Puzzles & Jokes (Off-Topic Topic)
 

Our Rules

The present thread is entitled “Puzzles & Jokes (Off-Topic Topic)”. So we publish here the puzzles and the jokes. It isn’t necessary to put here the solutions. So if you can restrain yourself from publishing the solutions – do that. Don’t publish them here.

Try instead to find a nice puzzle or joke and put it in that thread. Look for something puzzling or joyful. Try to keep close to the average level of the thread or elevate it with something really sophisticated. Don’t lower it significantly with something obviously stupid or plainly offensive.

The exception: if according to your research your solution is unique feel free to publish it here. (For example: the 12 marbles or “fake coin” problem described in the post #4 has more than just one obvious solution and some of them are really impressive. So each new solution of that problem would be very interesting and valuable.)

The warning: when I spot here an obviously stupid or plainly offensive post I’ll refer to it in my reply and I’ll give the author of that unwelcome post 24 hours to delete the stupid or offensive content. If he or she defers to delete it or starts some stupid or offensive discussion with me I’ll destroy him or her with my replies. I’m the founder and the maintainer of that thread and I have no mercy for the dumbness. So don’t try to be stupid or offensive. Be smart. If you aren’t sure what I mean follow the posts #12 and #16 below by ponce as well as my replies to these posts: #13, #15, #17, and #19 (you could follow also the echo of that disturbance from the posts #21, #22, #23, and #24). As you’ll see one stupid and offensive post causes an unnecessary and extensive discussion. An explanation: the disturbance with ponce preceded the explicit formulation of the rules and – as a result – the mentioned above 24-hour waiting period didn’t apply to it.

(The rules formulated explicit March 24, 2013.)

The Guide

The post #12 tried to derail that thread and caused a brawl from the posts #13 to #19 and then an argument from the posts #21 to #24.

If you like such an atmosphere you can follow all those posts.

In the other case follow the thread to the post #11, then skip the posts #12 to #24, and continue from the post #25.

The Advertising

Sharpen your mind and your wit like a razor. Follow that thread. Solve the puzzles. Have fun reading the jokes. When you find something really puzzling or joyful publish that here. Be smart.

Integration of the Thread

eloi,

A prank time: “eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani?”.

***

***

***

Our Father, Our Father...Alpha and Omega

@w1k0: βουστροφηδόν

OK. It seems that some of you like the puzzles. I like them as well. Here’s the puzzle worth mentioning:

Try to solve it unaided. It may take you a dozen of minutes, a dozen of days, or a dozen of lifetimes. Take care: you don’t know whether that unique marble is heavier or lighter so don’t assume that it’s heavier for example. (Or assume that and solve the easy version of the puzzle before you’ll start to solve the hard version.)

When you’ll find the answer look here. There’s more than one solution. The one by J. Wert is really brilliant.

eloi,

by the way: I don’t believe in you.

(See: my post on the fifth page of the Atheists thread in the Atheists social group).

Αυτό είναι όλα τα ελληνικά σε μένα.

Βλέπω...

Ego video...

I see...

Ich sehe...

Je vois...

Я вижу...

Widzę...

***

I couldn’t hold back myself and I thanked you. There’s 1001 reasons to thank you everyday.

Boustrophedon

When I write with my right hand I write the way showed in the odd lines.

When I write with my left hand I write the way showed in the even lines.

The “odd” method is odd for me because I was born as left-handed but when I was a child there was a tendency to switch lefties into “righties” so I’m now a mixed type: the things which I learned myself I do with the left hand and the things taught to me I do with the right hand.

I know God exist's. that he created the universe. its a fact...

Oh! Thanks for let me know.

O Sancta Simplicitas!
 

While you don't think in burning me at stake it's OK.

By the way, those that believe in Me know that soon I will found
my own church web site with a paypal button to accept offerings
(e-baptisms 10€).

yupz, he created earth too (warning, religious satire below)

http://twistedspeedo.com/?p=993

It seems to you that the above was funny? It seems to you that the above fitted that thread? You didn’t put even a warning: “OFFENSIVE: TAKE CARE!!!”?

Maybe it seems to you also that you’re smart. You aren’t. Feel free to not put your comments in the threads founded or commented by me. You simply don’t match my level. You don’t match any level.

