There is a bridge guarded night and day by an executioner. Anytime someone goes to cross the bridge, the executioner asks why they have come to the bridge. If the individual tells a lie, then the executioner kills that person, if the individual tells the truth, then the executioner lets them pass.
In what case could the executioner neither kill the person, nor let them pass?
Define “truth” for that matter…
Good job Churro.
For the purpose, the definition of lie and truth is to be interpreted as the same as a person who has never read, seen, heard, or thought anything about philosophy would define it.
Additionally, you are to assume that the executioner is omniscient and will know whether or not the person is lying.
Any false statement, deliberate or otherwise.
Presumably by uttering a statement that is neither true nor false, such as “The present king of France is bald”. [?]
You can’t fully answer a direct question with an unrelated statement.
“Why have you come to the bridge…?”
“[because]The present king of France is bald.” [true]
“Why did the present king of France’s baldness result in you coming to the bridge…?”
“Er… I’ve heard there is a really good wig shop over there.” [true]
“And are you going to buy him a wig…?”
“Yeah, sure, why not.” [true, at least unprovable as false]
“You may pass.”
How about I answer:
“To destroy your city.”
Okay, he wouldn’t be obligated to kill me for lying, and he’d try to stop me from passing, though that would involve him at least attempting to kill me.
Re-think.
“To find a doctor for this terminal, massively contagious disease I’m infected with.”
How about that…?
Okay. In reply to the question, the spoken answer is: “I am saying nothing” or something similar, which appears paradoxical.
Hmm. Still an unrelated statement.
“Did you come to the bridge simply to tell me that you’d be saying nothing in reply to the question I was duty bound to ask you…?”
“Yes”
“Then you may pass.”
“No”
“Then, why did you come to the bridge…?”
Really, we need to know more about the executioner to answer properly.
I didn’t mean it quite that way, TR. To whatever question is asked by the executioner, it makes sense to reply: “I am saying nothing” (or, perhaps: “there is something that is logically equivalent to nothing and I am saying it”, or: “it is the null class of all propositions that I am asserting”). You cannot truly say, “I am saying nothing” while saying it; nor is it false that In saying nothing I am saying something. Isn’t it?
Best wishes,
R
EDIT: Actually, I believe I’m wrong. The statement, “I am saying nothing” is not neither true nor false; it is both true and false! For it is true that in saying it, I am saying something (namely, “I am saying nothing”, a speech act) and, at the same time, false that I am saying nothing at all.
Forget my answer. It’s logical rubbish! I guess you’re more in tune with a correct answer (if there is one!).
R
If I was the executioner I’d just cut your head off for being a smart-arse. 
Okay, I got the ‘paradox’ part of your “I’m saying nothing” - I’m not quite that dumb thankyou - but unless the executioner is a robot, bound to try and process everything he percieves through the crank-case cogs of logic, he’s not going to be impressed.
Imagine using the “I’m saying nothing” line on a bouncer at a club for example…?
“Don’t fuck around with me son, what do you really want…?”
“there is something that is logically equivalent to nothing and I am saying it”
“Look pal, its cold and there are others waiting to get in, either tell me what you want or fuck off.”
“it is null class of all propositions that I am asserting”
“That’s it, you’re dead you fucking student.”
Thumpthumpouchheadbuttcrotchkickmummystophimhurtingme.
EDIT: Okay!!! I’ll bet it’s a silly answer actually, these things always are.
Actually, you can solve your quandry with punctuation:
"I am saying: ‘nothing’ "
Good response, TR! Well deserved, too.
Anyway, that aside - what is the answer?
Hello,
Why is the executioner bound to ask the question?
The answer may lie in this!
mmm…
I edited my post slightly to prompt rather than answer.
Yeah, it depends on whether he’s Bertrand Russel or not.
I suppose… if they say nothing then they haven’t lied, nor will the executioner let them pass because they haven’t told the truth.
Bane,
I think you may have the best chance of getting the answer right (which I am putting at the bottom of this post, so think about it before you read on) but assume the person has to say something.
Here is the answer:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The answer is, if the person says, “I have come to the bridge so you can kill me.”
The executioner cannot kill the person because the statement is true, but the executioner cannot let the person pass because then the statement becomes a lie which means the executioner must kill the person, but by then it will be too late.
Hmm. Still not convinced.
Why can’t the executioner let him pass…? The man has not told a lie, and the truth of his statement is not actually contingent on his dying, it is only contingent on the man’s ‘true’ intention to present himself to the executioner and allow himself to be killed. Having presented himself, the man’s part of the bargain is complete, and he is a free agent. The executioner’s reaction has no bearing on the truth of the man’s initial statement.
Let’s change the wording. The executioner becomes a banana seller, and he gives free bananas to people who tell the truth, but makes the people who tell lies pay for them. His question is the same “Why have you come here…?”
A man replies “I have come to be sold a banana by you.”
The banana seller still gives him a free banana, because the man’s intent remains untouched by the fact he’s qualified for a free banana, instead of having to buy one. The fact that the man wasn’t actually sold a banana by the banana seller, in no way renders his original intention untrue.
I like bananas.
But actually, in my view, the “I have come to the bridge so you can kill me.” - Guy would be lying, and would be automatically executed.
Say this executioner/truth-lie thing has been going on for a while, and the people round about know of this situation, and how to avoid it. We must assume then that ‘I have come to the bridge so you can kill me - Guy’ (from now on known as KillmeGuy) also knows about this situation in advance - prior to his decision to come to the bridge.
Therefore, unless the KillMeGuy is a complete retard, he must know that using the “I have come to the bridge so you can kill me.” reply will not actually result in his death.
Therefore, knowing this information, renders the killmeguy’s actual intent to be killed by the executioner a lie, because he knows there is no way the executioner will harm him.
The executioner, being a clever fellow, works this out, and kills him. Not, I hasten to add, because the man wanted him to, but because the man told a lie.
I still like bananas.
From the OP, the executioner is only bound by true or false…
For “I have come to the bridge so that you can kill me” to work, the OP must stipulate another condition for the executioners mind to enter into a paradoxical state.
… mumbling and distraction always work for me, for e.g.
Ex:Why have you come to to bridge?
Me: mumble, mumble, mumble
Ex: What did you say?
Me: mumble, mumble, mumble
Ex: Answer my question Dude!
Me: mumble, mumble, mumble
Ex: I repeat, Why have you come to the bridge?
Me: I have diarrhoea and bananas are the work of the devil! 
Then stuff a banana in his mouth and run for your life.
mmm…
After a fag on the balcony, the only better answer I could think of is this:
“I have come to relieve you of your duty.”
But having had second thoughts about it, I don’t think there is any answer at all that’s completely justifiable for this riddle.
How would the executioner ever prove that any of the reasons given to him for coming to the bridge as false…?
“I came to sell bicycles to paraplegics.”
Unlikely, but still possibly true - especially if the guy has a couple of bikes strapped across his back.
“I came to show you how I can levitate, juggle and drink a glass of water at the same time.”
Again, unlikely, but the question asked in no way relates to the replier’s ability to achieve any claim made in the reason.
I therefore put forward the motion that this riddle is bollocks. 
Sorry, everyone. It’s not my riddle, just passing it along.
I didn’t get it when it was told to me either, but I understood the answer (or thought I did) when it was explained to me. I think it makes sense, but that is just me.
Go and punch whoever told you the riddle, and then tell them to pass the punch on to whoever told them. 
That wouldn’t be fair, correct, or just, nobody has punched me.