rejected. This post has substituted <bringme> which gets past Nanny but you will of course have to make the substitution for the url to work. To sooth any worried brows, the site page is one of many Catholic apologetics articles. Perhaps the Devil has been at work here. */ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Re: Puzzle [ From Robert Bennett Mon Apr 16 19:13:13 2007 ] Robert, I did not expect that you would be swayed in any substantial way 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 subtle sarcasm and ridicule which is so much a part of your posts, both here and previously, will continue to guide your attitude toward me and anything else with which you dissagree. 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 much longer work, nonetheless will require a greater investment in time. If you can't spare the time, at least read the conclusion. Both these references have the advantage that they meet your second condition rather more closely in that they are both from biblically motivated sources. They are - http://www.leaderu.com/science/crackpot.html http://www.bringme.to/apologetics/p82.htm [Remember to make the substitution]. Here you will see further examples 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 which suggests 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.' or something similar. ……………….. 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