(By the way: Earth is the part of the Universe.)

***

I don’t. In the first post I said to you: “eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani?”. So you’re God and I’m Christ. Some people crucified the other Christ because he believed in the other God. I don’t like to be crucified so I stated that I don’t believe in you.

Don’t forget about e-confession (1€). That’s the true source of the income.

We aren’t Eloi. We’re Morlocks. Thanks to us the machinery works.

God can’t be angry at you because He doesn’t exist. He doesn’t play with you either. I play with you and the other users of that forum. Unfortunately some of them can’t grasp the rules of the game. (See: ponce.)

ponce


ponce /p'ɒns/ (ponces poncing ponced)


1 [N-COUNT]
A ponce is the same as a pimp. (BRIT INFORMAL, OLD-FASHIONED)

2 [N-COUNT]
If you call a man a ponce, you are insulting him because you think the way he dresses or behaves is too feminine. (BRIT INFORMAL, RUDE)

(Source: Collins Cobuild 5.)

besides the fact that ponce is a local drink ;) but you really shouldn't get offended (it wasn't my intention and if you feel like I apologize also if shouldn't be necessary) and move to personal attacks...

I really thought this was a spam thread (there aren't so many and sometimes I indulge into it): if it's a serious one, I personally think this is not the right place.

but remember that, just like you, I'm free to believe in what I prefer...

I’m not offended. I’m angry. You can’t offend me. No-one can.

On the other hand you can offend some other people. And you did it.

You can also offend someone’s taste. And you did.

Oh yeah! That was personal attack in fact. I’m not sorry at all.

...and he lives in Oldham.

So believe in shit on (I’m treating your infamous and offensive link).

I had to look this up *ahsamed*

(native greek speaker here)


Horrible translation :P

Some people have a sense of humour. This does not make them less intelligent. ponce has done far, far more to help the Slackware community than you ever have. As for matching your level, I cannot think of a more patronizing (and unintelligent!) response to a joke. For shame. The joke may have been inappropriate and possibly disrespectful, but so were your thread-derailing puzzles and references to religion (or atheism specifically). They had nothing to do with the original thread and frankly have no place in a Linux forum. There are other communities which focus on such things that would be more appropriate.

To instantly jump to personal attacks is low indeed and frankly I'm not sure you're at his level (which can be taken two ways but the intended form is obvious).

It wasn’t a contest of the merits but we can change that into it. In that post I described my experiences and merits concerning Slackware, Linux, and computing. I’m from Poland so I co-operated with some Polish-language Linux-oriented monthly magazine for one year and then I was a leading editor in some Linux-oriented quarterly magazine for five years. I’m also developer of some Linux programs available on my website, freecode.com, SlackBuilds.org, and dockapps.windowmaker.org.

I wrote among the other things a series of seven articles about LaTeX for the mentioned monthly magazine (available to download in the mentioned post) and then I published an interview with Patrick Volkerding in the mentioned quarterly magazine (available to download in the mentioned post as well). During five years of my work as an editor – I and the other authors – we mentioned Slackware for 468 times in total. That’s the scale of the popularization of Slackware in Poland initiated or made by me.

I don’t care how much did ponce for Slackware. I didn’t evaluate his usefulness. I evaluated his lack of the taste.

It was patronizing and determined. It was intelligent as well. You don’t have to perceive that.

“Possibly disrespectful”? World championship in euphemisms!

As for my “thread-derailing puzzles and references to religion (or atheism specifically)” it was one joke referred personally to eloi and marked as a prank. I put it there because I assumed that eloi don’t realize what means his nickname. I was right.

Then myglide, eloi, Didier Spaier, and volkerdi started to joke as well. I replied to their jokes with my jokes. In the meantime some moderator split the thread into topic-related and off-topic ones. Unfortunately after that ponce decided to take the floor. His joke was nasty and completely inappropriate in the context of the thread. (I know. You don’t see that. Believe me. I’m right.) As a result I became nasty for ponce.

I attacked just one person – ponce. He deserved that.

If you refer now to some other thread it was in “General” section of LinuxQuestions.org, three respectful people thanked me for my posts in that thread, and a wise moderator closed it at the end.

