Quoi_Tu, the moment you get that to work in a college level Calculus or Statistics class, you'll probably get kicked out of the class. The problem is that simply because you can say "multiply by 0 and get 0=0," the result doesn't work. Numbers are absolute and multiplying by 0 destroys any sense of credibility any form of proof has. The only possible solution for -1*x=1 is when x is -1.

 

 

 

In other words, multiplying/dividing by 0 nullifies the statements (or destroys the world, depending on your success rate).

 

 

 

Yes, I know it defeats the "fun" in them, but I'm a logical person, not a trivial person.

 

 

 

The 2=1 proof back on the first page falls to this too. If a^2=ab, and you take a^2-ab, you will always get 0 when substituted to similar terms. That multiplies out into the true statement of 0=0, not 2=1.

 

 

 

 

 

I never did understand Schrodinger's cat...

Quoi_Tu, the moment you get that to work in a college level Calculus or Statistics class, you'll probably get kicked out of the class. The problem is that simply because you can say "multiply by 0 and get 0=0," the result doesn't work. Numbers are absolute and multiplying by 0 destroys any sense of credibility any form of proof has. The only possible solution for -1*x=1 is when x is -1.

 

 

That was a running joke in my differential equations class. It started when my professor gave us an equation we were having trouble solving and he showed us his "simplification."

 

 

 

Silly man, it's called humor.

I never did understand Schrodinger's cat...

 

 

 

If I understand the meaning of it, its an explanation for things such as wave equations for electrons and such. The main point is that there can be two different correct answers based off of your viewing point. An electron obviously has a given location and motion, but it cannot be measured without altering one of them. So for us humans the electrons position is described by a probability of location where as its real position could be given by a coordinate.

 

 

 

as a more practical example, you and a friend are on different sides of a room staring at a rubix cube(not knowing it is a rubix cube). You may think it is a blue cube your friend may think its red, but in reality its both and neither of those.

Most of these 'paradoxes' are just terrible. Especially the maths ones. They're not even paradoxes, they're just riddles with complicated solutions. Paradoxes are supposed to give two different things that contradict each other, with no actual solution, to make the reader think. Most of these suck.

 

 

 

It's impossible to think of pure nothing, since you'll always think of something to put in the nothingness, including the actual word nothing.

 

 

 

Especially that, that was just plain [cabbage].

heres a paradox: women

 

 

 

and yes, they're "interesting"

 

 

 

(and no, its not sexist)

heres a paradox: women

 

 

 

and yes, they're "interesting"

 

 

 

(and not, its not sexist)

 

 

 

:lol:

 

 

 

Dont worry about sounding sexist, someone had to think of that eventually.

heres a paradox: women

 

 

 

and yes, they're "interesting"

 

 

 

(and not, its not sexist)

 

 

 

:lol:

 

 

 

Dont worry about sounding sexist, someone had to think of that eventually.

 

 

 

::sigh of relief:: theres less intelligent people around :?

 

 

 

yeah. biggest paradox ever.

A two-child family has at minimum one male child in the family. What is the probability that it has a girl?

A two-child family has at minimum one male child in the family. What is the probability that it has a girl?

 

 

 

2/3

 

 

 

assuming birth rate is 50/50 male female then the 4 possibilities are

 

 

 

male+male male+female female+male female+female

 

 

 

since they have to have 1 male child the "real" possibilities are

 

 

 

male+male male+female female+male

 

 

 

2/3 chance

A two-child family has at minimum one male child in the family. What is the probability that it has a girl?

 

 

 

2/3

 

 

 

assuming birth rate is 50/50 male female then the 4 possibilities are

 

 

 

male+male male+female female+male female+female

 

 

 

since they have to have 1 male child the "real" possibilities are

 

 

 

male+male male+female female+male

 

 

 

2/3 chance

 

Does having a male child change the female birth rate? If not, why would the chance of a female change with a male being born? I would think that the two children do not influence each others probabilities.

 

 

 

Put another way, hold the male child constant (since you know there is at least one) and predict the possibility of a female child being born.

A family has 5 children.Is it possible that half are boys?

 

 

 

Easy version of that.

I found this one lets see if anyone can solve it:

 

 

 

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

 

 

 

Yes. You have a 1/3 chance of getting it in the 1st place, and a 1/2 after the 1st door. However, once he asks, that changes everything (aka variable oods). If you say yes, ill change, you'll have a 66% chance of winnning.

 

 

 

Cookies to who figure outs what thats from :XD:

 

 

 

21.

I found this one lets see if anyone can solve it:

 

 

 

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

 

 

 

Yes. You have a 1/3 chance of getting it in the 1st place, and a 1/2 after the 1st door. However, once he asks, that changes everything (aka variable oods). If you say yes, ill change, you'll have a 66% chance of winnning.

