Logic

[ElimN8]

WARNING: This thread is NOT for the weak of mind. If you can't handle the debate being presented, then I strongly suggest you leave. Also, in the case that something is dragged out longer than it needs to be, we're probably well aware of it but want to keep going anyway, so no need to shove that in our faces in an attempt to get us to shut up, because we won't.

That being said...

First topic: "Random fact: this is a fact."

TRUE or FALSE?

[mlugia]

I'll start off on the side of True in this debate.

Random Fact: This is a fact

implies that the above statement is a true statement. If we then assume the statement is true, then it must be true that this is a fact. And as facts are by definition true, then this statement has been completely proven true.

*nod*

Disclaimer: The arguments presented in this and the following posts by any poster might NOT be the view of the poster him/herself, but rather a point that can be brought up to continue the debate further.

[Neo Pikachu]

It is a fact, since it is being declared as one. Even though it is a random fact, it's still a fact from any viewpoint or angle. In terms of declaration, it's a fact. Both sides of the statement back each other up by saying that the other is a fact, so therefore it is.

[Zenaku]

Part of the following was actually put together by N8, but the point was my idea:

It is not a fact, it is an opinion. Thus said, its a fact that it's an opinion. If thats true however, then it is not a fact.

It is FALSE.

[Techno Treecko]

I'll continue the debate by saying it is neither, and yet at the same time is is both a fact and an opinion. It is an opinion of a fact, and a fact of an opinion. Making neither answer right or wrong. :tongue2:

*just confused himself*

[Chaos Mage]

Fine, I'll restate my post since someone in particular didn't understand that the hell I said. If you just look at the sentence plain 'n dry, then it's a fact since it says so. If you look at it deeper, then it's neither since there's nothing to prove that it's a fact nor does it come from one's judgment. :crackup:

[Neo Pikachu]

Part of the following was actually put together by N8, but the point was my idea:

It is not a fact, it is an opinion. Thus said, its a fact that it's an opinion. If thats true however, then it is not a fact.

It is FALSE.

No, because an opinion is one person's own personal belief regarding a situation. No where was a single party or person mentioned. The statement was presented in its own context, so therefore the basis of judgement regarding whether it's a fact or not cannot be put in terms of opinion. Since the statement is in it's own context, it's a fact.

[ElimN8]

This isn't about fact vs. opinion, ye olde weakmindes.

The solution is thus: It can't be true OR false, because it's self-reflexive, and doesn't imply anything beyond that circumstance.

In other words, it can't be an absolute fact because it's an uncertainty.

Therefore proving me right, and you wrong.

[Zenaku]

Just because it is stated as such, does not mean it is a fact, for example:

"Random Fact: The Australians won the WAR against the Kangaroos, using only Bananas"

According to your previous post, that would make this statement a fact, but in reality, whether it is true or not is based entirely on opinion.

[mlugia]

However, provided that was the case, despite being not an absolute fact, we can still call it a relative fact, which makes it a fact, thus being true.

[Kenny_C.002]

"Random fact: this is a fact."

Tehcnically this "fact" must be proven using every possible variable within and out of our systems before it is an absolute fact. When it is a fact, it can be opinion based or biased to a certain amount, in which the fact is distorted from the possible truth. A possible turth, obviously, is only a possiblity within other possibilities, thus you have to take into account that the fact can be distorted from one possible truth to another possible truth. If that is the case, then the "fact" can then continue to be proven with variables to see if it is absolute. Either way, a fact is not the truth, rather a truth is a fact.

[Steven]

How about this one:

I've Never Lied

If you consider that itself to be your first lie, then it's false, but it is also true, correct me if I'm wrong...

[ElimN8]

How about this one:

I've Never Lied

If you consider that itself to be your first lie, then it's false, but it is also true, correct me if I'm wrong...
That depends on who says it.

Also, no topic changing until the topic has officially been changed.

Like now, for instance, since I've already given the solution to the first topic. (I don't always know THE answer, if there is one, but mlugia and I had already debated the previous one)

Now for some unfinished business :twisted:

NEXT TOPIC: "What's 0 divided by 0?"

[Agent Orange]

Well....0 divided by 0 is 0 right?

[ElimN8]

I'll save those of us who have already gone over this a repetitive argument by posting the chat log it was originally brought up in.

NOTE: This is not the chat in its entirety. Some messages have been editted/deleted to preserve relavence and length.

...
Titanic Panda: what's 0 divided by 0?
theElimN8r: 0
Titanic Panda: there, that's a good debate
SSJ Metallica: 0
Titanic Panda: :-)
Titanic Panda: why is it 0?
Titanic Panda: The answer can also be 1, can't it?
theElimN8r: because you can't divide zero.
Titanic Panda: 0, 1, infinite, underfined?
theElimN8r: you have nothing. you seperate it into nothing groups. you don't magically gain a quantity
Titanic Panda: but any number divided by itself produces 1
Titanic Panda: even 1/1 and -1/-1
Titanic Panda: there has to be 1 of something when it divides by self
theElimN8r: That's only true for NON-ZERO numbers
theElimN8r: go back to school
Titanic Panda: could be undefined too
Titanic Panda: but envision nothing
Titanic Panda: how much nothing do you need for nothing?
theElimN8r: you can't invision noting!
Titanic Panda: you could have 1 nothing, 2 nothing or 3000 nothings
theElimN8r: No you cant!
Titanic Panda: so 3000 nothings can still fit into 0
Titanic Panda: sure you can
theElimN8r: You can have more than one of a nonexistant presence
Titanic Panda: such as spirits and ghosts?
theElimN8r: 3000 nothings = nothing.
Titanic Panda: Or UFOs?
theElimN8r: That's completely different
Titanic Panda: right, like saying 400 piles of bananas can group into 1 pile of banana
Titanic Panda: but in the end you still have 1
Titanic Panda: even if nothing is infinite, you'd still end up with 1 of nothing
theElimN8r: yeah but you can't obtain nothing or else it'd be something
Titanic Panda: not really
Titanic Panda: if you obtain nothing, it's still nothing
Titanic Panda: because you didn't obtain anything
theElimN8r: Exactly
Titanic Panda: which makes it 1 nothing
theElimN8r: So shut up. Your argument is now void.
Titanic Panda: not really
theElimN8r: 1 nothing = 0.
Titanic Panda: correct
theElimN8r: 2 nothings = 0.
theElimN8r: 3 nothings = 0.
Titanic Panda: and how many 0 can fit into a 0?
theElimN8r: etc
Titanic Panda: 3 nothings?
Titanic Panda: 4 nothings?
theElimN8r: NONE
Titanic Panda: that makes infinite, not 9
Titanic Panda: *0
Titanic Panda: according to you, 1 of 0 can fit into 0
theElimN8r: That's according to YOU
Titanic Panda: adding 0 to 0 is still 0
Titanic Panda: theElimN8r: 2 nothings = 0.theElimN8r: 3 nothings = 0.
Titanic Panda: so, no, you :p
theElimN8r: ZERO ISN'T QUANITATIVE
Titanic Panda: we can argue that it is
theElimN8r: THAT WOULD GO AGAINST ITS DEFINITION
Titanic Panda: O_o
theElimN8r: *shut down
theElimN8r: :-D
Titanic Panda: definition?
theElimN8r: Let's define it then
Titanic Panda: ok
Titanic Panda: man, we're talking logic and math for some reason O_o
Titanic Panda: and it shut everyone down, btw
SSJ Metallica: Nah, I'm just watching
SSJ Metallica: :-P
Bk Dark Absol: Im just watching
Titanic Panda: lol
Titanic Panda: :-(
Bk Dark Absol: *Noticies the psychic Nick*
Titanic Panda: the only reason I brought it up was to create conversation O_o
theElimN8r: 5 a : a state of total absence or neutrality b : the lowest point : NADIR
SSJ Metallica: 'Eh?
theElimN8r: That;s Webster
Titanic Panda: NADIR?
theElimN8r: Webster said it, not me
Titanic Panda: total absence
theElimN8r: Exactly.
Titanic Panda: If it's not there, is it still there?
theElimN8r: No...
theElimN8r: ?
Titanic Panda: but if "not there" is not there, then how can itb e there?
theElimN8r: It's only there because we are comparing it to somethign that in another circumstance would be therre, isn;t.
theElimN8r: HA
Titanic Panda: right, and in this case we can assume it's there to create another answer for 0/0
Titanic Panda: because we are comparing the abscense of everything to something else, which is the presence of something
theElimN8r: We can't assume it's there because it's a state of absence
Titanic Panda: but if the state of absence is absent, then wouldn't something be there?
theElimN8r: wtf? Do you even know what YOU'RE saying?
Titanic Panda: (watch, they prolly have another Pe2kchat2 going somewhere w/o us)
Titanic Panda: yes, I know what I'm saying
theElimN8r: lol
theElimN8r: I dont give a expletive deleted
theElimN8r: this is more important
tHEzanydoLL: lol this is spectator food...
theElimN8r: to me
Titanic Panda: I'm saying that by defining 0 as a state of absense
theElimN8r: OH
tHEzanydoLL: Nothing is more important? : P
theElimN8r: RIGHT
Titanic Panda: wouldn't it make sense just as much to say that to be absent, everything must not be there?
theElimN8r: You can't define something that doesn't exist
Titanic Panda: therefore, if everything isn't there, wouldn't state of absence be absent as well?
Titanic Panda: we're defining 0
theElimN8r: let me digest that sentence first