That last thread attracted the people which believe in different rubbish (from the conspiracy theories, through the camouflaged antisemitism, to the possible Satanism). I usually don’t visit the “General” section. Almost two weeks ago I visited it, spotted that thread, and decided that I have a duty to comment all that rubbish.

That’s all.

***

I realize that some LinuxQuestion.org members started to ignore or avoid me since that last thread. It’s good. I can’t spend my life on discussions of the different idiocies. Wise people understand me. What does the rest I don’t care.

I stand corrected. You have both benefited the Slackware community. This still does not detract from ponce's ongoing and active efforts...
You evaluated it rather crudely and exchanged poor taste for a poor attitude.
There is nothing intelligent about telling others that they are intellectually inferior. Anyone can say that, true or otherwise. Additionally, ponce barely said anything and merely linked to a joke which displays nothing of his intelligence. And I would think there should be some expectation of respect on these forums and patronizing others is certainly in violation of that. Note that I am saying nothing of the link itself.
Clearly unlike yourself, who prefers to exaggerate the crudeness of your replies.
I already stated it was inappropriate, as was your reply. But apparently I lack the sophistication to understand the intricacies of modern conversation, unlike you. (Either that or you quoted me saying the original post was inappropriate and commented on it, only to conveniently forget that later to infer that I was too incompetent to understand why it was inappropriate. You can't have it both ways, Einstein.)
Nobody deserves that and it is expressly against the rules of these forums. Get off your high horse.
I have not read that thread so any disagreement with you has to do with this thread and not a preconceived bias. If being 'wise' is merely agreeing that you were right in abusing another member then I am glad to 'misunderstand'.

Great!

Great!

Great!

Great!

Great!

Great!

Great!

Let’s go back to our “off-topic topic” (puzzles and jokes):

I feel responsible to some extent for what happened here.

The name "eloi", based on The Time Machine Wells novel is a
sarcasm. I know my sarcasms offend people and I indeed use them
with such intention. But not in the sense "You are not at my
(intellectual) level" but in the sense "You can do it
(ethically) better". But it's not exactly about ethics either.
A lot of clever, cultivated persons fall in constructing their
thinking on fake bases because it's more comfortable or easy to
evade or to ignore the real cause of some problems or because
they don't feel confident enough or because the real cause of
the problem has no solution.

From the scientist point of view the lack of proves about the
existence of something is not a proof of its no existence.
That's why Atheism (like most words ended with "ism") is just
one more religion. Arguing about the existence of God is not
science deal. Science is against religious people behavior just
in that science never ever assume anything in an *absolutist*
way. Assuming something like a True and force others to eat it
is the typical religious people behavior (religions play well
with dictatorships). That behavior was the target of my
criticism. Religion was not the subject, I've talked about
religion in a metaphoric way.

And that behavior was the target of other sarcasm I did on other
thread about statistics (referred to an old dialog I had with
Didier).

Now about my post:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post4912792

I've never thought it's a bug report or a bug fix. I've posted
what I *guess* is a *workaround* not a solution. The symptoms
of that corrupted econdings.dir entries are several and
manifested in different ways on several X apps, furthermore utf8
compatibilities issues is an old no ended history, that's why I
judged not convenient to fill three pages here about it and
advised to search on internet. I *guess* that the issue is at
install time because reinstalling the individual font package
doesn't fix it.

So my question: "Can it be considered a bug report in Slackware
folklore?" was rhetorical and not exclusively about the above
issue (sorry if I was not clear on that, my fault). Based on my
logic and common sense (I am not stating Slackware rules or LQ
rules or trying to force nobody to fit in my ideas) a bug report
and/or a bug fix should not be a forum post intended to help
other users but addressed directly to maintainers, then
maintainers must not spend time searching them between chat,
popularity contests, jokes, "who write the more elegant code" IQ
tests, logical proof about God existence inquiries, flame wars,
etc.

So the way it should be understood my rhetorical question is:
"If I am not wrong in my *guessing*, it should be the maintainer
of the Slackware installer the right one to investigate this
issue and find a real solution".

Sorry for the misunderstood, my fault.

“Eloi” borrowed from The Time Machine and used by an experienced Slackware user as a nick name can be only a sarcasm. As I mentioned before we aren’t Eloi – we’re Morlocks. MS Windows users are Eloi.

