|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:31 pm
I heard this today, and am wondering if anyone can find a proper explanation, for at least why this happens.
Here goes:
Three men are staying at a hotel, in the same room and together, but each paying his own way. They eat dinner at one of the hotel's restaurants. They're eating the special, and so each pays $10 and then they leave and go to their room.
The waiter realizes they've each paid $10 when the special is actually $25 for three people. So, he gets the bellhop and hands him $5 to give back to the three men and split evenly.
Well, on his way the bellhop thinks, "I can't split $5 evenly among three men! I'll have to take $2 for my trouble and give each of them one to make it work." He does exactly that, and each man gets $1 back.
Now here's the paradox: Each of the three men paid, at the end, $9 for his meal. 9 X 3 = 27. The bellhop took $2. 27 + 2 = 29. Even though other ways of looking at it show that there are indeed $30 (such as, $25 special, bellhop took $2 and men got $3 total equals $30), this way shows that there are only $29.
WHERE DID THE EXTRA DOLLAR GO?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:35 am
I don't get why 27+2 is a relevant quantity. You have to look at net money exchange: 27 goes in, the 2 dollars come out, so they should have different signs: 27 - 2 = 25, which is a relevant quantity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:27 am
Layra-chan I don't get why 27+2 is a relevant quantity. You have to look at net money exchange: 27 goes in, the 2 dollars come out, so they should have different signs: 27 - 2 = 25, which is a relevant quantity. I heard this before, that's what I said too. it's 27 *minus* 2, not + 2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:43 am
For those who still need convincing, think of it this way:
From the point of view of the hotel, $30.00 came in and $5.00 went out, so the net effect was $25.00 coming in.
From the point of view of the men, $30.00 went out and $3.00 came in, for a net effect of $27.00 going out.
From the point of view of the bellhop, $5.00 came in and $3.00 went out, for a net effect of $2.00 coming in.
The "going out" has to match the "coming in", and indeed, 27=25+2
In other words, the trick to "resolving" the paradox is to realize that the $2.00 taken by the bellhop is already a part of the $27.00, and that's why one subtracts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:34 pm
Yeah...sorry about that. I found it on Wikipedia a few minutes after posting it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
