|
Post by Phalon on Jul 23, 2005 22:25:24 GMT -6
What occurs once in a second, twice in one hour, but never in three hundred years?
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Jul 24, 2005 6:28:50 GMT -6
An "O"?
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Jul 24, 2005 7:41:11 GMT -6
Yes. Your turn, Moppet.
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Jul 24, 2005 14:11:40 GMT -6
Sorry...did I burst your bubble?
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Jul 24, 2005 22:43:59 GMT -6
No silly, you figured out my riddle.
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Jul 25, 2005 0:07:58 GMT -6
Ok so this isn't exactly a riddle but something interesting I learned a while back....
Why is poop brown?
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Jul 27, 2005 10:06:42 GMT -6
Unable to wait any longer for Scrappy to give the answer to this "one of life's most frequently pondered questions", (rolls eyes), I had to conduct the two minute internet drill to find the answer. And in typing in the words, "Why is poop brown", into my search engine, this is what I found. Kind of an amusing explanation, that does actually give an informative answer towards the end. www.getodd.com/stuf/poop.html
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Jul 27, 2005 22:01:03 GMT -6
Ok that's a good one.....
I was told it was your body shedding dead red blood cells....go figure....
|
|
|
Post by marysgurl1 on Jul 28, 2005 6:18:24 GMT -6
Ok that's a good one..... I was told it was your body shedding dead red blood cells....go figure....
|
|
|
Post by Xenamoured on Jul 29, 2005 18:55:36 GMT -6
Hi Phalon, Marysgurl, Scrappy ....that riddle was crappy. Here is a tough one. You approach two talking doors. One door leads to the City of Truth, while the other door leads to the City of Liars. You do not know which door is which. You are able to ask only one question to determine which door is which. The door that leads to the City of Liars always speaks lies, while the door that leads to the City of Truth always speaks the truth. You want to go to the City of Truth. What question do you ask to determine which door leads to the City of Truth?
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Jul 30, 2005 5:25:00 GMT -6
ARGH, Xenamoured. I have gone around and around over this and still can't figure it out. Pfft.
Still working on it though.
Scrappy? Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Xenamoured on Jul 30, 2005 8:38:38 GMT -6
Hi Phalon I had to look at the answer for this one...but it does make sense. Hint...think double negative....
|
|
|
Post by Joxcenia on Jul 30, 2005 15:21:52 GMT -6
I've seen Labyrinth, but I don't know if what Sarah asked is the same answer to this riddle.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Jul 30, 2005 17:03:56 GMT -6
Hhmmm...double negative, double negative....
I still don't got no idea what the answer could be.
But do two double negatives make a quadruple positive?
Still thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Xenamoured on Jul 30, 2005 18:13:59 GMT -6
Hey Phalon..."But do two double negatives make a quadruple positive?" ;D That's funny...but of course two negatives do equal a positive, semantically speaking...let me know if you want the answer... Hi Joxie....I remember seeing Labyrinth years ago...is that the one with David Bowie...or am I thinking of "Legend"?
|
|
|
Post by Joxcenia on Jul 30, 2005 18:26:53 GMT -6
Yeppers.... it's the one with David Bowie. He be the Goblin King.
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Jul 30, 2005 20:44:36 GMT -6
I got it now...double negative...that's a good one.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Jul 31, 2005 2:43:01 GMT -6
I am so not getting this one. Which isn't surprising, since it's rare that I actually can actually come up with a correct answer.
|
|
|
Post by Xenamoured on Jul 31, 2005 8:57:13 GMT -6
Here is the answer...since I may be gone for another week....
You ask a door - "If I were to ask the other door which door leads to the city of truth, what would he say". And then you pick the opposite door of what he tells you.
I think that makes sense...if you ask the false door this question, he would lie and say that he is the correct or true door; if you ask the true door, the true door would know that the false door would lie, in each case, you choose the opposite.
Here's another...not really a riddle, but more of an aggravating paradox.... "The barber shaves every man in town who does not shave himself...who shaves the barber?"
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Jul 31, 2005 10:25:00 GMT -6
Ah....that makes sense; I knew it was something like that, but couldn't get it straight in my head.