Of course in my talk to you I used “Eloi” borrowed from The Holy Bible. (That’s the other book much more popular than The Time Machine and the other “Eloi”.)

That’s popular view and it’s perfectly correct.

According to the thought experiment called Russell’s teapot no-one can prove that something doesn’t exist – it’s possible only to prove that something exists (if it exists indeed). Moreover no-one has a duty to prove that something – for example God – doesn’t exist. It’s believer who should prove that God exists. Until someone will prove that something – for example Pegasus – exists we have to assume that it doesn’t exist. That’s the essence from Russell’s teapot.

(If someone still wants to believe in gnomes and Santa Claus I can’t help. I’m sorry.)

That’s the reason for which I believe in scientific proofs and have the knowledge about the religious fabrications. I referred to that in the mentioned here and there post from Atheists thread.

By the way... I’m not atheist at all. So far no-one decided to continue the discussion after I put my post into the mentioned thread. When someone will dare to take the floor I’ll disclose why I’m not atheist and who I am.

***

As for the rest of your post it fits better your original thread rather than our “off-topic topic”. So I’m abstaining from reply to that here. I could reply if you move that part of your post to the right thread. Or it isn’t necessary at all because in fact I already replied to the same question in post #44.

@ eloi well said...
my bible says it well too.
"Knowing this first that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they are willingly ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

Well, I'm taking a stab at the dark here, but could you post the output of:

cheers,

“Houston?”

“Can you hear me?”

“Conversation is over!”

BEEEEEEP!

The Spinning Dancer Illusion
 

Spinning Dancer

There are three kinds of the people. Some people watching the spinning dancer see her spinning clockwise. Other people see her spinning counterclockwise. The other ones see her changing the direction of the spin. In fact if you try to experiment for a while you could learn your brain to “tell” her to change the direction.

Some people believe that the direction of the perceived spin correlates with the lateralization of the brain (clockwise: intuitive right hemisphere – counterclockwise: analytical left hemisphere). If you want you can believe in that as well.

Maybe it's Coriolis' fault.

We’re in the thread “puzzles & jokes” so I can’t be sure whether you puzzle us or you joke on us. Of course it isn’t that.

The illusion is rather well explained on that page: “In reality, the spinning dancer illusion is related to bistable perception in which an ambiguous 2-dimensional figure can be seen in from two different perspectives”.

Three further links add more detailed information: 1, 2, and 3.

I had the problem to comprehend why some poster decided to share with us in the thread focused on the puzzles and the jokes his beliefs and the citations from The Holy Bible in posts #9 and #28. These confessions and quotations are enigmatic and fun indeed but it seemed to me that they simply don’t match the sophisticated level of the mysteriousness and humor which are peculiar to our thread. I was wrong.

Finally I managed to comprehend everything thanks to the deepen analysis of 2 Peter 3:9. The quotation from the post #28 taken from 2 Peter 3:3–7 was a valuable hint. Thank you, myglide.

Here’s 2 Peter 3:9 (KJV):

(The emphasis is mine.)

That citation is obviously about Pat (Patrick, the Lord) and Slack (Slackware, slack). We’re wards of our Lord (Pat). He’s long-suffering for us. He’s not willing to perish anyone of us. He’s willing to come all of us to the repentance. (My Lord, forgive me because I run Linux Mint sometimes but to excuse me I’d like to confess that I do that in order to convert some infidel people to Linux before I start to convert them to Slackware.) The slackness is the period between the consecutive Slackware releases. Let’s be patient men – the plaything of God (Pat).

As I see now when one has the proper attitude the interpretation of The Holy Bible is a piece of cake. It’s very fun as well.

Clarification
 

While this thread seems to be back on track I should make clear. A constructive, positive atmosphere, sharing knowledge and open discussions are among the things that make LQ great. To keep things that way the LQ Rules state you will always behave with respect for others and without personal attacks because those will not be tolerated. Should anyone feel they're not capable of addressing an issue the way we would like to see it then there are two choices: either report a post or thread or keep yourself from posting.
There are no exceptions to this rule and all members are treated equal.

If the above isn't clear then you are invited to email me or any other LQ moderator.

