Or it could say she guessed wrong and eat the child.
I believe she is supposed to say "you will not return my child," which generates a paradox in which the crocodile can neither keep the child nor do anything else. Technically, the child is not saved.
The mom would have to say, "you're going to eat my child." If that wasn't the original fate, then he would eat the child, making the statement true. In return, he'd have to give the child back.
But if the crocodile returned the child, then the mother guessed incorrectly, therefore it must eat the child. But if the crocodile eats the child, then the mother guessed correctly, therefore it cannot eat the child. But if the crocodile does not eat the child, then the mother guessed incorrectly therefore it must eat the child. But if the crocodile . . . .
how is "you will listen to my statement" an answer for what the croc will do to the child? he asked the mom what he would do to it, not to say some random fact
yeah i realize this is a really old post but i was brought back hereby the random button so even though nobody will see this I'm going to clarify why "You will listen to my statement" is correct: the croc didn't ask her to guess 'the fate of her child' he asked her to guess what he would do with him! The croc has the kid WITH HIM right now, because it kidnapped the kid. therefore, he listened to the statement with the kid. He was with the kid when he listened to the statement.
1. There is a time in his life in wich his nose will grow. So the statement is true.
If he says "now" behind it then it is false. So his nose will grow. But after he finished the sentence, so it doesn't grow at the moment he says "now"
2. The mother says "You will return my child if this is the correct answer" This has to be true. If the crocodile isn't returning the child the first part of the sentence wasn't correct. But the second part makes the sentence true, because that is what the crocodile said.
3. The girl was never born, because her grandmother died before her mother was born. But then she could never kill her grandmother. But she didn't need to, because her grandmother was already dead.
4. Maybe
5. The sentence is neither true or false.
For the time travel one. I've always liked the theory of time travel that any time travel starts an alternate universe, rather than the any time travel has actually already happened you just didnt know it. For example, in harry potter when they go back in time, all that stuff happened the first time round, they just didn't know it. To me this feels like it kinda ruins your choices if everythings already destined to happen a certain way. You can't change the past, etc. Now in Terminator, by being sent back in time, it completely changes the timeline, its split into an alternate universe because the original timeline still goes on, but the new timeline is completely changed so the old future never happens. In THIS case, by going back in time to kill a grandmother, the girl would still be alive, she wouldnt just disappear or whatever, but she wouldn't ever be born in the old timeline, however she'd still be alive in the new timeline
I believe she is supposed to say "you will not return my child," which generates a paradox in which the crocodile can neither keep the child nor do anything else. Technically, the child is not saved.
"Don't trust a whore" *is a whore* (PS. Not an actual whore)
If he says "now" behind it then it is false. So his nose will grow. But after he finished the sentence, so it doesn't grow at the moment he says "now"
2. The mother says "You will return my child if this is the correct answer" This has to be true. If the crocodile isn't returning the child the first part of the sentence wasn't correct. But the second part makes the sentence true, because that is what the crocodile said.
3. The girl was never born, because her grandmother died before her mother was born. But then she could never kill her grandmother. But she didn't need to, because her grandmother was already dead.
4. Maybe
5. The sentence is neither true or false.