The paradox on the previous page was articulated by Swedish mathematician Lennart Ekbom. Although the convict's argument exhibits the outward form of proper logic, it is fundamentally fallacious. Its flaw is his premise that the judge could be known with certainty to carry out his decree in the manner specified, regardless of changes in the convict's context of knowledge as the week progressed. This premise, although it appears superficially plausible, is constructed on a logically incoherent notion of omniscient "knowledge." Consequently, we should not be astonished that contradictions arise in inferences from this assumption.