continued in next post

[ElimN8]

Titanic Panda: >_<
Titanic Panda: man, I hate logic
Titanic Panda: well, not hate
Titanic Panda: just gives me headaches if it's not for homework assignments
theElimN8r: if everything ISN'T there, then nothing IS there.
SSJ Metallica: Zero is nothing right?
SSJ Metallica: If it is, then y'all aren't defining anything.
Titanic Panda: but if nothing is there, and nothing is 0, then wouldn't 1 nothing be needed to create 0?
Bk Dark Absol: If Zero is nothing then what is it?
Titanic Panda: because if nothing is not present, then 0 cannot exist
SSJ Metallica: :-\
Bk Dark Absol: Its a definition used to show that something does not exist, such as a quantity
theElimN8r: exactly
SSJ Metallica: Please, I'm not in the mood......
Bk Dark Absol: "4 nothings" is a quantity, so it cannot exist
theElimN8r: you can't give a quantitiy to a non-quanitative representation
Bk Dark Absol: Therefore, you cannot have any number of "nothings"
theElimN8r: YES
Titanic Panda: lemme digest that and come up with something to keep the debate going
theElimN8r: Thank you DA
SSJ Metallica: That's what I was sort of saying earlier.
Bk Dark Absol: No problem
theElimN8r: This deserves it's own topic...
Titanic Panda: (fyi, I've gotten this problem solved by my teacher back in grade 10, heh)
Bk Dark Absol: lol
Titanic Panda: (I'm just arguing to create a topic to talk about)
Titanic Panda: like I said before though
Titanic Panda: If the definition is used to show that everything doesn't exist
theElimN8r: everything OUT OF A GIVEN SOMETHING
Titanic Panda: can we also group it so that it covers nothing as well?
Titanic Panda: that wasn't defined by webster
theElimN8r: Nothing isn't a something
theElimN8r: end of story
Titanic Panda: who said that?
Bk Dark Absol: It doesnt show that "Everything" doesnt exist, it is used to show that something that once had a quantity no longer exists
theElimN8r: Except when you call it nothing
Titanic Panda: did Webster define it?
Titanic Panda: but if we give it a name, it has to be something
Titanic Panda: or else we'd be calling it
theElimN8r: .....nothing
theElimN8r: lol
Bk Dark Absol: Like, if i eat all my chocoalte bars, does a chocolate bar still exist?
Titanic Panda: yes
Titanic Panda: and yes
Titanic Panda: stomach :-)
theElimN8r: You mean to say that 1 non-chocolate bar exists
Titanic Panda: and you'd have a hell of a stomachache
theElimN8r: You could easily say by that logic that 2 non-chocolate bars extsts, because the end result is the same
Bk Dark Absol: No, as i have no chocolate bars left, thus they no longer exist
Titanic Panda: But they exist in your stomach
theElimN8r: 1 negative chocolate bar exists
Titanic Panda: should we not be able to dissect you and check?
TwIsted TreeckO: ElimN8r
Bk Dark Absol: Not for long they dont
TwIsted TreeckO: STOP TALKING ABOUT DAMN CHOCOLATE BARS
Titanic Panda: especially if we assume that you swallowed whole
theElimN8r: Assume that the chocolate dissapears
Titanic Panda: if we get to you first then it does exist
theElimN8r: for the sake of debate
Titanic Panda: if we don't get to you fast enough, then it won't exist
tHEzanydoLL: OMG, stop, you're making me hungry.
Titanic Panda: and the only thing that will be existing is
Bk Dark Absol: lol Cat
Titanic Panda: lol, cat, I'm hungry too, do lunch? :-)
glydelD: O.o
Bk Dark Absol: lol
tHEzanydoLL: Mana... Thanks for the offer, but... x_x
Titanic Panda: I got bread, I need the filling :-(
Bk Dark Absol: What is it with guys askin Cat out?
theElimN8r: go on
Titanic Panda: who's asking her out?
glydelD: XD
Bk Dark Absol: You, duh
Titanic Panda: I'm hunting for food, DA
theElimN8r: YOU STOPPED MIDWAY ML
Titanic Panda: lol, the idea of cat being hot is that bad?
Titanic Panda: no, because if I was to give it a name then it'd be something
theElimN8r: You forfeit then
theElimN8r: lol
SSJ Metallica: "In the End, it doesn't even matter"
Titanic Panda: therefore I shall refer to as
SSJ Metallica: I think he just realized that.
theElimN8r: but you suggest something
Titanic Panda: and N8, I was suggesting that if we don't cut DA open fast enough, then the chocolate bars won't exist and therefore the only thing existing would be
theElimN8r: bUT ML
Titanic Panda: caps :p
Bk Dark Absol: Please, dont talk about cutting me open... I would rather keep all my chocolate if its fine with you
theElimN8r: You cant refer to nothing but making your sentence incomplete without insinuating that you are talking about [a] nothing'
Titanic Panda: lol, but if you keep it then they would be existing
Titanic Panda: I'm not leaving it hanging
theElimN8r: by*
Titanic Panda: I'm talking about , which means if I give a name, then I'd be defining as an actual object or as something
Titanic Panda: which, both of which, would not work
Titanic Panda: *-which,
theElimN8r: The chocolate bar no longer exists in its original state after digestion
Titanic Panda: but you can't say it is not there
theElimN8r: So therefore we can safely say that it is not there.
theElimN8r: In place, a negative chocolate bar IS there
Titanic Panda: we can say it wasn't in its original state
Titanic Panda: but the material would still be there
TwIsted TreeckO: ELIMN8, STOP TALKING ABOUT DAMN CHOCOLATE BARS
Titanic Panda: thus the bars would still be existing
theElimN8r: No, they wouldnt
Titanic Panda: TT, come up with a good argument for 0/0 = ? and a good counterargument and we'll listen
theElimN8r: they would be a mush of ingrediants
TwIsted TreeckO: Um
TwIsted TreeckO: HOw about
TwIsted TreeckO: What kind of topics to bring up on a date
Titanic Panda: right, but then it wouldn't be a negative choclate bar either
TwIsted TreeckO: IDEAS ANYONE?
theElimN8r: Yes it would
Titanic Panda: because negative objects are theoratically non-existant
SSJ Metallica: I need some myself.
TwIsted TreeckO: god this is pointless -_-
SSJ Metallica: :-P
theElimN8r: but they exits by you calling them...YOU DEVIL
Titanic Panda: but if I call a snail a dragon it doesn't make it a dragon
theElimN8r: If a negative chocolate bar doesn't exist, then it does exist.
theElimN8r: exactly, meaning if you dont call nothing "nothing" its still nothing/.
Titanic Panda: but if a negative chocolate bar exists, then we'd have a vaccuum, would we not?
theElimN8r: no matter what you call it
theElimN8r: no, we'd have....
theElimN8r: wait
Titanic Panda: however, if I call a rabbit a rabbit, it'd be a rabbit
theElimN8r: law of conservation of energy
theElimN8r: energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.
theElimN8r: so, yeah, in a respect, you cant have a negative chocolate bar
Titanic Panda: the argument seems to make less sense by the minute, n8
Titanic Panda: btw, what grade are you in?
theElimN8r: but you can refer to the absence of a form of a chocolate bar as a negative chocolate bar [in that form]
theElimN8r: I'm in 10th, going on 11th
Titanic Panda: but in reality, would any negative objects in our reality be actually 0?
theElimN8r: yeah...
theElimN8r: expletive deleted
Titanic Panda: so we couldn't have a negative object
TwIsted TreeckO: same here e8
Titanic Panda: damn, wanna stop the argument here for now?
theElimN8r: but in concept, we can
theElimN8r: for now
...

