Drinker paradox
The drinker paradox (also known as the drinker's theorem, the drinker's principle, or the drinking principle) is a theorem of classical predicate logic that can be stated as 'There is someone in the pub such that, if he or she is drinking, then everyone in the pub is drinking.' It was popularised by the mathematical logician Raymond Smullyan, who called it the 'drinking principle' in his 1978 book What Is the Name of
Metadata
- Slug: 00115-drinker-paradox
- Type: PARADOX
- Tags: logic
- Sources: 1
Axioms
- Assume the rules of the domain apply uniformly.
- Assume the observer’s criteria remain fixed.
- Assume classification boundaries stay consistent.
- Assume the model describes the real case.
- Assume repeated steps do not change the outcome.
- Assume no hidden variables are introduced midstream.
Contradictions
- Two reasonable lines of inference yield opposite conclusions
- A global rule conflicts with a local judgment
- A stable resolution appears to violate a starting premise
- Changing the framing reverses the outcome
- Intuition and formalism diverge at the same step
Prompts
- Which assumption is doing the most hidden work?
- What changes if you relax the smallest constraint?
- Does the paradox dissolve or relocate when reframed?
- What is conserved, and what is sacrificed?
Notes
Sources
Overview
The drinker paradox (also known as the drinker’s theorem, the drinker’s principle, or the drinking principle) is a theorem of classical predicate logic that can be stated as “There is someone in the pub such that, if he or she is drinking, then everyone in the pub is drinking.” It was popularised by the mathematical logician Raymond Smullyan, who called it the “drinking principle” in his 1978 book What Is the Name of
Tension
- Two reasonable lines of inference yield opposite conclusions.
- A global rule conflicts with a local judgment.
- A stable resolution appears to violate a starting premise.
- Changing the framing reverses the outcome.
- Intuition and formalism diverge at the same step.
Why It Matters
This entry tests how a stable rule-set can yield unstable conclusions under certain assumptions.
Prompts
- Which assumption is doing the most hidden work?
- What changes if you relax the smallest constraint?
- Does the paradox dissolve or relocate when reframed?
- What is conserved, and what is sacrificed?