[Archive c 17.03.2008] Humour [Archive to 28.04.2012] - page 344

New comment
 
Farnsworth:
I agree, although there is no full information on this Zapyrka, she could have been poisoned yesterday and stopped bubbling for example.


we have a problem with a dead bubbles.

(cf. Shmerlak - dead Zapyrka)

 
Farnsworth:
I agree, although there is no complete information on this zapyrka, she could have been poisoned yesterday and stopped bubbling for example.
It's already dead - it's bubbling away.
 
Yurixx:

No. If from A follows B, then from B does not follow A, but from non-B follows non-A. So the 3rd is correct. :-)
Yes no, it logically can bubble in any case, poisoned or not, it can bubble. And the third one, yes, is closer to the correct one, although nothing is said about another state of bubbles on the basis of which one can already draw unambiguous conclusions
 
Mischek:

then it's not a zapyrka, it's a schmerlake, and the task is about a zapyrka.
the coolest one of them all is "swamp buzzard."
 
Farnsworth:
No, she can logically bubble up in all cases, poisoned or not, she can bubble up.
Right. But if it doesn't, it's not poisoned. It's alive, you bastard.
 
Yurixx:
Right. But if it won't let go, but it's not poisoned. It's alive and kicking.

You can't say that unequivocally - there's only partial information. Approaching the water and not seeing bubbles you will assume it is alive, but this assumption can only be made by the "now" moment and the presence/absence of bubbles. In other words, there is no information about how long she bubbles if she is poisoned. And an assessment on "now" cannot be objective.

 

A GREAT thing, for fishing

>
 
Farnsworth:

it cannot be said unambiguously - there is only partial information. Approaching the water and not seeing bubbles you will assume she is alive, but this assumption can only be made by the "now" moment and the presence/absence of bubbles. In other words, there is no information about how long she bubbles if she is poisoned. And an assessment on "now" cannot be objective.


The concepts "alive", "dead" do not figure in this problem at all, nobody said that the poisoned steaming is dying, it is bubbling. Logic is a concrete science without subjective fantasies. Not a word about what lives in the water.
 
Integer:

The concepts "alive", "dead" do not figure in this problem at all, no one said that the poisoned steaming is dying, it's blowing bubbles. Logic is a concrete science without subjective fantasies.

absolutely right, but logic is also about getting the most knowledge from the least background information. Among other things - I was just answering a question:

But if it won't let in, but it's not poisoned. Alive, contagious.

Taking away the difficult-to-understand term "alive" can be paraphrased - one cannot unequivocally state that it is not poisoned (each answer given expands the area in which we are considering zapyrka).If a dustpan is poisoned, it will immediately start blowing bubbles" alone cannot be used to draw correct and unambiguous conclusions about whether it is poisoned or not at any point in time.

 

http://lurkmore.ru/Советские_игрушки

if (you are older than 18 && you aren't afraid of bawdry)

1...337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351...847
New comment