RESUME!

[mlugia]

Just to re-iterate:

Why the answer is:

1: Any number divided by itself is 1. There has to be itself that exists.

0: 0 divided by any number is infinite

Infinitely Undefined: Any number divided by 0 is undefined as the number is infinitely large.

[Ierdar]

First, I'd like to say: TT, not for the weak minded, why are you here? =P

Second:

One divided by any number, except 0, equals one. =P 0 is nothing, if you have 2 apples, then eat the 2 apples, you have none left(besides 2 apple cores, but we're not couting those. =P) If you have nothing to divide, then there is nothing. Therefore, nothing(0) divided by nothing(0) equals nothing(0). =P And, nothing is not infinite, because infinite is never ending, and nothing has never began. =P

I'd go on about whatever else I could think of, but I'm at school, and the bells going to ring in a few mins, =\

[mlugia]

However, for you to have nothing (0), then it has to exist. If you don't have nothing, you'd have something, which can be any number we can think of (infinity). Therefore, if 0 does exist, then you'd need at least 1 of this "nothing" in order to create "nothing", simply put, because otherwise it'd not be 0 at all.

(see disclaimer again)

[ElimN8]

Yes, but there is a difference between existance and concept. True, zero exists (in comparison to something else), but as I've stated, it can't be thought of in terms of quanity, as it doesn't hold any particular amount. In fact, it's quite the inverse: zero means that an amount is being witheld, or is nonexistamt. Ergo, you can't have nothing, because Nothing is an absence of posession.

[mlugia]

On the other hand, zero itself is a quantity, which can therefore be argued that to have zero of something, you're already giving something a quantiy. Scientists prefer to measure everything in life, Philosophers prefer to visualize the unmeasurable, but Zero, in this case, is a measurable amount. Zero doesn't hold any amount because Zero is an amount by itself, it's the quantity of nothing, where if it's not there, it's zero, and in order not to be there, its quantity has to be zero.

(disclaimer applies)

[Neo Pikachu]

0 is in fact a valid quantity. It is possible to have nothing of something, and that nothing is the same as saying zero. That very absence that you're talking about does equal 0. An absence of existance means there is nothing there, hence an amount of 0.

Also, if you've ever wondered why you can't divide a number by zero, it's because that would be saying that every number is equal to one, which is simply impossible.

[Jack of Clovers]

NEXT TOPIC: "What's 0 divided by 0?"

in math, any number divided by itself is equal to 1. since math is proven to be correct, then any math problem solved correctly has a true answer. therefore, 0/0=1.

~Jack~

[Kenny_C.002]

Well two theories can be applied and can be said "correct", as we don't know which is which yet.

0/0 is 1, or 0/0 is undefined.

To me, I take the undefined path, as any number over 0 is always undefined (well it's infinity, technically speaking). So as 0/0 is indeterminant, we assume it is undefined rather than 1. I say this due to graphs that HAS 0/0 on the cartesian plane, which is an asymptote.

[Ierdar]

I just did 0/0 one three calcs, one(the computer one) came up as undefined, and the other two came up as 0. =\ Just felt like doing it, lol.

But, I just thought of something. Isnt 0/anything 0? =P

[Agent Orange]

I think a good discussion would be what water tastes like.


Anyhow....I think 0 is something. It is entirly possible to have "Nothing" in your hand.

[ElimN8]

in math, any number divided by itself is equal to 1. since math is proven to be correct, then any math problem solved correctly has a true answer. therefore, 0/0=1.

~Jack~
Didn't you read the log? Mathematics states that that rule only works for non-zero numbers :rolleyes: :tongue2:

ml, NP: Okay, fine, let's say zero is a quantity. Its measurement (and implication) is still complete emptiness.

Allow me to provide an example:

For relativity, we'll state that there is a rock in Jimmy's hand. Now, in order to grasp the concept of "zero" fully, we'll of course need something to compare it to. So, let us also say that there is no rock in Johnny's hand.

Both hands are cupped in roughly the way one might grasp a spheroid or ridged ground formation such as the aforementioned rock, so we can safely say that both Jimmy and Johnny are equal in stance and nature. Thus, the boy is constant while the held item of either boy is not.

So then, I ask you: is there anything in Johnny's hand? Yes, of course: there are oxygen molecules, perhaps dust particles, or dirt from playing outside, or whatever else might be floating freely in the atmosphere. But, in relation to what Jimmy is holding, what does he have? Simply put: nothing.

One can not say that Jimmy has two "not rocks" -- nor can one say that Jimmy has 3000 "not rocks", because the simple fact of the matter is that Jimmy HAS. NO. ROCKS.

You can't consider multiplicities when you have no item to multiply. That only works with negative numbers, which are barely even applicable in real life. Division is synonymous. You can't divide what someone doesn't have -- for it lacks substance; you can't seperate it; and thusly, it is impossible to divide by anything. (Let alone "itself". :tongue:)

[Techno Treecko]

First, I'd like to say: TT, not for the weak minded, why are you here? =P

Second:

One divided by any number, except 0, equals one. =P 0 is nothing, if you have 2 apples, then eat the 2 apples, you have none left(besides 2 apple cores, but we're not couting those. =P) If you have nothing to divide, then there is nothing. Therefore, nothing(0) divided by nothing(0) equals nothing(0). =P And, nothing is not infinite, because infinite is never ending, and nothing has never began. =P

I'd go on about whatever else I could think of, but I'm at school, and the bells going to ring in a few mins, =\

My mind is not weak, I just don't always show my knowledgable side among everyone. Just ask E8, we just got through about three hours worth of debating over instant message, on quite a few topics. It was quite interesting. You can see the chat if you like. :tongue3:

But anyways, math isn't my strong point of debating, so I'll stay out of this one. :tongue2:

[Jack of Clovers]

0/0=1
{this is true, ive taken the class}

if you have 0 groups and divided it into 0 groups, you end up with 1 group of 0.

