Printed 112 years ago today in The Tacoma Times. Image brightness/contrast modified and some artifacts cleaned up; see the original.
Found on the Library of Congress site.
Printed 112 years ago today in The Tacoma Times. Image brightness/contrast modified and some artifacts cleaned up; see the original.
Found on the Library of Congress site.
Isn’t this an impossible bet?
If he doesn’t take the bet and takes the cash, he loses the bet.
If he takes the bet and can’t be bought, he’s doing it for the money?
Neither of those actions proves or disproves the bet, since the person in question to prove or disprove it doesn’t have to be either of them.
Yeah, I keep trying to figure out if it’s a paradox, or what you’d have to do to make it a paradox, but I get confused. I think E-Tru had the right idea in “cutting the Gordian knot” by just bonking the guy.