[billswift]

That's the sort of thing that happens when semantics meets mathematics; Swizec screwed up his statement of the problem. Swizec and the people agreeing that the answer is yes are confusing the problem's literal statement with the common statement of similar problems.

[nhaehnle]

I am thoroughly confused as to what your point is. What is the problem with Swizec's wording in your view? Should s/he have written "Can you make room for more guests?". I agree that you could argue that right now there is no room free, and that the answer should be No because of that. However, given that you can easily make one room free by having every guest go to the next room, that just seems overly nit-picky to me, and like you are intentionally trying to miss the point.

[damoncali]

The difference is an infinite number of rooms can accommodate an infinite number of guests and still have room for one more. An infinite number of full rooms can accomodate no more guests. They're all full by definition.

That is, unless I am also thoroughly confused.

[mistercow]

>That is, unless I am also thoroughly confused.

You are, but that's OK; they call it a "veridical paradox" for a reason.

[leviself]

The part that makes the assertion false is "...all of which are currently occupied." Moving n to n+1 only works when that restriction is lifted.

[recursive]

No, because the people in n+1 simultaneously move to n+2. (and so on)