~Jack~

[Dratini]

Well in math, /.5 = *2 /.25 = *4 since you're dividing by the multiplicative inverse ( /.5 = /(1/2) ). The pattern would go on and on into infinitely large numbers, but let's just skip all of those and go to infinity itself. An infinitely large # would, in fact, not go into a number at all because it's infinitely large, so /0 = /(1/infinity) = *infinity. In accordance to how all other numbers work, 0/0 would equal the same as 0*infinity. Now, since 0 times anything = 0, 0*infinity would = 0 as well. Since 0/0 would equal the same, the answer is 0.

From there, I suppose you could say you have one group of 0, or however many, but just like if you had two groups of 2’s (which would be 4 because it’s like a multiplication problem), one group of 0 is still 0. O.o

O.o I confused myself, I think. x_x I probably also violated countless math rules, but it makes sense to me. Then again, I shouldn't be here anyway 'cause this is called logic, and I lack that =/. XD

[Techno Treecko]

Uh, I think we're going to need a new topic in here soon, or the thread will die out....


This thread has just been stickified.

[ElimN8]

NEXT TOPIC: Babies -- Kill them all or hug them all?

[Kenny_C.002]

Logically, there's ONLY "hug 'em all" to choose from.

I'm guessing it's about overpopulation here, but technically the number of children in the developed countries have dropped. It's only the 3rd world countries that are continuing to have so much children, and at that the survival rate is low. I'm to think that the human population will stable out soon.

[Agent Orange]

Well....I think Hug em' all is better.

Nowadays, not many people need 6-10 kids to sustain them and thier home, because of all the modern conveinences there are.


And theres China's 1 child act....

[Neo Pikachu]

Logically, there's ONLY "hug 'em all" to choose from.

I'm guessing it's about overpopulation here, but technically the number of children in the developed countries have dropped. It's only the 3rd world countries that are continuing to have so much children, and at that the survival rate is low. I'm to think that the human population will stable out soon.

It has to. Each speicies of organisms has their own carrying capacity, a limiting factor in terms of food and resources needed for the survival of the species. Once a species reaches their carrying capacity, they level off are the number of offspring equals the casualty rate.

Humans have been able to raise their carrying capacity through innovations of agriculture, but the carrying capacity still exists and if humans go over it, someone is going to suffer because of it.

The answer is: We don't have a choice. The way humans live and survive is still governed more by nature than technology.

[Kenny_C.002]

Well yeah, we're already at carrying capacity, if not over. Unless we expand to another planet, the population probably will either crash or stablize.

[Techno Treecko]

NEXT TOPIC: Babies -- Kill them all or hug them all?

Er, what does this topic have to do with Logic? This sounds more like a general topic thread... :ermm:

[ElimN8]

You wanted a topic, so I gave you one. Plus you seemed fine when I mentioned it in the YIM chat yesterday. :tongue:

Besides, it's already turned into a suitable discussion, so it'd be pointless to end it now.

[on-topic] Although the phrase could be interpreted differently, I'll stick with the one that's arisen for now. In that respect, basically boils down to this: is it better to save everyone with overpopulation, or sustain our numbers at the expense of others?

[mlugia]

Hmm, is that logic? Oh well

I'll take the side of saving some at others' expense here.

The world is expanding too rapidly, there's just no denying that anymore. People are eating up the resources that this earth has to offer at an alarming rate, and it's a sad throught that we might not have all this resource to waste in the next couple of hundreds of years.

One of the primary ideas circulating is the colonization of space. That's just bull. We landed on the moon once and we want to colonize the galaxy? The timing's just not there, we won't have time to discover the technology and ship "WILLING" people out into space before our planet is in danger.

That's exactly why family planning must change.

Start with China's one-child per household rule. If every 2 ppl have 1 child, population will decline, and in a few generations the population can be substainable again. We might not even have to ship that many people to Mars to get killed by flying dinosaurs.

As well, sacrificing members of society may seem like a cruel and inhumane way to do things, but it's either killing for the benefit of others, or the suffering of everyone together. And as much as the whole "Let's die together" idea sound noble, I don't think it's actually very realistic

I'll stop here, and uh, yeah, argue.

[Kenny_C.002]

The thing is that the rule from China doesn't hold very well. I mean, women are still getting pregnant, so they just dump the babies on the streets. That in turn someone picks the baby up and raises the baby for *reasons*. I'm saying the China rule realyl doesn't mean anything when people are still getting pregnant and just dump babies onto the streets. (Wow, that's like...crazy down there. lol)

Anyway, technically speaking, most new couples of the new centuy don't plan of having children, so this might help out with the lowering of the population. But this in turn increases the ecological footprint of each person in the highly inudstrial world, meaning the balance again is lost.

And yes mlugia, this isn't about logic. lol

[Techno Treecko]

You wanted a topic, so I gave you one. Plus you seemed fine when I mentioned it in the YIM chat yesterday. :tongue:

Um, I did? I don't even remember you mentioning it...but whatever, I guess it's an active topic now, even though it has nothing to do with Logic. :tongue3:

Anyways, I am so totally against abortion. You're killing a life. Age doesn't matter. Whether you're killing a 93 year old on his death bed, or a 10 year old playing soccer, the charges are still the same. The fact is, you killed a person, and that's that.

[mlugia]

A stem cell is not a life, but a potential one.

A fetal pig that you dissect in class is not yet alive, but it was potentially going to live

A cow that you ate was alive, yet was killed.

All pro-life activists must be veggitarians or something =/

Unless, of course, the argument comes up that animals < humans, which is completely nonsensical bullcrap.

[Jack of Clovers]

ah, this reminds me of a quote:
"If every person killed just one other person, we would have half the population on this planet."

i'll choose kill 'em all. last thing we need is more people and i could care less that other countries produce more children than others, the fact is the numbers are still high.

FACT: The birth rate is larger than the death rate.

~Jack~

[Kenny_C.002]

If one kills all the potential children in teh world, this would cause a gaping hole between generations, which may not be the wisest of ideas.

[Steven]

That's stupid... if you killed them all, then there wouldn't be a generation... which could mean the extinction of mankind if we just killed babies all the time...

Okay, I'm changing the topic.

Is it possible to have a negative number in real life? And are fractions possible?

Okay... I mean you can't have -12 sheep... you can't have anything if it's lower than zero... so how can negative numbers actually exist... doesn't make sense... Also if you just have Matter, and you cut it in half... you still have the matter, it's just smaller, not half.


Another topic we could talk about is

Is there a smallest and largest size? I mean I can always add one or deduct one from something, and double or halve the size of something... I mean if you think atoms are small, just cut one in half... then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half, then cut that in half... You get the idea... I mean you can also do the same thing the other way by doubling it... any theories on infinity?

[mlugia]

Steven, no one said to kill them ALL. The idea here is to shave down the population to a suitable level so that it wouldn't deplete the resources as quickly, so instead of having 2 kids a family, everyone's forced to have 1, etc.

Although in reality, to have such an act in place, condoms, birth control laws would be at an all time high and stuff.

[Kenny_C.002]

I got a crazy topic:

Do distance and time agree with each other all the time?