The Lady and the Tiger
 

Raymond Smullyan among the other things is an American mathematician and logician. He’s also the author of the books including mathematical and logical puzzles. One of them is entitled: “The Lady or the Tiger? and Other Logic Puzzles”. In that book there are 12 puzzles concerning “the lady/tiger problem”...

Some king keeps in a prison 12 prisoners (I added to them one prisoner more). Some day he decides to try them one by one. He commands to prepare two rooms. In each room can be the lady or the tiger. The consecutive prisoners should choose just one room. When a prisoner will choose the room with the lady he’ll wed her and he’s free but when he’ll choose the room with the tiger he’ll die killed by the animal.

(In my opinion “the lady/tiger problem” is slightly more complicated because some people probably prefer to be eaten by the tiger than to be married by the lady – on the other hand when one will wed the lady he isn’t necessary free as a result. So we should assume for a while that the lady’s room is the good one and the tiger’s room is the bad one.)

There are three possibilities. Either in some room is the lady and in the other room is the tiger, or in both rooms are the ladies, or in both rooms are the tigers. In the first case it matters which room the prisoner will choose. In the second and the third cases it doesn’t matter though in the second case the prisoner has the good luck and in the third case he has the bad luck.

To make the choice possible on each door is a plate including some information – true or false. The prisoners’ task is to guess which room is the good one (if any).

From among first eight puzzles about the lady and the tiger I chose two puzzles thought up by R. Smullyan and I added to them one puzzle which I thought up.

I skipped first six problems because in my opinion they’re too easy. That doesn’t mean that the following three puzzles are hard. They’re easy as well but not too easy.

***

After a few prisoners solved the puzzles the king decided to complicate the problem. The additional rule says:

If in the room #1 is the lady the inscription on the plate on the door is true but if in the room #1 is the tiger that inscription is false. And – conversely – if in the room #2 is the lady the inscription on the door is false but if in the room #2 is the tiger the inscription is true.

Puzzle 6A

(That’s the puzzle which I invented inspired by the puzzle 6.)

The prisoner #6A sees the following plates:

Which room should he choose?

Puzzle 7

The servants changed the plates on the doors and the occupants of the rooms.

The prisoner #7 sees the following plates:

Which room should he choose?

***

In the next puzzle the inscriptions are ready but the plates aren’t fixed to the doors. The king said to the prisoner that he can solve the problem watching just these two unfixed plates.

Puzzle 8

The prisoner #8 sees two unfixed plates:

Which room should he choose?

If the lady is in 1, expr = True. Thus, the lady must be in both. If the lady is in 2, expr = False. Thus, it does matter which room, which must be false. Therefore the lady is not in 1.

If the tiger is in 2, expr = True. Thus, the tiger must be in both. If the tiger is in 1, expr = False. Thus, it does matter which room, which must be false. Therefore the tiger is not in 2.

If the lady is in 2, expr = False. Thus, the tiger must be in 1. If the tiger is in 1, expr = False. Thus, it does matter which room, which is true since the lady is in 2. Therefore, the tiger is in 1, and the lady is in 2 (choose 2).
If the lady is in 2, expr = False. Thus, you will not win choosing the first room, which means the tiger must be in 1. If the tiger is in 1, expr = False. Thus, it does not matter which room you choose, which must be false. Therefore, the lady is not in 2.

If the tiger is in 1, expr = False. Thus, it does not matter which room you choose, meaning the tiger must also be in 2. If the tiger is in 2, expr = True. Thus, you will win choosing the first room, which must be false. Thus, the tiger is not in 1.

If the lady is in 1, expr = True. Thus, it does matter which room you choose, so the tiger must be in 2. If the tiger is in 2, expr = True. Thus, you will win choosing the first room, which is true if the lady is in 1.

Therefore, the lady is in 1, the tiger in 2 (choose 1).
I have to make an assumption here which may be incorrect. By "There's the tiger in that room" I assume you mean the room behind that same door -- "that room" could also mean the *other* room so I'm not positive which you meant. I will assume it means the same room with the sign attached.

Assume #1 = "Tiger in this room" and #2 = "Tigers in both rooms".
If the lady is in 1, expr = True. But obviously the lady is not a tiger. Thus, the lady cannot be in 1.

