Tuesday 18 December 2012: The Possession and Consumption of Cake

The argument I put forward today for your consideration is a simple one; can you have cake and eat it too.

That depends on how clever you are, and what the parameters set by the person using the phrase are. (More often than not, no parameters are set, but nevertheless, I will elaborate on this shortly).

Mostly what I mean is - are you limited to the possession of a single piece of cake, or are you allowed multiple bits. For if this is the case, surely, the solution of this rather elementary conundrum would come to any logicians, and/or members of the public easily.

For in order to have cake and eat it, there must be multiple bits, as (the point of the saying) it is impossible to both have an unharmed version of a particular piece of cake, and a slightly eaten/fully eaten version.

However, if multiple pieces are allowed then surely the saying would mean far less than it currently does, and even become void completely.

The other factor that needs to be considered is time.

Do both factors of the saying need to be addressed directly at any one point in time, or if having one, and then (a suitable amount of time later), the other. I suspect that the only way to invalidate the statement is to have both at the same time.

So, my solution to the 'can you have cake and eat it' argument is yes, they just have to be different pieces, and you must have (at least) two pieces at any one time, because no, in my mind at least, prior possession of the cake does not tick that box, and then consumption tick the other. If that were the way it worked, I feel that the statement itself would be void. Simple as that.

As it is now, the statement's void anyway (because of this very argument).

See ya.