*that's thought provoking* lol

[Techno Treecko]

All pro-life activists must be veggitarians or something =/

Unless, of course, the argument comes up that animals < humans, which is completely nonsensical bullcrap.

Animals < humans. I agree with that right there. If we have more power over another species, then we are the reigning beings, and we are better than them. An animal may have sharp teeth and claws, but those won't protect it when we shoot it with a gun and it's dead just like that. :tongue3:

[Neo Pikachu]

Animals < humans. I agree with that right there. If we have more power over another species, then we are the reigning beings, and we are better than them. An animal may have sharp teeth and claws, but those won't protect it when we shoot it with a gun and it's dead just like that. :tongue3:

Yeah, but without our tools, guns, and whatnot, we're not much compared to claws and teeth. Too many times we rely on these tools. Yes, humans are capable of throwing a hard punch and a fierce kick, but many beasts of the wilderness are much tougher than that.

[Kenny_C.002]

Ouc strength comes FROM our minds, thus physical strength means nothing to us. We don't need to be extremely strong when we can just shoot a gun. It's the tools we use that kill, thus we are superior in a sense that we have the brain capacity to use these tools, but we are also inferior in every other aspect. It's just balance that got out of proportion.

[mlugia]

So we're all willing to

-> Eat any animal that is not human.
-> Save any human, as long as it's human.

As far as being pro-life goes, Hitler should never be killed and stuff, capital punishment made illegal, and all the fixings just on the account that we're of the same species?

I don't see the logic, but ok.

[Ruben]

Well, you maybe are into something right now, but I have a thing that i find weird but is normal...

Let's take for example, the word 'point' after a number.
10 points, 4 points, 50 points, etc...
and as we know, if you have the number one the word changes from points to point. That is because 1 is the lowest.
But now comes the strange part, if we have 0, obviously less than 1, it changes BACK to points. 0 points, not 0 point, but 0 points... Explain that !

- Ruben V.

[mlugia]

Maybe it's supposed to represent a W shaped graph.

The 2 vertexes of "W" on the bottom are 1 and -1, the middle peak is 0, and the two sides are -2 and 2 and beyond that too. So point without the S only fits on the minimum points of the graph?

[Kenny_C.002]

No, it's just English grammar. Somebody thought it up and it became a rule that and non-1 number would have an "s" behind the word (e.g. points rather than point). That's all.

[Half a Dollar]

A Negative number would still equal to 0. IRL Negative numbers wouldn't have a say because a negtive number will always turn to 0 IMO.

-12/100 would be turned to 0/100, due to the fact that -12 will always turn to 0 becasue lets say you have 100 pieces. You take 100. And you count 12 too.

-12/100=0/100 cause there is no more.

[Kenny_C.002]

If x =y
x^2 = xy
x^2 - y^2 = xy - y^2
(x+y)(x-y) = y(x-y)
x+y = y
2y = y
2 = 1

What's wrong with this?

[Ruben]

Wow, english math uses other signs 0.o This only makes it more confusing...

- Ruben V.

[DaRkUmBrEoN]

If x =y
x^2 = xy
x^2 - y^2 = xy - y^2
(x+y)(x-y) = y(x-y)
x+y = y ---> x was equal to y so it must be x+y=2y
2y = y ---> so 2y=2x
2 = 1 ----> y=x=1

What's wrong with this?

[Jack of Clovers]

If x =y
x^2 = xy
x^2 - y^2 = xy - y^2
(x+y)(x-y) = y(x-y)
x+y = y
2y = y
2 = 1

What's wrong with this?
there is a logical answer: x can not = y
x must be = 0
whereas y can be any number except 0

good question :cool:

~Jack~

[koolcurtis]

If x =y
x^2 = xy
x^2 - y^2 = xy - y^2
(x+y)(x-y) = y(x-y)
x+y = y
2y = y
2 = 1

What's wrong with this?


Well x and y can be any number(even negative), but have to be the same number. For an example i'll use 3.
If in the equation (x+y)(x-y) = y(x-y) you substitute the 3 in would look like this (3+3)(3-3) = 3(3-3) which simplified would be (6)(0)=3(0) and it would be 0=0. In the next step, it divided (x-y) on both sides,but you can't do that cause x-y is 0. If you tried to do it on a calculator it wouldn't let you. The denominator can never be zero. So after that the other problems are wrong. and therefore x still equalls y.

[Ruben]

Lepri- Lol, thx

KoolCurtis- Ah yes. You got a point there. So after what you did, KC (koolcurtis) you know that x and y are both 0. You can see that as the indirect solution on it. But that, IMO, still dosn't give an answer on the question...

- Ruben V.

[koolcurtis]

Lepri- Lol, thx

KoolCurtis- Ah yes. You got a point there. So after what you did, KC (koolcurtis) you know that x and y are both 0. You can see that as the indirect solution on it. But that, IMO, still dosn't give an answer on the question...

- Ruben V.

It does. The question was what's wrong with this and the answer is you can't divide each side by(x-y).

[Kenny_C.002]

Bingo ppl. You can prove anything equals anything else from the fact that 0=0. Also, you can't do it by the fact that you can't divide by 0 (but we do it all the time in calculus to find limits).

Next one:

0 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + ... (means to infinity)
= (1-1) + (1-1) + (1-1) + (1-1) + (1-1) + ...
= 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) +...
= 1

What's wrong with this?

[koolcurtis]

you shifted the parenthesis over one number. the pattern u had in the parenthesis was
+1 -1 +1 -1 +1 and so on and it was (1-1) + (1-1) + ect.
then you started the parenthesis before the -1 and it looked like this
1 (-1+1) + (-1+1) ect

[mlugia]

By shifting the brackets 1, then at the end of infinity you'd reach ... (-1+1) -1

so therefore, grouping the -1 with the first 1, you still get 0.

[ElimN8]

By shifting the brackets 1, then at the end of infinity you'd reach ... (-1+1) -1
But there is no end to infinity, because infinity is endlessness. :wink:

[Kenny_C.002]

Exactly. There is no end to infinity. What you're implying is that infinity is an even number if there is a grouping of 1 and then (-1) at the "end".

I don't think there is such a solution when you think about it. lol

[mlugia]

but by having infinite 0s, you add it up to 0, so you can't expand to begin with >=(

[Kenny_C.002]

You can expand 0 into anything as long as it ends up being 0. It's a sort of reverse math where you undo the things (name escaped my mind at the moment...it's calculus tho...oh gosh what is it? umm.....INTEGRATION!). So yeah, it's integration, that's all.

[Steven]

I really don't know how negatives can even exist, I mean everything is whole. It's like we're in a pool of water, everything is there, I mean everything, including air. Just because you can't see air doesn't mean it isn't part of it. It's just all there. If you cut a sheep in half you still have the matter just separated... I'm tired and not sure if I worded that right, but it's like this.

@@@ <--- sheep

**** <--- air

okay this is the senario.

|**@@@**| gets cut in half
|*@@**@*| see it's the same mass.

Its just in different places the markers on the side prove it.

So negative can't exist unless it turns out like this when it's cut in half

|**@@**| you would be losing a half... doesn't happen in real life. It may go somewhere completely different, but it's still in existance, even if the head is ripped apart and fed to other animals and whatever. It's all still there... just is... can't get rid of it...

[mlugia]

You can expand 0 into anything as long as it ends up being 0. It's a sort of reverse math where you undo the things (name escaped my mind at the moment...it's calculus tho...oh gosh what is it? umm.....INTEGRATION!). So yeah, it's integration, that's all.

