Where's where I'm confused: I thought it was only the detector envelope that determined the results envelope, not the other way around.
On Sep 7, 2008, at 6:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I didn't follow that at all! Is it me? > Nan > > > > In a message dated 9/6/2008 5:00:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL > PROTECTED] > writes: > Hey, I just realized, his story yields a paradox! > > I can do the following: I have the two envelopes, results and > detector. I open the results envelope with the following conviction: > if there is an interference pattern, I will open the detector > envelope. If there is no interference pattern, I will burn the > detector envelope. Hence, there will be an interference pattern > inside the results envelope if and only if there is no interference > pattern inside the results envelope. > > Hence, the situation K describes is impossible. > > QED. > > cd > > > > Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus > the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
