|
Post by caboos [RAWR] on Jun 24, 2009 22:56:36 GMT -5
Give me some good paradoxes i mean i have heard a few but i want more.
Example: The following statement is true (1) The above statement is false (2)
Is 2 is true that means 1 is false but that would mean 2 is false but 2 is true.
|
|
|
Post by necrotic on Jun 25, 2009 7:49:25 GMT -5
Here you go....its easier for me to explain this one irl but you'll just have to figure it out. requires knowledge of algebra.
a=b
thus a^2 = ab
a^2-b^2=ab-b^2
(a-b)(a+b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
if a=b then a+b=b is also b+b=b
2b=b
factor out the b's and you get 2=1
caboos if you can figure that out without prior knowledge you get the thumbs up for brightness lol.
Its actually a quite popular equation but i love it none-the-less.
|
|
|
Post by roy on Jun 25, 2009 8:06:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by necrotic on Jun 25, 2009 15:13:18 GMT -5
cause your a nerd
|
|
|
Post by caboos [RAWR] on Jun 25, 2009 16:10:20 GMT -5
ah 2 = 1 well what if i replace those with numbers and do it like so 1 = 1 or a = b 1^2 = 1 * 1 or a^2 = ab 1^2 - 1^2 = 1^2 - 1*1 or a^2 - b^2 = a^2 - ab so 1 - 1 = 1 - 1 or the above equation simplifyed so 0 = 0 But are we both not correct? and yet both wrong at the same time? That made me think. I felt challenged.
EDIT********************************************** I spoke with my friend and he explained this equaltion and i have found the falsehood of this problem. And simply it is because that if a-b/a-b is the same as 1-1/1-1 or 0/0 and 0/0 gives you an undefined number. thus making the parts of this problem following that part are undeterminable
|
|
|
Post by Roy cant log in on Jun 25, 2009 17:09:33 GMT -5
this may be true... in response to above, yes that is the reason, division by zero is "imposable" I beg to differ... Dal what was the link to the God Particle thing?
|
|
|
Post by sam on Jun 25, 2009 17:26:58 GMT -5
hey roy can you not log in?
|
|
|
Post by sprite on Jun 26, 2009 10:50:13 GMT -5
*Booksmarks the List of Paradoxes*
If you strive for greater justice, facing evil on the way, but have to resort to the same evil to destroy the one you're facing, won't that make your goal evil even if it's intended for justice?
"The end justifies the means" however, "The means lead to an end"
Both are a necessity in order for the world to advance.
In short, good and evil need each other, because without good there would be no evil and without evil, there would be no reason for good.
|
|
|
Post by Roy cant log in on Jun 26, 2009 11:25:38 GMT -5
*Booksmarks the List of Paradoxes* If you strive for greater justice, facing evil on the way, but have to resort to the same evil to destroy the one you're facing, won't that make your goal evil even if it's intended for justice? "The end justifies the means" however, "The means lead to an end" Both are a necessity in order for the world to advance. In short, good and evil need each other, because without good there would be no evil and without evil, there would be no reason for good. very true... this may not be a paradox, but its cool en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_dancer
|
|
|
Post by necrotic on Jun 26, 2009 16:41:57 GMT -5
0 is a mysterious paradox. I'd go into great discussion on it but im exhausted on the subject. I literally have a notebook full of proofs trying to define zero....all I have suggested is that 0=infinity or just nothing....or an infinite area of nothing.....the limit of zero or an Asymptote. but i tell you if you want to really work on it good luck.
...
and know your calculus.
|
|
|
Post by sprite on Jun 26, 2009 23:12:14 GMT -5
Just a comment, but the poetic definition of Zero is
"A symbol that represents nothing, but has the potential to become anything"
As such, it can be nothing, or it can be everything, however it can't be both at the same time.
It requires outer processes to determine it's value.
In short, in a world where there is only 0, 0 doesn't exist.
Did i make you think a bit?
|
|
|
Post by necrotic on Jun 27, 2009 12:12:55 GMT -5
that was basically everything i just said sprite lol. except I used mathematical language.
|
|
|
Post by NICK! =3 on Jun 27, 2009 15:28:06 GMT -5
<---feels stupid
|
|
|
Post by Soriam Norik[RAWR] on Jun 27, 2009 21:31:19 GMT -5
I got one for y'all...
If you try to fail and succeed, which did you accomplish?
I've thought of it like this, if you tried something and failed it.. you succeeding in failing...But that means you succeeded in the fail, making you win.. and fail at failing... but then you failed again and you win... o,o
|
|
|
Post by necrotic on Jun 27, 2009 21:56:22 GMT -5
actually thats more of a riddle as I see it and heres my outcome.
You have 2 missions--a and b.
mission A you must fail. thats mainly a secondary mission just to accomplish your primary which is B---to fail.
Mission A only serves the purpose of not being accomplished. but in its failure you succeed which is Primary mission B.
Thus your statement implies two missions. One to fail and the other to succeed in failing.
|
|