True, but in the case of the 0, there's always going to be a -1 pair to the 1 at the beginning because of the way the original equation was expanded, so the answer is still 0 :(

[Kenny_C.002]

True, but in the case of the 0, there's always going to be a -1 pair to the 1 at the beginning because of the way the original equation was expanded, so the answer is still 0 :(

The problem with this explanation is that you're implying infinity is a number, and that it is an even number. That's a contradiction.

[mlugia]

I'm not implying that, the question stated that when they divided each 0 into 2 parts, which means that for every part, there'd be an opposite counterpart >=D

[Kenny_C.002]

Yeah, I was teasing you. lol

Anyway, the answer to this is simple: infinity does not exist, therefore the statement doesn't hold true (as in if there is no end). That's all. *tough*

[mlugia]

blah, no teasing the resident overweight Panda >=(

[Kenny_C.002]

Yo, I was raised on the streets of Hong Kong, boy. That's like Chinese panda 2K4 here. ME panda 2K4. lol Aren't you in Mississaga anyway (laughing cuz I'm not going there, going to St. George Campus).

[mlugia]

Actually, I'm living there now, but I'm going to live on residence at Waterloo. ^_^

Bet you don't know many losers majoring in Math :x

[Kenny_C.002]

I know a guy going to waterloo for mathematics. lol

Coincidence? I think so! :P

[mlugia]

Hmm, if he talks about being a Panda and likes pokemon, then we might actually know each other :o

[Kenny_C.002]

No on the panda and no on the pokemon (well not that I KNOW of anyway). Sorry, not a match. lol

You going this year in Sept, right?

[mlugia]

Yeah, my first year in Uni, can't wait. Wait, does that make us the same grade?

[Kenny_C.002]

Yeah. We're in the same grade. Anything else? lol

[mlugia]

uh... no :D

lol, this is like 20 questions without logic O_o

[Chris]

Could we get back on topic? This seems like a cool thread. :cool:

[mlugia]

we need a topic >_> Nate has none.

[Chris]

Anyone for some math?

Try this factorial problem:

Find positive integers a, b, c such that a! * b! = c!

There is only one solution for 170 > C

just FYI, a factorial is the product of all the numbers that count to that number:

2! = 1*2
3! = 1*2*3
7! = 1*2*3*4*5*6*7

and so on. This problem took me a while to figure out.

[Matthew]

a=6
b=7
c=10

Doesn't that work?

Somebody can think of a topic... I don't have any -_-;

[Chris]

a=6
b=7
c=10

Doesn't that work?

Somebody can think of a topic... I don't have any -_-;


Yep, gj. I have no more topics :doh:

[Matthew]

Heh... it took me about 10 minutes to figure it out... good ol guess and check ^^. I already knew what the factorial of 10 was so I was seeing if any numbers below it multiplied together would gimme that and lucky for me... 6 and 7 did it ^^;.

[Chris]

Heh... it took me about 10 minutes to figure it out... good ol guess and check ^^. I already knew what the factorial of 10 was so I was seeing if any numbers below it multiplied together would gimme that and lucky for me... 6 and 7 did it ^^;.

You can also solve it other ways... guess and check is the best though.

[Steven]

Okay this isn't exactly logic but... w/e

How can animals do so many more things than us? (EX: dropping from things many times larger than themselves)

I mean I've thrown bugs high in the air from a balcony and my brother saw it land without a scratch and scuttle along... I see squirrels jumping from some high places to the ground aswell... I mean what is it that little animals have that keep them from dying from falls?

[Matthew]

Hmmm... I beleive it has to do with evolution and just the way the have adapted to their enviroment... I'm not really sure though XD... size like mass and stuff might play a big part as will...

K... New topic:

What is the meaning of life?

Personally, I think it is 47... XD

J/K... continue with Steven's topic if you wish.

[Alakazam]

Animals can do much more than us? I disagree. The way I see it, animals can do many things that we can't, but what you seem to fail to realize is that humans are capable of many things that animals are not. The opposable thumb alone opens up countless doors for us, not to mention the capacity for critical thinking and logic itself. Humans do things for a reason, while many actions of animals stem from instinct.

[Matthew]

Heh... I don't think that he meant that animals can do more things than us... I think he meant that they can do more amazing stuff then us, like glide very far in the air, fall from very high hieghts and still survive, carry weight many times their own, etc.

[Alakazam]

Heh... I don't think that he meant that animals can do more things than us... I think he meant that they can do more amazing stuff then us, like glide very far in the air, fall from very high hieghts and still survive, carry weight many times their own, etc.

I realize that. I'm simply pointing out that there are things that only we can do which kinda cancel out the things that we can't.

[JoshE]

Heres a Logic Question: A snail is at the bottom of a well and wants to get out. He manages to crawl up the wall 3 feet each day, but at night he must rest ( after all that work during the day ) and so he slips back down 2 feet. If the well is 35 feet deep, How long will it take him to get out?

Pretty easy though. :tongue:

[Alakazam]

This is an easy one...since he climbs 3 feet each day and slips down 2 feet each day, he has a net distance of one foot per day. So, it owuld take him 35 days to climb out of the well...or 36, if you count another day for him to actually climb OUT of the well when he reaches the top.

[Thanatos]

Ok here is one I would love to try on some people.

Does 3/3 = 0.99?

We all know that when the numerator and the denomonator are the same in a fraction, we get the number 1. Ie. 2/2 = 1

Now, when we convert 1/3 (one third) into a decimal, we get 0.33* (recurring). So, when you multiply the decimal value of the fraction 1/3 by three, you get 0.99* (recurring).

Consider it...it's MIND boggling!

[Matthew]

Actually.... you don't XD

I just tried it on my calcutlator on the comp... I divided 1 by 3 and got the recurring decimal... than I continued to multiply the decimal by 3.... it gave me 1 :P

Think of it this way.... if 1/3 and .33333* are the same thing.... multiplying them by the same thing will give you the same result.... so it is impossible to get two diffrent answers by multiplying the same value by the same multiplier... case solved :P

[Thanatos]

CURSE YOU MATTHEW :P:P:P

Ok, fine, but you must admit it is a little bit off.

[Matthew]

what is a little bit off?

Cureses.... I want more logic!!! I love it soooooooo much :P

[Alakazam]

Ok here is one I would love to try on some people.

Does 3/3 = 0.99?

We all know that when the numerator and the denomonator are the same in a fraction, we get the number 1. Ie. 2/2 = 1

Now, when we convert 1/3 (one third) into a decimal, we get 0.33* (recurring). So, when you multiply the decimal value of the fraction 1/3 by three, you get 0.99* (recurring).

Consider it...it's MIND boggling!

It's not really mind boggling.

Writing "3/3" as "1/3 * 3" is acceptable, though they have SLIGHTLY different values.

1 is approximately equal to .9999 (repeating)

And, no , it's not a little bit off, it's pretty much exact.

[Thanatos]

Fine then, crap on my theory.

Well, I'm all out. Anything else?

[Keeper_of_Light]

Heres a Logic Question: A snail is at the bottom of a well and wants to get out. He manages to crawl up the wall 3 feet each day, but at night he must rest ( after all that work during the day ) and so he slips back down 2 feet. If the well is 35 feet deep, How long will it take him to get out?

Pretty easy though. :tongue:

Not sure if we are still on this one, bit confuced but it would be 34 days, as at the start of the 33rd day the snail will have climed 33 feet, then he clims 2 more feet to reach the top. Thats easy, if noone got it b4 me.

[FinalThunder]

this all too confusing for me help?

[Alakazam]

this all too confusing for me help?

Er...what don't you understand?

