*Originally posted by: ***oneshot**

He had just deduced that he shouldnt be able to be killed at all, so when they do get him, its a suprise to him. Also we don't know if he is hung, just that hes going to be HANGED. (hung=big dick, hanged=killed)

Your language lesson is right, but that isn't a solution to the problem: the problem is that the man about to be hanged must believe that he will be hanged and also that he won't be hanged.

*Originally posted by: ***imgod2u**

The problem is, there's no way he can be expected to be hanged on thursday until it becomes thursday.

The logic doesn't work past wednesday in other words.

It does. On the first day he knows that if he is alive on the last day, he will be hanged then, and also will know that he will be hanged then, but also know what he knows now, that he will be hanged when he does not expect it, which is impossible, so he knows that he won't be alive on the last day. So on the first day he knows that he will be hanged in the next six days, on a day when he doesn't expect it. And so on.

Assumption: he knows that what he knows today he will know in future if he is alive.

So on the first day he must know that he will be hanged today, and also know that he will not be hanged when he expects to be, and since he knows that he will be hanged, he expects to be hanged, and knows that he expects to be hanged, and so knows that he won't be hanged.

I don't see the paradox here. The situation described is a contradictory one - the Judge is known to be correct when he tells the man that he will die in the next seven days when he doesn't expect it is contradictory (when combined with the above rationality assumption) as the argument shows. To clarify the problem of knowledge, the problem remains if we substitute belive for know everywhere.

To simplify the problem, why not have only one day. The Judge says: you will die today and not expect it? This is also contradictory (with the assumption above). Is this considered a paradox?

Or what about this "paradox"?

Two men are fighting a competition. If each knows the other's tactics he will win. (E.g. the game matching pennies.) The honest Judge is still here. He knows the future and tells the men what tactics the other will play. Both men use this information, and so they both win and both lose.

What these "paradoxes" show is that there is a limit to what can be known.