If the barber shaves every man in town who doesn't shave himself, couldn't the barber be one of the men who shaves himself? Straight razor, electric or disposable? Or does he wear a beard?
|
|
|
Post by Xenamoured on Jul 31, 2005 17:18:45 GMT -6
Hi Phalon...that paradox has something to do with the innate semantic problem with linguistic self-reflection. There is no answer-only contradiction. Here is an explanation I found: Have you come across the Spanish Barber? It was Russell's attempt to bring the paradox to the layman. In a certain Spanish town the barber (who is a man) shaves every man who does not shave himself. Who shaves the barber? So now. Some sets are members of themselves. For example the set of nonempty sets is a member of itself, because it is a nonempty set. Other sets are not members of themselves. For example the set of rusty anvils is not a member of itself since it is a set, not a rusty anvil. Consider then the set of all sets that are NOT members of themselves. Is it a member of itself? If it is, then it is like all the other members a set which is NOT a member of itself, so it cannot be a member of itself. Contradiction. Suppose it is NOT a member of itself, then by definition it IS a member of itself. Contradiction again. This sounds like a game to most of us, but it was deadly serious to Russell and the other early set theorists. They thought everything in math could be expressed through sets, and the fact that set theory could produce paradoxes was extremely shocking to them. I like paradoxes better than riddles...maybe I'll start a different thread. I don't want to wreck this perfectly good one...
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Jul 31, 2005 21:21:10 GMT -6
Ack! It all makes my mind reel, though it all sounds kinda fishy to me.
I think a thread full of paradoxes, (paradoxi?), would be cool. Didn't Otis Redding sing about them once in, "Sitting on the Dox of the Bay"?
And no, Xenamoured, you are most definitely not wrecking this thread. I know this for a fact, being a Thread Wrecker myself.
|
|
|
Post by Gabbin on Jul 31, 2005 21:28:10 GMT -6
Why don't all the people just shave themselves to start with?
Sorry, I am horrific at this.
|
|
|
Post by Joxcenia on Jul 31, 2005 22:28:02 GMT -6
The conversation from Labyrinth:
|
|
|
Post by Xenamoured on Aug 1, 2005 5:57:21 GMT -6
Hi Joxie....that is interesting...it sounds very much like the two door paradox... Hi G-Stick...you're right everyone should shave themselves... much less cuts and scrapes that way! ;D Hi Phalon...what's it called when a person enjoys things that hurt your brain? Perverse? Maybe that's me... Okay, just one more and then I'll shut up....This is Xeno's First Paradox(I like it cause it sort of sounds like Xena!) This is one way to phrase it... There is a race between Apollo and a tortoise. The tortoise, to begin, is given a head start of one half the track. The race begins, but Apollo can never reach the tortoise, no matter how fast he runs. Here's why: To get from point A(where Apollo is) to point B(where the tortoise is) Apollo first has to travel half way. Then half that. And half again. The result is an infinite number of steps between A and B. Xeno argued that this cannot be because if it takes a finite amount of time to travel each step then it would require an infinite amount of time altogether. Explain....
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Aug 2, 2005 6:25:50 GMT -6
But isn't Apollo's winged footed speed taken into account? He is the one with winged feet, right? My mything persons memory is lacking of late.
This all reminds me of that "cat in the box" conversation Scrappy and I once had. How'd that go?
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Aug 2, 2005 10:55:48 GMT -6
LMAO....Schrödinger's Cat. The act of observing an event always changes the outcome.
Look at it like this. The old question about "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?" According to Schrödinger's theory the answer is both yes and no at the same time. Until someone hears it or doesn't. Then the outcome becomes known but because it was observed you can never know what it would have been if it had not been observed.
Am I making any sense here? It kinda goes along with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
|
|
|
Post by Joxcenia on Aug 2, 2005 13:41:59 GMT -6
Birds can hear... squirrels can hear... raccoons can hear... so a falling tree does indeed make a sound... if the animals could talk we could ask them, but... And if the cat is in a box with no air, food or water... it's dead. If someone is feeding it and the food doesn't get eaten, it's dead.
|
|
|
Post by Joxcenia on Aug 2, 2005 13:48:30 GMT -6
Here's one... A man with no family or friends goes for a walk in the woods without telling anyone and falls into the river and drowns... If he screamed and no one heard him, did he make a sound?
His body is sucked into a crevice deep under the water and it never resurfaces... No one is looking for him, or notices that he is missing... Is he even dead?
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Aug 2, 2005 13:59:16 GMT -6
*sigh*
I can see I have some explaining to do. Maybe a class. "Quantum Mechanics 101"?
The cat is not in the box long enough to either starve or suffocate. And even if it was it would still be in a state of being alive AND dead at the same time (quantum flux) until you opened the box and observed the actual state of the cat. Which by observing it always changes the outcome.
And before someone throws out the camera in the box thing....that is an act of observation which also changes the outcome. And yes...until the man in the lake is observed..he is both dead and alive at the same time.
Ok..maybe I'm becoming a little obsessive about this.....this is all Phalon's fault....lol
|
|