[Keeper_of_Light]

Well I have put it as simply as I could, I am just now waiting for someone else to say that I am right, it makes sence. I am fairly sure of it anyway.

Edit: Its not as complex as everyone else has been making it out to be, there is no calculations really needed.

[Alakazam]

Well I have put it as simply as I could, I am just now waiting for someone else to say that I am right, it makes sence. I am fairly sure of it anyway.

Edit: Its not as complex as everyone else has been making it out to be, there is no calculations really needed.

I think you're right...those posts were made a month ago.

[Keeper_of_Light]

I know but I didnt think anyone had got the answer so I just though I would say.

[Steven]

Sounds like you got it, because once you're out of the well you aren't going to slip down 2 feet, you'll have gained the 3 feet on the last day.

Here's one logic stumper, it's a code, see if you decipher it:

j00 5uX0r5!!!

lol.... just kidding, but seriously, here's a stumper:


devil:lived::1d1e8a6t6h4e3l9l90:_____

first one to solve this gets cookie points

[Alakazam]

Sounds like you got it, because once you're out of the well you aren't going to slip down 2 feet, you'll have gained the 3 feet on the last day.

Here's one logic stumper, it's a code, see if you decipher it:

j00 5uX0r5!!!

lol.... just kidding, but seriously, here's a stumper:


devil:lived::1d1e8a6t6h4e3l9l90:_____

first one to solve this gets cookie points

Deciphering leet is hardly an excercise worthy of being in Other Discussion. Such stuff should be in the OC.

*holds up a sign that says "ENGLISH, not leet, spoken here*

[Matthew]

deathell
1186643990

1d1e8a6t6h4e3l9l90

Quite simple really.... At first, I thought it had to do with what was between teh letters and numbers and such.... but than I realized that lived is devil backwards... lol XD Making me think it was all complex and stuff... shame! lol

devil:lived::1d1e8a6t6h4e3l9l90:09l9l3e4h6t6a8e1d1

I want my cookie :P

Let's see if you guys can get this riddle:

There is a town in New York where 10% of all the people living there have unlisted phone numbers. If you selected 100 names at random from the town's phone directory, on average, how many of these people would have unlisted phone numbers?

[Thanatos]

There is a town in New York where 10% of all the people living there have unlisted phone numbers. If you selected 100 names at random from the town's phone directory, on average, how many of these people would have unlisted phone numbers?

Well, as far as I know, New York is a town. Also, it would be 10% who would have there number unlisted, or 10 people out of 100.

You could have made that a little harder, oh well.

[Jack of Clovers]

it's harder than it looks.

the answer is 1 :tongue:

~Jack~

[Thanatos]

Actually, that is hard, because 10 and 1 are both wrong answers.

There is a town in New York where 10% of all the people living there have unlisted phone numbers. If you selected 100 names at random from the town's phone directory, on average, how many of these people would have unlisted phone numbers?

How many people would have unlisted numbers?

Zero

Why? If you got them out of the directory, they wouldn't be unlisted, they would be listed.

:happy:

[Matthew]

Actually, that is hard, because 10 and 1 are both wrong answers.



How many people would have unlisted numbers?

Zero

Why? If you got them out of the directory, they wouldn't be unlisted, they would be listed.

:happy:


You guys need to read it more carefully!

You got it Darcomet :silly:

[Thanatos]

Woo! I am the winner ...:susp:

So, got any more brain busters Matthew?

[Matthew]

Woo! I am the winner ...:susp:

So, got any more brain busters Matthew?

Sure.... I'm sure I kind find something :silly:

[Steven]

I have one.

A man is dead in a puddle of lightly colored blood on the ground in a hot room with a stab wound in his back with no weapon anywhere to be found. He had no outside help, but he killed himself. How?

Another one.

How far can you run into a forest?

[Matthew]

How far can you run into a forest?

Halfway.... because after then, you will be ruinning out of a forest...

I don't know about the first one...

[Alakazam]

I have one.

A man is dead in a puddle of lightly colored blood on the ground in a hot room with a stab wound in his back with no weapon anywhere to be found. He had no outside help, but he killed himself. How?


This one is simple. He was stabbed with a jagged piece of ice. The weapon is nowhere to be found because it melted in the hot room. The blood is lightly colored because it's diluted by the water that came from the melting of the ice weapon.

[~ The Most Wanted ~]

crap...you're good...

well, i got one, stupid one though...really stupid

what weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of iron?

[ElimN8]

Aha, trick question!

IT'S A POUND OF FEATHERS! :cool:

:tongue:

Anyways, here's something I came across on a web page:

"Can God create a stone so heavy that even He can not lift it?"

Discuss.

[Sudo]

Simple: God can acieve anything!

[Orange_Flaaffy]

Aha, trick question!

IT'S A POUND OF FEATHERS! :cool:

:tongue:

Anyways, here's something I came across on a web page:

"Can God create a stone so heavy that even He can not lift it?"

Discuss.

Sure, if He wanted to. If He wanted limits He could make them, even for himself.

[Steven]

What timezone would you be living in if you lived on the south pole?

[Matthew]

What timezone would you be living in if you lived on the south pole?

It depends on what part of Antarctica you were living in...

http://www.statoids.com/taq.html

Confusing... I know.

[Steven]

It depends on what part of Antarctica you were living in...

http://www.statoids.com/taq.html

Confusing... I know.
Who said anything about living in any certain part of Antarctica, I just said if you were living on the south pole. I mean the exact southern pole of the world...

[Matthew]

Who said anything about living in any certain part of Antarctica, I just said if you were living on the south pole. I mean the exact southern pole of the world...

Oh... lol. I thought you meant Antarctica in general... lol.

I'd say that it would be standard time I guess since it is still on the Prime Meridian... I don't know... lol.

[Marth]

What timezone would you be living in if you lived on the south pole?
An interesting question. Here's my opinion.
First of all, let's imagine the north pole is the center of a small circle, about 1 meter of radius or ratio, however it's said. It would be quite impossible that a person could stand in the "real south pole". Now, taking the small circle again, divide it in 24 angles of 15 degrees. Each degree would, theorically, become a time zone.
Marth.

[ElimN8]

Simple: God can acieve anything!
But if, as Flaafy said, God could create limits for himself, then that statement would not necessarily be true; He would be incapable of lifting the stone, and thus it would mean that God can not achieve anything.

And Steven, please don't change the subject mid-subject. :susp:

[Raine]

They are trying to proove God wrong by trying to make look it look like he's contridiction.

However, that's certainly not what they mean by God can do anything. When you read that you have to read in between the lines. You can't take everything as it is said or read.

Anyways, this prooves he can't do anything, but that's not exactly what it meant.

By God can do anything, they mean he is the absolute power. He could lift up the rock. And he could also set his limitations so that he can't pick it up.

However you can't do both. Attacking with contridiction is one of the dumbest things you can do.

EDIT: Oh and about the feather and brick thing mentioned up there.

They both way the same.
1 pound = 1 pound

1 pound of feathers, to 1 pound of bricks.

A pound measures weight, not numbers.

[King Zark]

The question about North Pole it has a Time zone but I don't know which North Pole is the Most north point in the world but due to the 23.5 degree tilt North pole isn't the most Northest place.

[Pika57]

On the subject of God creating a rock that he would be unable to lift. He would be able to lift it if that was his desire. If god had made it so the rock was unliftable by even him than you must not forget that he has the power to make himself powerful enough to do so. Or in an opposite sense to alter the rock in such a way that lifting it would be possible. God has absolute control. Only he can set limits for himself. And just as quickly he can alter or destroy them.