If the tiger is in 2, expr = True. Thus, the tiger must be in both rooms. If the tiger is in 1, expr = False. Thus, 'tiger in this room' is false, which is wrong. Thus, the tiger cannot be in 2.

If the lady is in 2, expr = False. Thus, tigers are not in both rooms, which is fine. We know lady cannot be in 1. If the tiger is in 1, expr = False. Thus, 'tiger in this room' is false, which is wrong.

Thus, the labels must not be correct.

Assume #1 = "Tigers in both rooms" and #2 = "Tiger in this room".
If the lady is in 1, expr = True. Obviously 'Tigers in both rooms' cannot be true, so the lady cannot be in 1.

If the tiger is in 2, expr = True. Thus, 'Tiger in this room' is true, which is fine. If tiger is in 1, expr = False. Thus, 'tigers in both rooms' is false, which is wrong. If the lady is in 1, expr = True. Thus, "Tigers in both rooms" is true, which is wrong. Thus, the tiger cannot be in 2, because neither lady nor tiger could be in 1.

If the lady is in 2, expr = False. Thus, 'Tiger in this room' is false, which is fine. If the tiger is in 1, expr = False. Thus, 'Tigers in both rooms' is false, which is fine. Thus, the tiger is in 1, and the lady in 2 (choose 2).

If I misunderstood and the sign should have meant "Tiger in other room" then you would still choose 2, and the assignments would be "#1: Tiger in other room" and "#2: Tigers in both rooms".

(That took me much longer to type than to solve, and I don't feel like proofreading. My explanation also sounds like a scene from The Princess Bride. Inconceivable!)

lol... Best post in this thread so far!

P.S.
Shouldn't this thread be moved to the non-*nix general forum?

T3slider,

everyone else,

The present thread is entitled “Puzzles & Jokes (Off-Topic Topic)”. So we publish here the puzzles and the jokes. It isn’t necessary to put here the solutions. In my opinion the solutions disturb the fluent reading of the thread and the intimate thinking.

Moreover to solve each above “tiger/lady problem” is enough to think for a dozen of the seconds. To write the solution of each puzzle it takes a dozen of the minutes. It’s the waste of your time. The published solutions cause also that the entire thread swells.

So if you can restrain yourself from publishing the solutions – do that. Don’t publish them here.

Try instead to find a nice puzzle or joke and put it in that thread. Look for something puzzling or joyful. Try to keep close to the average level of the thread or elevate it with something really sophisticated. Don’t lower it significantly with something obviously stupid or plainly offensive.

The exception: if according to your research your solution is unique feel free to publish it here. (For example: the 12 marbles or “fake coin” problem described in the post #4 has more than just one obvious solution and some of them are really impressive. So each new solution of that problem would be very interesting and valuable.)

(I put the excerpt from the above in the first post as “Our Rules”.)

Thank you for correcting me. My English is so-so and I translated these puzzles from Polish to English. Now – according to your suggestion – I changed the description on the first plate from “There’s the tiger in that room” to “There’s the tiger in this room”.

***

You tried to describe the complete solutions. As a result they ignore the economics of the thinking.

Example:

At that point one should assume that the first assumption is false so: #1 = “Tigers in both rooms” and #2 = “Tiger in this room”.

(As a result of their completeness the reading of your solutions is tiresome and most of the people will skip some parts of your solutions – the same as I did.)

I wrote about that in the second paragraph above.

Guys and gals: don’t publish your solutions here if it isn’t necessary indeed!

It seems that the average Slackware Linux user is much smarter than the average computer user. So moving that thread from “Slackware” to “General” section of LinuxQuestions.org forum would lower significantly the level of the thread. It would cause also the unwelcome disturbances with some dumb people publishing here some stupid or offensive content. (I have no mercy for the dumbness and I’m the founder and the maintainer of that thread.)

So I think that it’s good idea for us – Slackware Linux users – to have our own smart fork of the “General” section in that thread kept in the “Slackware” section.

***

I observe carefully the work of our moderators and I see that they’re very smart. They not only react to something what happened in the past but they can also stop something what could happen in the future. Examples: post #63 somewhere else and post #35 here. (In both these examples by the accident it was the same moderator but that doesn’t matter – all our moderators are smart and I’m proud that I can be a part of the community gathering smart users and smart moderators.)

