I’m 28. As the mature, grizzled veteran of the life process that I so obviously am, I often do things like enjoy swingsets, drink slurpees, and one of my personal favorites, play “Jinx”. For the uninitiated, “Jinx” is when you and someone else say the same word at the same time. The first person to notice this says “Jinx, you owe me a coke, tell me when to stop” and then starts counting. The other person has to say “stop”. The point during the counting at which the other person says “stop” is the number of Cokes they owe you. See? Obviously this dovetails perfectly with the activities of your average mature, adult, almost-thirty year old.

At any rate, I realized there are some possible ambiguities in this otherwise perfect game. For example, what about the following situation:

Person A: “…so anyway, that’s how I saved Christmas!”
Person B [At the same time]: “…that’s how I saved Christmas!”
Person A: “Jinx!”
Person B: [At the same time] “Jinx!” ***
Person A: ?????

Now, there are two things that can happen here. The simplest thing is for person A to ignore the second Jinx (denoted above by ***) and just continue with the “you owe me a Coke, tell me when to stop” thing. This seems fine. The person is, of course, then entitled to however many Cokes s/he can count to until Person B says stop. But what if person B, instead of saying stop, claims the second Jinx, and then starts counting as well?

You can imagine the implications here. There is obviously a second Jinx out there, ready to be claimed. But if Person A claims it, is s/he forfeiting his/her claim on the first, original Jinx? Should person A be penalized because s/he is forced to continue with the Jinx-ing process, as opposed to claiming new Jinxes?

This issue is known as the “Jinx-queuing Problem”. Because, by rule, what’s supposed to follow the claim of “Jinx” is the refrain about Coke-oweage, and the commencement of the counting process. By running straight into another Jinx, it seems one might giving up the rights to the first jinx. Is this fair? This issue is of special importance in instances where Person A is the first person to speak after the second Jinx (again, denoted by *** above). Because, by rights, since Person A is the first person to speak, s/he could easily claim the second Jinx, and “queue it up” in a list of Jinxes yet to be claimed.

There are other problems that can arise in the above situation. Lets say person A doesn’t claim the first Jinx, as we’ve mentioned. So instead of saying “you owe me a Coke (etc etc)”, they claim “Jinx” again — because of the fact that they both said “Jinx” at the same time — and only then do they begin with the “you owe me a Coke” process. Now, what if person B says “stop”. Which Jinx does this stop pertain to? One? Both? Neither? This situation is what I call the “Dangling Jinx Paradox”.

Obviously, further research is needed to fully answer the Jinx-queuing Problem and the Dangling Jinx Paradox. Hopefully, one day, kids – and 28 year olds – the world over will finally be able to determine, with absolute precision, exactly how many Cokes people owe them when they say the same word at the same time.