[Steven]

If an omnipotent being was to exist, which I don't believe does, they would be able to create a rock heavier than they can lift because, being omnipotent, they could bend the reality and laws of physics so that it is both at the same time. If you're an omnipotent being, you can create one dimensional figures, and even four dimensional figures. Heck, you could create 0 dimensional matter and figures that exist on no plane at all.

NOW MY TOTALLY NEW LOGIC THING SINCE I'M HERE!

Think about a measurement. It could be a thermometer, a road, a ruler, or anything. Now think about the fact that from going from one place to another you do not skip or teleport from anything. You're moving through each number. For example if I walk a yard, it can be divided down into 3 feet, which is also 36 inches. Now look at one of those inches, you can go down to half an inch, then a fourth an inch, and an eighth, and so on... Now think about this:

If I'm walking that yard and at one point in time I am EXACTLY at a certain distance away from a place, I will literally go through an infinite amount of numbers. At one point in time you will be at 1 and 1 billionth of an inch, 1 and 2 billionths of an inch. And you will be at the stuff in between that at one point in time, and even smaller.

Now if you were to look at each frame of the world (which is impossible, because you can always divide each section into a smaller slice) you would have a non-moving world, or an extremely slow moving world... which I think is pretty mind boggling. It's like the fact that you can get down to the size of an atom, and still get smaller, and even much smaller than that, down to infinity.

I guess my point is, we're always involved with infinity, and we go through it with each action we take, yet it's not really infinite... Somehow, we are able to walk a step and we're going through an infinite amounts of positions on an infinite clock that has not begginning or end. Hopefully I've sparked some minds that have long since been bored to death with the omnipotent beings lifting rocks, and other things... Hopefully you read this N8 and others who I haven't spoken to in what seems to be years. Actually looking back, I started up PE2K 5 years ago, and everyone I knew still seems to be here and around.

EDIT: Dang it I'm so sorry, I already posted and while looking back up at stuff again I just caught it. I didn't see it the initial time I read through this. Sorry.

But if, as Flaafy said, God could create limits for himself, then that statement would not necessarily be true; He would be incapable of lifting the stone, and thus it would mean that God can not achieve anything.

And Steven, please don't change the subject mid-subject. :susp:

I'm not here enough anyway, so what I do say is all I'll say for perhaps another year. =/

Also, if an omnipotent being was to limit himself, he'd be willingingly giving up some of his power, and thus, being a nearly-omnipotent being or perhaps even lesser. If he decides something, then he's no longer omnipotent. Such as creating a rock heavier than he can lift. That's like him making himself weaker. He could probably just make himself stronger though, through bending the laws of physics and what not.

[Dakota]

If an omnipotent being was to exist, which I don't believe does, they would be able to create a rock heavier than they can lift because, being omnipotent, they could bend the reality and laws of physics so that it is both at the same time. If you're an omnipotent being, you can create one dimensional figures, and even four dimensional figures. Heck, you could create 0 dimensional matter and figures that exist on no plane at all.

NOW MY TOTALLY NEW LOGIC THING SINCE I'M HERE!

Think about a measurement. It could be a thermometer, a road, a ruler, or anything. Now think about the fact that from going from one place to another you do not skip or teleport from anything. You're moving through each number. For example if I walk a yard, it can be divided down into 3 feet, which is also 36 inches. Now look at one of those inches, you can go down to half an inch, then a fourth an inch, and an eighth, and so on... Now think about this:

If I'm walking that yard and at one point in time I am EXACTLY at a certain distance away from a place, I will literally go through an infinite amount of numbers. At one point in time you will be at 1 and 1 billionth of an inch, 1 and 2 billionths of an inch. And you will be at the stuff in between that at one point in time, and even smaller.

Now if you were to look at each frame of the world (which is impossible, because you can always divide each section into a smaller slice) you would have a non-moving world, or an extremely slow moving world... which I think is pretty mind boggling. It's like the fact that you can get down to the size of an atom, and still get smaller, and even much smaller than that, down to infinity.

I guess my point is, we're always involved with infinity, and we go through it with each action we take, yet it's not really infinite... Somehow, we are able to walk a step and we're going through an infinite amounts of positions on an infinite clock that has not begginning or end. Hopefully I've sparked some minds that have long since been bored to death with the omnipotent beings lifting rocks, and other things... Hopefully you read this N8 and others who I haven't spoken to in what seems to be years. Actually looking back, I started up PE2K 5 years ago, and everyone I knew still seems to be here and around.

EDIT: Dang it I'm so sorry, I already posted and while looking back up at stuff again I just caught it. I didn't see it the initial time I read through this. Sorry.



I'm not here enough anyway, so what I do say is all I'll say for perhaps another year. =/

Also, if an omnipotent being was to limit himself, he'd be willingingly giving up some of his power, and thus, being a nearly-omnipotent being or perhaps even lesser. If he decides something, then he's no longer omnipotent. Such as creating a rock heavier than he can lift. That's like him making himself weaker. He could probably just make himself stronger though, through bending the laws of physics and what not.

Heh...that stone question is so old...like some other questions to

Can God make a stick with only one end? Can God make a river so strong He can't swim across it?

You see...humans are closeminded. We believe that because we can't explain these phenomena, that means they don't exist. But they DO. Humans live in a little glass cage of our own knowledge. INside this glass cage is all the science and math and logic and theory that humans know, and outside of it is all the things that God knows that we can't comprehend.

So the answer to the stone question is, only God knows. Humans don't have the mental capacity to suffice an answer. And that is total w00t

[Steven]

Heh...that stone question is so old...like some other questions to

Can God make a stick with only one end? Can God make a river so strong He can't swim across it?

You see...humans are closeminded. We believe that because we can't explain these phenomena, that means they don't exist. But they DO. Humans live in a little glass cage of our own knowledge. INside this glass cage is all the science and math and logic and theory that humans know, and outside of it is all the things that God knows that we can't comprehend.

So the answer to the stone question is, only God knows. Humans don't have the mental capacity to suffice an answer. And that is total w00t
I remember when I was younger I could think of colors I couldn't see. People born blind can do this, people who become blinded already have seen colors and are restricted, so maybe this is or isn't possible. There's a lot WE do not know, but explaining the supernatural with "God knows" is ridiculous.

I am deciding to throw stones at God. In the process I think I might have to "kill two birds with one stone" while in this glass cage. You know, "Don't throw stones in a glass house."

Of course the spectrum goes beyond our sight, the universe goes beyond we can fathom. You can go just as large as you can small, and you can always cut through something in half. We walk a step and be at one point in space for (9 x 10^-99999999) of a second. Everything that happens in my world happens for a reason. There is no chance or choice, an illusion. A train comes off its track, chance? No, the train tracks were overused to the point that it broke. Why this once you may ask? Well get a lot of paper. Put a sheet of it on the floor and jump off it. Put another sheet of paper on that one and stand on it then jump off. Keep doing that until you get to the size of a book. If you kept doing it until you got to the point where it was the difference of one page between breaking your ankle and landing saftly, you'd find out why it was that one time. The feather that broke the camels back so to speak.

[Dakota]

I'm sorry but...I didn't understand of a word of that...that looked like rambling

[Steven]

I'm sorry but...I didn't understand of a word of that...that looked like rambling

:neutral: Is this what PE2K has become? I guess some people will never know...

[Dakota]

:neutral: Is this what PE2K has become? I guess some people will never know...

Ok, you're seriously not even making a point. Say something that contributes to the debate...

Clarify your last post. It looks to me like you're just rambling about nothing, you never actually make a point. Have a thesis...