>The reason the situation is dubbed a paradox is that there
>are more than one plausible solution.

Agreed. You could of course restate the problem to better define the probability distribution for a random cord and thus remove the ambiguity. The real point I think is to point out how easy it is to make statements in natural language that are subtly ambiguous. Natural language is fuzzy compared to say predicate logic.

I just find these sorts of mind benders fascinating. On one hand we are trying to make computers “think,” but on the other hand we don’t want computers to make mistakes. This kind of mind bender seems to point out that we can’t have it both ways…