| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
winterHLepsilon
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2004 8:42 am Post subject: 41 |
|
|
When a boy wanted to ask his girlfriend out to dinner he asked two questions. The first one was, (of course): 'Would you like to dine with me?' What was his second question? _________________ *HL--^H^e^L^en *
=A girl from Guangzhou, China, Asia=
Ask, and it shall be given you;
Seek, and ye shall find;
Knock, and it shall be opened unto you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Antrax
ESL Student
|
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2004 8:47 am Post subject: 42 |
|
|
| "Why is your sig so long"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kevinatilusa
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2004 12:23 pm Post subject: 43 |
|
|
| "You don't trust me? Would I line to you?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
groza528
No Place Like Home
|
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:39 pm Post subject: 44 |
|
|
"Pah."
Oh wait. How about:
"Pah?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
doormouse11
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:12 pm Post subject: 45 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| A similar argument can be applied to speciation. No single mutation makes for a different species, therefore new species can't evolve by repeated mutations. |
I used to swear that every living thing was really the same species on this logic. I also called everyone cannibals. But actually in biology, a species is a taxonomic group whose members can interbreed (www.hyperdictionary.com). And by that definition Mules are not of the same species as other mules, since they can't interbreed. haha |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:31 am Post subject: 46 |
|
|
| Nor are mules actually alive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kevinatilusa
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 5:16 am Post subject: 47 |
|
|
That definition of species does get rid of one paradox.
However, suppose A can produce fertile offspring with B, B can produce fertile offspring with C, but A cannot produce fertile offspring with C.
Which pairs of them are the same species? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:41 am Post subject: 48 |
|
|
| "same species" is not transitive. A and B are the same, B and C are the same, but A and C are not the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Doc Borodog
Guest
|
Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 3:06 pm Post subject: 49 |
|
|
So I read about the Tarski & Hutch paradox, or whatever it is, with the cutting the one sphere up into 5 bits and reasembling it into 2 identical spheres, and I've reached this conclusion: Mathematicians are goofy. With the corollary: Man, am I glad I didn't become a mathematician.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Twin Paradox. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kevinatilusa
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2004 1:14 am Post subject: 51 |
|
|
Another fun paradox:
There are two envelopes on a table, exactly one of which contains $20. Written on the red envelope: Either this envelope contains $20 or the statement on the blue envelope is false. Written on the blue envelope: Either the statement on the red envelope is true or the red envelope contains $20.
Where's the $20? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Vegetable
cannibal
|
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:00 am Post subject: 52 |
|
|
| In either of the two envelopes. IT'S NOT A FREAKING PARADOX! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mgm
Roar!
|
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2004 8:42 pm Post subject: 53 |
|
|
| That would be the red envelope |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Vegetable
cannibal
|
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:07 pm Post subject: 54 |
|
|
| Tell me why it can't be the blue envelope? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
extro...
Guest
|
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 12:02 am Post subject: 55 |
|
|
If it's in the blue envelope, then:
red : Either this envelope contains $20 or the statement on the blue envelope is false
blue : Either the statement on the red envelope is true or the red envelope contains $20
which is:
red : Either FALSE or the statement on the blue envelope is false
blue : Either the statement on the red envelope is true or FALSE
which is:
red : the statement on the blue envelope is false
blue : the statement on the red envelope is true
Now, if the statement on the red envelope is true, then the statemment on the blue envelope is false, and then the statement on the red envelope is false. Contradiction.
And, if the statement on the red envelope is false, then the statement on the blue envelope is true, and then the statement on the red envelope is true. Contradiction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Celt
still thinking
|
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 12:06 am Post subject: 56 |
|
|
A comprehensive list of Fallacies can be found here.
Enjoy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Veg
Guest
|
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 1:26 am Post subject: 57 |
|
|
| So what? What does it matter what the envelopes say. We have no reason to believe either is true. Read the "paradox" again. One of these two envelopes has $20. There's some writing on the envelopes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:16 am Post subject: 58 |
|
|
| Veg wrote: |
| We have no reason to believe either is true. |
If one of the statements is not true, then wouldn't that statement be false? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dread Pirate Westley
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:09 am Post subject: 59 |
|
|
Neither do we have any reason to believe the statements are false.
Based on the scenario as described, it is possible that the writing is completely unrelated to the location of the $20. I probably wrote it on there to confuse any GLers who thought they could steal my money.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 1:11 pm Post subject: 60 |
|
|
| Vegetable wrote: |
| Tell me why it can't be the blue envelope? |
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "can't". |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kd
Mei Li De Hua
|
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:47 am Post subject: 61 |
|
|
If you open the blue envelope, you get to go home with the $20, but if you open the red envelope, I can show you how far the bank vault goes.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CrystyB
Misunderstood Guy
|
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:35 pm Post subject: 62 |
|
|
| Doc Borodog wrote: |
| So I read about the Tarski & Hutch paradox, or whatever it is, with the cutting the one sphere up into 5 bits and reasembling it into 2 identical spheres |
Whoa, wait a second there... What exactly do you mean by paradox?!? I see it as "conflicting with intuition", based on:
| http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paradox wrote: |
| [Latin paradoxum, from Greek paradoxon, from neuter sing. of paradoxos, conflicting with expectation: para-, beyond; see para-1 + doxa, opinion (from dokein, to think. See dek- in Indo-European Roots).] |
But then the five pieces are
| http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Banach-Tarski_paradox wrote: |
| albeit infinitely convoluted/complicated pieces, which individually are not measurable |
so there is no intuition anymore. The whole thing deals with nonmeasurable infinite sets (and infinite sets are quite strange themselves), which are way waaay beyond perception, so it's merely a curious idea. I would not call it a paradox just yet.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Part two of this post deals with a much more labyrinthian topic. The unexpected hanging. http://rec-puzzles.org/new/sol.pl/logic/unexpected simplifies this to a two-day timeframe, and presents the whole idea as:
| Code: |
| [1 => ~Ka 1] & [2 => (~Kb 2 & Kb ~1)] & [1 v 2]. |
Now answer me this: why am i to believe that the event occurs (whenever it does) totally unexpected? Why can't i expect it every single day in the timeframe (this does indeed change the meaning of "expectation", so there are different "unexpected"-s now, but i see no wrong in this), so that the only thing that is not right is the original announcement? If i say "I am dead, and have been ever since i was born", then there is no debate over the statement being false. Therefore i argue that the original announcement is false (actually, invaluable, in that it cannot or shouldnot be assigned a logical value, thus it is neither true nor false) (assuming the subject acts as i have described), and we cannot reason based on it. Exactly as in the envelopes' case just above... So i ask again: are these really paradoxes?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|