|
Post by cleglaw on Feb 18, 2007 6:50:05 GMT
Totally irrelevant. not related to the argument and not a valid comparision.. Before I comment on your reply I would like to hear what others have to say.
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Feb 18, 2007 7:02:58 GMT
Heh, that's cool. But the two statements are unrelated as I see it. On one hand you have 100 plus Cascaders who are genuises and that's the fact you started the puzzle with. On the other hand you have 100 people who are not geniuses. But that does not affect that fact already said and neither confirms/denies/proves/disproves anything as I see it. I can't see this being a valid comparision but then I might be wrong as I was with earlier in the thread, lol
|
|
|
Post by hector on Feb 18, 2007 7:20:30 GMT
Both statements seems to have a clear correlation to Hempel's Raven paradox, which exemplifies a problem of inductive logic.
Or maybe I'm just overthinking it.
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Feb 18, 2007 7:28:52 GMT
Ah, is this in the same vein as the "switzerland is neutral, ergo they love freedom" and I love freedom ergo I should be from switzerland?
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Feb 18, 2007 7:31:33 GMT
aha....so I just wikied this and there's not only the Hempel theory but also something called Bayes theory...
And I am WAY too tired to even look at this! And the sentence above probably does not make sense - but then it's way too late here.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Feb 18, 2007 13:06:26 GMT
Unless you look at it mathematiclly, 100 pepole who are not members of Chaos Cascade can't say anything about the acuall members of Chaos Cascade. It's like trying to prove Swedes... ok, Danes stupid by looking on the IQ-level of Norway (hey, the norwegians are stupid! This CLEARLLY means the Danes are not! Somehow it does...). So in my book it's totally irrelevant. Übereil
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on Feb 18, 2007 15:53:09 GMT
Suppose we make the statement, "All members of The Chaos Cascade Forum are geniuses." Now, suppose we find 100 people who are not members of the Chaos Cascade forum and are not geniuses. Does this confirm the statement? Does this deny the statement? Does this prove the statement? Does this disprove the statement? Or is it totally irrelevant? This is an example of a classical problem in logic. (If you want to read about it in more depth, you can google -- All ravens are black.) I sometimes use it when I am discussing with somebody who is adamant that logic and reason are the superior be-all and end-all. The statement, "All members of The Chaos Cascade Forum are geniuses." is logically equivalent to the statement, "All who are not members of The Chaos Cascade Forum are not geniuses." Therefore, all people we find who are not members of the Chaos Cascade forum and are not geniuses confirms the statement that all members of The Chaos Cascade Forum are geniuses. Intuitively this seems irrelevant, and yet it is completely logical. So much for logic.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Feb 18, 2007 19:02:53 GMT
Cleg, you're a bit wrong there. The statement "All members of CC are geniuses" is equal to "all non-geniuses are not members of CC" (or "no non-geniuses are members of CC"). The paradox is that finding a non-genius non-CC-member wouldn't really say anything about whenever all CC-members acually ARE geniuses. Hence my "It's irrelevant" still stands as the right answer . Raven paradox @ wikiÜbereil
|
|
|
Post by ss on Feb 18, 2007 20:16:42 GMT
I agree Ube... ;D The statement does not deny, prove, confirm, or disprove the base statement...it would be a gross assumption to apply it logically to an issue it may not even be talking about...therefore irrelevant...unless all parties are comparing two issues...
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on Feb 18, 2007 22:07:40 GMT
Cleg, you're a bit wrong there. The statement "All members of CC are geniuses" is equal to "all non-geniuses are not members of CC" (or "no non-geniuses are members of CC"). The paradox is that finding a non-genius non-CC-member wouldn't really say anything about whenever all CC-members acually ARE geniuses. Hence my "It's irrelevant" still stands as the right answer . Raven paradox @ wikiLogical equivalence is irrelevant. Interesting. Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 18, 2007 23:01:16 GMT
The logically equivalent statements would be:
All geniuses are members of the Chaos Cascade All people who are not members of the Chaos Cascade are not Geniuses
Sorry, Cleg, but your first statement doesn't exclude others from being geniuses. The idea behind what you are saying is right, but your wording is wrong.
100 non-members who were non-geniuses would, however, 'confirm' my first statement, above. And every other non-genius non-member you talked to thereafter would further 'confirm' the initial statement by adding corroborating evidence.
|
|
|
Post by hector on Feb 19, 2007 0:34:23 GMT
Yeah, Cleg, the others are right. You didn't word it close enough to be an example of the Raven paradox. As you wrote it, the statements are irrelevant. I suppose that the answer you were looking for was that they were equivalent, right?
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on Feb 19, 2007 4:02:46 GMT
How did I word it wrongly?
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 19, 2007 4:21:24 GMT
All members are geniuses = all non-geniuses are non-members.
You inadvertently switched the terms in the latter statement.
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on Feb 19, 2007 5:29:38 GMT
you have four matchsticks of equal length. From those, you can easily make a square.
At each of the vertices, there is a right angle, or a ninety-degree angle, so there are four right angles.
Now, using those same four matchsticks, make not 4 but 16 ninety-degree angles.
I should mention, you are not allowed to fold, bend, break staple, or mutilate the matches in any other way.
|
|
|
Post by hector on Feb 19, 2007 8:44:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Feb 19, 2007 11:17:18 GMT
You place them like this: #
Only, you make the angles straight ;D.
Übereil
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on Feb 19, 2007 12:39:11 GMT
It takes 1 chicken 3 hours to lay 1 egg. How long does it take 30 chickens to lay 30 eggs?
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Feb 19, 2007 12:59:58 GMT
One hour. Unless you count the fact that they're probablly not fertilized at the same time...
Übereil
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Feb 19, 2007 14:46:38 GMT
Three hours - if we suppose they start laying at the same time
|
|