Re: Me and David C. Ullrich


Elmo wrote:
> mensanator@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Elmo wrote:
> > > john_ramsden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > Elmo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We're studying what it means to say, "at least one is".
> > > >
> > > > No we're not - Everyone knows that "at least one" means
> > > > "one or more", and that's all there is to it.
> > > >
> > > I agree with that.
> > >
> > > > We're studying whether two statements of a problem mean
> > > > effectively the same thing.
> > > >
> > > Make that "precisely the same thing", and I'll agree with that.
> > >
> > > > > Don't blame me for "the possibility of 'at least one tails'",
> > > >
> > > > In some _other_ question that might be a possibility,
> > > > but as you yourself say later in the same post:
> > > >
> > > At TT, "At least one is a tail" is a true statement, therefore
> > > possible. Would it get a different answer from our question, or does At
> > > "least one is a tail" alter the meaning of "at least one?"
> > >
> > > > > The question is, "Two coins were flipped and at least
> > > > > one is a head. What are the chances for two heads?"
> > > >
> > > > That's it - no mention of at least one tails! Forget
> > > > the damned tails!!
> > > >
> > > As you said above, _"at least one" means "one or more", and that's all
> > > there is to it_. It does not tell us that there are no tails.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "self contained". The statement
> > > > > was made about a two coin flip [with at least one head - JR].
> > > > > How do we know? The statement told us so.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly, and by "self contained" I just mean it told us
> > > > no more and no less, and NOTHING ABOUT AT LEAST ONE TAIL!
> > > >
> > > I didn't say it did. What I said is that it didn't tell us that there
> > > are no tails. It didn't tell us that the "at least one is a tail"
> > > statement would alter the meaning of "at least one."
> > >
> > > > > This question has been around for a long time. I know
> > > > > for over 50 years,
> > > >
> > > > Jesus H - You've been mulling over this for 50 years?!
> > >
> > > No. Dr. Gray first introduced me to this question in 1964,
> >
> > 50, 41, what's a few years to a lunatic?
> >
> > > when he was
> > > in PhD school in Austin Texas. I met the question again in 1968 when I
> > > was a fortran programmer. Then, through the years didn't see it, or
> > > think of it often until 1996 when it came out in Parade Magazine. Then,
> > > with advent of the internet, the damn thing got to be a nuisance. I fly
> > > charter airplanes for a living.
> >
> > Do the people that hire you know you're crazy?
> >
> > > Spend a lot of time hanging around
> > > different airports, much of the time with internet connections.
> > >
> > > I've mulled it over enough that I can guarantee you that I don't have
> > > it wrong. There are times when you know. There are times when you know
> > > that you know.
> >
> > That's kind of weak, proof-wise, isn't it?
> >
> > > This is one of those, so quit worrying about the durn
> > > tails and concentrate on the statement. We only see one event, we can't
> > > do probability on one event, we must reiterate that event.
> >
> > Oops, you lost me there.
> >
> > >
> > > We can flip two coins 40,000 times and about 10,000 of them will be TT.
> > > We're talking about a first time event, any one of the forty thousand
> > > could have been the first toss. Suppose the first toss was TT, and the
> > > "tails" statement was made. What would the answer be?
> >
> > There are so many more interesting things you could be a
> > crackpot about. This one is just boring. Why don't you try
> > the Collatz Conjecture. That one's still undecided so you can
> > say all kinds of things and people can't prove you're wrong.
> >
> The most thrilling part about this thing,

Thrilling? You're easy to please.

> is the number of supposidly
> smart people who are willing to argue with me who have no idea what I'm
> talking about.

Some people are thrilled at watching fools foam at the mouth
and deliberately goad them.

>
> This is a simple question, and you don't understand it.

I understand the question just fine. What's hard to understand
is why you have a hair up your ass.

> Yet, you're willing to argue with me about it.

Schadenfreude.

> That's somewhat intriguing to me.
>
> I watch sports, play golf, walk a lot, and study ignorant people.


The Difference Between Ignorance And Stupidity
----------------------------------------------
IGNORANT
a person who is merely unaware of the TRUTH
STUPID
a person who has had the TRUTH revealed to him but does not embrace it


>
>
> > >
> Eldon

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is the big deal?
    ... Only the ignorant still use the term "colored". ... Only Elmo and Kermit are ... Never ride faster than your guardian angel can fly ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: What is the big deal?
    ... Only the ignorant still use the term "colored". ... Only Elmo and Kermit are ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)