"peter" wrote in message
oups.com...
The problem is that as it is stated, the scenario is not one that could
ever be created with a real treadmill subject to normal engineering
constraints. [...]

You can interpret the question in that way of course. However, the intent
of the "puzzler" is clear, and the fact that it is poorly stated should not
interfere with making a reasonable, good faith effort to address the
intended question.

It's well and good to nitpick about physically impossible situations, but
rest assured if you started doing so in a true interactive situation in
which the person stating the puzzle had the opportunity to restate it, you
would quickly get past the nitpicking and get to the intended question.

It's a waste of time to do the nitpicking in the first place. It's easy
enough to infer what the interesting question really is. And the
interesting question doesn't have the treadmill blowing up.

Pete