A logician would approach the question more, well, logically. He'd answer "yes," because if everyone had jumped off the bridge, since he is a member of the set named
"Everyone", he by definition must have jumped off the bridge too.
A logician would approach the question more, well, logically. He'd answer "yes," because if everyone had jumped off the bridge, since he is a member of the set named
"Everyone", he by definition must have jumped off the bridge too.
Well, to REALLY nitpick... if "everyone" includes him, then the question becomes nonsensical. It's equivalent to asking "If you jumped off a bridge, would you jump off a bridge?"
Since we presume the question was intended to be intelligible, the obvious inference is that "everyone" does NOT include him, and the question was simply worded poorly.
A logician would approach the question more, well, logically. He'd answer "yes," because if everyone had jumped off the bridge, since he is a member of the set named
"Everyone", he by definition must have jumped off the bridge too.
Well, to REALLY nitpick... if "everyone" includes him, then the question becomes nonsensical. It's equivalent to asking "If you jumped off a bridge, would you jump off a bridge?"
Since we presume the question was intended to be intelligible, the obvious inference is that "everyone" does NOT include him, and the question was simply worded poorly.
This kind of stuff is why people hate lawyers.