c

c
"Today is opposite day," said the Bully, "yes means no and no means yes. Now, do you
want me to hit you?"c

Clyde scratched his head. He could see that this was going to be a very delicate
negotiation, but he was fairly sure that he would be able to maneuver his way out of it.c

"That statement is inherently contradictory," Clyde said, adjusting his glasses, "as I¶m
sure you are aware. If today is, in fact, opposite day, then your statement to that effect
would be false, and today would, consequently, n ot be opposite day at all. On the other
hand, if today is then not opposite day, then your statement is true, and if your
statement is true, then it is false. So by making that statement, you trap yourself in a
logical loop, in that the statement, in and o f itself, cannot be true if it is true, and is not
false if it is false." Clyde smiled. The Bully, at this point, would be reeling with the
implications of his own contradiction, and would be unable to pursue the matter further. c

"It¶s an interesting point you make, Clyde," said the Bully, "but, unfortunately, not
applicable. You are, I¶m sure, thinking of the conundrum regarding the people who
always lie, and the people who always tell the truth, and applying that logic to this set of
circumstances. But in this particular case, the situation is not quite as absolute. In point
of fact, opposite day does not officially begin until Y
 I make the statement to the
effect that it is opposite day, and therefore the statement is not contradictory, but rather
introductory. Your mistake was assuming that opposite day exists prior to my assertion
that today is that day, when, in fact, opposite day is only created by that assertion." c

Clyde was impressed. It was clear that this Bully had done his research. He was
presenting the classic Big Mayan rebuttal to Clyde¶s opposite day opening argument. But
Clyde wasn¶t licked yet. "Interesting," he said, "but it seems to me that you¶re ignoring
the fact that once you have declared that it IS opposite day, then the statement
becomes true of the whole day, even the time preceding your statement. So that while
the statement is, by your reasoning, not contradictory when you say it, once you have
finished saying it, it becomes retroactively contradictory. So, yes, I grant you, it is true
during the actual time of speaking, but immediately after it begins to not have been true
as you said it. Do you see?" c

"Again, there¶s an error in your logic, Clyde." The Bully smiled, "you seem to be of the
impression that opposite day is a calendar day, such as Memorial Day or Presidents¶ Day.
In fact, opposite day is simply a twenty-four hour period which begins immediately
following the declaration that it is. I think you¶ll agree that I can describe any twenty -
four hour period as a "day" even if it is not a day as defined by the roman calendar.
Indeed, in any given twenty-four hours, the earth does rotate once fully around it¶s axis,
which is certainly a more accurate measure of a "day" than the flawed calendar of the
Romans."c

Clyde adjusted his glasses. Astronomy, he was sorry to say, was not exactly his strong
suit. He decided to attack the problem from a different angle. "All right then, given that
that¶s the case, then the statement you make after µtoday is opposite day¶ becomes
suspect. You stated, if I am remembering correctly, that µno means yes and yes means
no.¶"c

"I think I said it the other way around, but go on." c

"Well, that statement then becomes the contradiction. You say that µyes means no,¶ but,
since it is opposite day by the time you make that statement, what you are actually
saying is that µyes means yes,¶ which, given the fact that it is opposite day and yes in
actuality means no, is---"c

"I see where you¶re going with this, but I¶m afraid you¶re in error. You see, the
statement µyes means no and no means yes,¶ is simply a clarification of the previous
statement. It is, in fact, an adjunct to the statement µtoday is opposite day.¶ Therefore,
since µyes means no and no means yes¶ is a part of the declaration of opposite day, it is
subject to the same exemption from µoppositing,¶ if you will, as the original statement." c

Clyde¶s glasses were beginning to fog. He took them off, wiped them on his shirt,
replaced them, and looked at the Bully. "So, then, as I understand it, you claim that t he
full statement of opposite day runs µToday is opposite day. Yes means no and no means
yes,¶ after which the twenty-four hour period which you have declared as opposite day
begins."c

"Yes," said the Bully.c

"By that reasoning, then, the question µdo you wa nt me to hit you?¶ does fall in the time
period you have described as opposite day." c

"Yes," said the Bully, "but, being a question, I¶m not sure that it is subject to the same
process of µoppositing¶ that an empirical statement is." c

"I disagree," Clyde scratched his nose, "because if I, to use your terminology, µopposite¶
the question, it becomes µdo you want me NOT to hit you?¶ Let us say, for the sake of
argument, that I answered µyes¶ to the question, because I take your question at face
value and assume I am answering µno, I do not want you to hit me.¶ However, you could
then hit me with impunity, because you can claim that my answer µyes¶ meant µno¶ in
response to your question µdo you want me to hit you?¶ which meant µdo you want me
NOT to hit you?¶ (or, indeed, µdo you NOT want me to hit you?¶) so that my response
could then be interpreted as µI do not want you not to hit me,¶ which, because of the
double negative, would have become µI want you to hit me.¶" c

The Bully shook his head. "But can you really say that the question µdo you want me
NOT to hit you?¶ is the  

 of the question µdo you want me to hit you?¶ It¶s true
that one query in the negative and the other is in the positive, but it seems to me that
they ultimately ask the same question. In fact, I could combine the two to form the
resulting uber-question µdo you want me to hit you or not?¶ which removes the issue
altogether. In fact, that restatement of the question eliminates your ability to provide a
simple µyes¶ or µno¶ response, since neither would adequately address the question as
stated. No, instead your answer would have to be more specific. In fact, it would be in
your best interests for it to be so, because that specificity would eliminate the ambiguity
of a µyes¶ or µno¶ response and circumvent the problem you just brought up." c

The Bully smiled. Clyde thought for a moment. The Bully had presented his case clearly
and intelligently, and without room for interpretation. He was sure he understood the
Bully¶s logic, as stated, and would be able to address the query in a manner that would
concisely convey his preferences regarding being hit by the Bully. "Okay," said Clyde,
"just for the record, would you mind restating your question?" c

"Not at all," the Bully said. "It is simply this; do you want me to hit you?" c

Clyde took a deep breath, adjusted his glasses, wiped the sweat off of his forehead, gave
the Bully a good hard kick in the shin, and ran like hell away. c