The Paradox
A real brain challenging story sent in by BOTW:
A few centuries ago, a Law teacher came across a student who was willing to learn but was unable to pay the fees. The student struck a deal with the teacher saying, “I will pay your fee the day I win my first case in the court”.
The teacher agreed and proceeded with the law course. When the course was finished and teacher started pestering the student to pay up, the student reminded him of the deal and refused to pay. Fed up with this, the teacher decided to sue the student in the court of law and both of them decided to argue for themselves.
The teacher put forward his argument saying: ” If I win this case, as per the court of law, the student has to pay me as the case is about his non-payment of dues. And if I lose the case, student will still pay me because he would have won his first case. So either way I will have to get the money”.
Quickly, the brilliant student argued back with: “If I win the case, as per the court of law, I don’t have to pay anything to the teacher as the case is about my non-payment of dues. And if I lose the case, I don’t have to pay him because I haven’t won my first case yet. So either way, I am not going to pay the teacher anything”.
This is one of the greatest paradoxes ever recorded in history.
devils ADvocate said,
September 1, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
The student just folded the -ve sides in his possibilities. Nevertheless he is the complete loser.
if the student WINS then as per the court of law, he doesn’t have to pay anything to the teacher BUT AS PER THE AGREEMENT WITH TEACHER HE HAS TO pay the fee the day he win his first case in the court.
if the studnet LOSE then as per court law he has to PAY and as per agreement he doesnt have to pay.
Anonymous said,
September 1, 2006 @ 6:38 pm
its a paradox, meaning theres no right or wrong answer, you’ll never make sense of it.
JAX said,
September 1, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
Brilliant!!!!Simply Brilliant
Parvez Khan said,
September 1, 2006 @ 11:20 pm
This Is A old Greek paradox. Teachers name was Protegorus,
bg said,
September 2, 2006 @ 6:20 am
The student will have to pay if he wins the case as in regardless of what the case is about, it is his first case and he has won it.
Mayank Thakore said,
September 2, 2006 @ 7:56 am
This is crap. The misleading lines are the following ones:
“If I win the case, as per the court of law, I don’t have to pay anything to the teacher as the case is about my non-payment of dues.”
Actually, he WILL win the case. The argument being that as per agreement (phrase borrowed from prev comment
) he doesn’t have to pay till he wins his first case. So no problem here.
But as soon as the case is closed he would have one his first case and would then be liable to pay.
There is one more problem:
“This is one of the greatest paradoxes ever recorded in history.”
This is one of the biggest exaggerations ever recorded in histroy.
Be happy
varun said,
September 2, 2006 @ 10:06 am
well it aint that hard to find a solution to this puzzle or whtever ! the other comments have made it very clear yet i’ll through some more light on :
if the teacher wins the case then the student is liable to pay, doesn’t matter wht the agreement was cuz the court has ruled over this agreement anyways!
if the teacher loses the case which means the student wins his first case also makes him liable to pay but not as per the ruling of this case but as per the agreement between the two, now if he defaults in the payment i.e. breach of contract, the teacher can sue him once again for non-payment on the terms of agreement and surely the student has got no excuse but to pay the fees loosing the second case.
so, ultimately the teacher has to win if not at first go then surely in the second.
thanks very much anyways!!!
if anyone’s still got any doubts then contact me here on this blog, my services are absolutely free !!!!!!!!!!!! lol
varun said,
September 2, 2006 @ 10:10 am
sorry a correction on the above comment” i’ll throw” and not ‘’ i’ll through”
Sunny said,
September 27, 2006 @ 5:34 am
Hey,, i am a not-so-brilliant fella….so excuse me for my little sense of what has been written - the storyline and the comments
- firstly, acc 2 the story, the teacher and student had a deal. The paraphrase being “a deal with the teacher saying……” You see the deal is verbal. So the teacher cannot go to court - neither in a modern court of law (without papers) nor in the King’s or Queens court without any witness. The suit will be struck down.
- secondly, even if it is admitted, the teacher will lose the case as the deal was - “I will pay your fee the day I win my first case in the court”. The story doesnot state whether the student-lawyer had fought any case and won it!!
- thirdly the fun is - when the teacher’s plead is dismissed, the student would have won a case (his first) - and by moral law he will have to pay the overdue fees to the teacher, and he may have no more excuses, except that it is not legally binding on the student and yet it may amount to cheating.
-fourthly, the lawyer teacher is smart and he saw to it that his fees comes to him as quickly as possible - by moral authority, (he loses, student wins and pays) if not by legal terms.
- fifthly, the story is not absurd, but is tricky. There is no paradox. and therefore misleading in its conclusion.