 

 

 

Cookies to who figure outs what thats from :XD:

 

 

 

21.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also in The Curious Incident of the dog in the nightime, the autistic boy likes that puzzle

A two-child family has at minimum one male child in the family. What is the probability that it has a girl?

 

I'm guessing the mom is a girl, so I'll say 100%. \

A two-child family has at minimum one male child in the family. What is the probability that it has a girl?

 

I'm guessing the mom is a girl, so I'll say 100%. \

 

 

 

nice :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

to quio, I dont think it changes the birth rate, the point is if they have at least one male child out of two the only possibilities for their childern are m-m m-f and f-m so there is a 2/3 chance they have a girl. The odds of a 2 child family having at least 1 girl are 3/4 because you can have m-m m-f f-m and f-f. When the question required one male child it altered the probability, you would think its one half, but he didnt say it was the first child that was a male.

A two-child family has at minimum one male child in the family. What is the probability that it has a girl?

 

I'm guessing the mom is a girl, so I'll say 100%. \

 

 

 

nice :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

to quio, I dont think it changes the birth rate, the point is if they have at least one male child out of two the only possibilities for their childern are m-m m-f and f-m so there is a 2/3 chance they have a girl. The odds of a 2 child family having at least 1 girl are 3/4 because you can have m-m m-f f-m and f-f. When the question required one male child it altered the probability, you would think its one half, but he didnt say it was the first child that was a male.

 

Well madpur solved it, damn I feel silly.

 

 

 

Anywho, ignore the fact that there is a male child and treat the probability as if there is one mystery child. It's a 50-50 chance either male or female. Also m-f and f-m are the same thing. I think that's where you're getting the extra probability of a female from. The question asks the probability of the existence of a girl, not the existence and order of birth.

the key here is that the family has at least one male child, since it could be either the first or second child the order does matter.

 

 

 

possible orders for at least one male

 

 

 

male child then female child

 

 

 

male child then male child

 

 

 

female child then male child

 

 

 

2/3 have a female

I found this one lets see if anyone can solve it:

 

 

 

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

 

 

 

stop watching movies :P thats off 21 xD

the key here is that the family has at least one male child, since it could be either the first or second child the order does matter.

 

 

 

possible orders for at least one male

 

 

 

male child then female child

 

 

 

male child then male child

 

 

 

female child then male child

 

 

 

2/3 have a female

 

There are two rabbits in a hat. One is male, one is female. What is the probability of choosing a female? Now put the rabbit back in. What is the probability of choosing a male? Now put the rabbit back in. What is the probability of choosing a female?

 

 

 

Do the probabilities change? No. We know one of the children are male. Whether that male child comes first or not is irrelevent because it does not change the probability of having a female child. Why would order matter?

 

 

 

Say you flip a coin twice. Due to the intervention of a godlike coin-flipping being, one of the flips lands heads (after which he goes away and stops intervening). What is the probability that the second coin flip is tails?

 

 

 

I'm done, so you can pm me if you want, but I think I'm dragging this thread off-topic.

Here's a pretty cool riddle:

 

 

 

A man lead an officer through his house, to a plant. He pulled the plant away from the window, opened the blinds and took the safe that rest on the windowscil. With nervous fingers, he opened it. In it, a will sat, and the man read it aloud. "I grant all of my estate to my grandson, William Neuman, should nobody enter my house three days after my death. His uncle died four days ago. The officer read the will and said "I cannot grant you the estate". Why not?

Because the officer entered the house within that 3 day time period?

Because the officer entered the house within that 3 day time period?

 

 

 

Heres a hint, It was his grandson, and there is proof. The scene happend 4 days AFTER his death.

because the grandson knew where the safe was?

Here's a pretty cool riddle:

 

 

 

A man lead an officer through his house, to a plant. He pulled the plant away from the window, opened the blinds and took the safe that rest on the windowscil. With nervous fingers, he opened it. In it, a will sat, and the man read it aloud. "I grant all of my estate to my grandson, William Neuman, should nobody enter my house three days after my death. His uncle died four days ago. The officer read the will and said "I cannot grant you the estate". Why not?

 

It was four days after.

Here's a pretty cool riddle:

 

 

 

A man lead an officer through his house, to a plant. He pulled the plant away from the window, opened the blinds and took the safe that rest on the windowscil. With nervous fingers, he opened it. In it, a will sat, and the man read it aloud. "I grant all of my estate to my grandson, William Neuman, should nobody enter my house three days after my death. His uncle died four days ago. The officer read the will and said "I cannot grant you the estate". Why not?

 

So the will was not meant for him.

 

 

 

 

 

Or am I totally missing it.