Stupid is as stupid does ;) (sorry, I really cannot resist)

I get the same answer when I type:

Take care: your system is probably infected by Ad14 virus. It causes respiratory infection in the software resulting in the wrong calculations made by the individual programs. By default it adds 14 to the result but in some rare cases paradoxical reaction appears and it subtracts 14 from the result.

Zero
 

rkelsen,

According to my calculations:

It seems that your system isn’t infected by the mentioned virus but it uses 0 as a dividend or as a factor.

The other hypothesis: your machine uses in the calculations the following equation:

As a result:

I’m not sure whether it’s a good or a bad news.

Liar paradox
 

The liar paradox was invented in the Ancient Greece and it amazed the people for 25 centuries. They claimed that it’s intractable. Some people are amazed with it still and they claim still that it’s intractable. They’re in error.

There are many versions of that paradox but the rule that works in all of these cases is always the same.

Here’s the example of the liar paradox:

Someone reads that quote and thinks: “The sentence above says that the sentence below is false. So the sentence below is false. The sentence below says falsely that the sentence above is true. So the sentence above is false. The sentence above says falsely that the sentence below is false. So the sentence below is true”.

At that point the contradiction appears: the assumption that the sentence below is false leads to the conclusion that the sentence below is true (and the same with the sentence above). It’s the paradox.

The same paradox appears in a shorter example:

For 2500 years people thought that the liar paradox is intractable. In the 20th century a Polish logician, mathematician, and philosopher – Alfred Tarski – solved that paradox (and many other as well). He invented so-called semantic theory of truth. The core of that theory is a concept of the metalanguages.

Lets imagine that John said: “It’s raining now”, Mary replied: “That’s true: ‘It’s raining now’”, and an Extraterrestrial commented: “Mary said truly that John said the truth”.

As we see John said the statement about the reality outside, Mary said the statement about John’s statement, and an Extraterrestrial said the statement about Mary’s statement about John’s statement. (We still don’t know whether it’s raining indeed because all of them may be the pathological liars but on the other hand we know now that Extraterrestrials exist because they can talk about the other beings talk.)

Lets see the following presentation (read it from the bottom to the top):

John’s statement talks about the reality outside and it belongs to the language. Mary’s statement talks about John’s statement and belongs to the first level metalanguage (it talks about the language which talks about the reality outside). Extraterrestrial’s statement talks about Mary’s statement about John’s statement and belongs to the second level metalanguage (it talks about the language which talks about the language which talks about the reality outside). And so on.

The above is the essence of the conception of the metalanguages. Each sensible sentence belongs either to the language or to the metalanguage of some level. The sensible sentence can’t belong to more than one level of the above stack. The sentence which belongs to a few levels at the same time is a nonsensical sentence and can’t be treated seriously.

Now let’s come back to the liar paradox. The sentence: “This sentence is false” talks about itself. So it’s the sentence from some language and – at the same time – the sentence from the metalanguage. Moreover while we think about that sentence more and more it changes its “truth value” many times back and forth. When we assume that it’s true the conclusion is: it’s false. When we assume that it’s false the conclusion is: it’s true. And so on. So during this considerations that sentence talks about itself more and more times passing as a result an infinite number of “the ordered metalanguages”.

As a result the sentence: “This sentence is false” is nonsensical and can’t be treated seriously.

The same with the other example. The sentence above talks about the sentence below and the sentence below talks about the sentence above. And so on. As a result each sentence talks about itself as well.

So that syllogism is nonsensical too.

That solves the liar paradox.

(I published the above tutorial because some future puzzles or jokes may concern the liar paradox or the pathological liars and the pathologically veracious people.)

What’s more probable as a result of a deal of a deck of the cards in a rubber bridge: 1) you and your partner have together all spades or 2) you both have none spade?

If you take three bananas from a platter with thirteen bananas how many bananas will you have?

A secretary prints six letters and addresses six envelopes to six recipients. A boss inserts these letters into these envelopes at random. Estimate the probability that exactly five letters hit the right envelopes.

zero

---------- Post added 04-07-13 at 03:38 PM ----------

three