A minor write stated the following argument about this famous puzzle:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

"Tristram Shandy, who writes his autobiography so slowly that he covers only one day of his life in a year of writing. the set of days written about cannot in fact always be a subset of the set of days past. Consider any day n. Suppose Tristram Shandy writes about day n and he finishes writing about day n on day n + m. Then for any day n + i, he finishes writing about n + i on day n + m + 365i. To find the day d on which Tristram Shandy writes about day d, we must solve for i in n + i = n + m + 365i; if the solution is I, then d = n + I = n + m + 365I. The solution is I = -m/364. So d = n -m/364 = n + m -365m/364- or their integral parts, [n -m/364] = [n + m -365m/364.]. On days I later than d, Tristram Shandy writes about his past (about days between days d and I); on day d, he writes about day d; and on days e earlier than d, he writes about his future (about days between days e and d). For any i, day n + i is covered by the end of day n + m + 365i-or, equivalently, any day x, past, present or future, is covered by the end of day f(x) = n + m + 365(x -n), a monotonically increasing function of x."

I am lost as to his argument, but I don't see how his position is correct starting from what he is trying to prove. Can someone help me with his argument here?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Tristram Shandy

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**