View Poll Results: How many objects are in the box? (Image in OP)

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • 3, obviously. Duh.

    3 27.27%
  • 0

    0 0%
  • 1

    0 0%
  • 7

    1 9.09%
  • 4

    0 0%
  • Infinite/arbitrary

    4 36.36%
  • TB is a loser / Your Mom / Betty White / Betty White's Mom

    3 27.27%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 46 of 46

Thread: Random Friday Question 2.0

  1. #41
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    In the stack of checkers analogy, the checkers pieces are not cut physically.
    Summer, are you purposely misreading English?

    Whether or not something can be cut has nothing to do with whether something is cut. The rules clearly say that the objects in the box cannot be cut. Whether or not a stack of checkers is, at this moment, in a stack or divided, it clearly can be divided into individuals, and thus would violate the rule.
    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    They are stacked in a sequence of individual pieces, not divided.
    See above.
    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    Nowhere in the OP does it state that there are three objects. That would answer the question prematurely, the OP displays an image of three circles and asks "how many objects are there?" I provided reasoning for why 1,3, and infinite/arbitrary are all valid answers.
    You provided valid reasons why 1 and 3 can be answers, yes, but your answer for infinity fails, as I have explained repeatedly.

    The OP does not say how many objects are in the box, but it implies that there are only 3 simple objects or fundamental objects in the box, since the rules clearly state that there is nothing else in the box, and that the objects in the box cannot be divided.
    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    Infinte/arbitrary survives your scrutiny. A sequence or stack of checkers survives the "nothing else" test as nothing else besides the sequence or stacks exist. A sequence or stack survives the "can't be divided test" because a stack of checkers pieces is not one piece divided nor cut many times, but a stack of multiple individual checkers pieces.
    Summer, here is the rule in the OP, unedited:
    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    3) the items in the box cannot be cut physically; of course they have a "top half" and "bottom half" theoretically but imagine they're electrons or something that is already smallest and can't be cut.
    But a stack of individual objects is not smallest and can be cut, namely into the individual objects.

    It's not really worth continuing because we're going around in circles -- the OP states that the objects in the box are not divisible and that there are no objects in the box not pictured. Your claim that the objects in the box could be stacks violates the indivisibility rule, since a stack of objects can be divided into smaller objects, namely the individuals that make up the stack.

    In short, the goal of the OP was to ask about whether or not there can be objects that are composed of simpler objects, and was not meant to be about stacks. The rules about interpreting the objects in the box were to focus around that issue. You are misinterpreting the OP to read differently than it actually reads.

  2. #42

    Default

    The rule in question states:

    3) the items in the box cannot be cut physically; of course they have a "top half" and "bottom half" theoretically but imagine they're electrons or something that is already smallest and can't be cut.

    A sequence is not an 'item' but rather a sequence of items. The rules imply that the item can not be cut, such as one checkers piece. The rules as written in the OP do not invalidate a sequence made of indivisible items.

    The OP also states:
    Question: "how many objects are in this box?"(When counting, keep in mind: can larger objects be created out of smaller ones? Spoiler box might help.)

    The OP hints that with a question "can larger objects be created out of smaller ones?"

    That would imply that, you know... smaller objects creating a larger structure... like, I don't know, many checkers being stacked to make a stack of checkers? \_(ツ)_/
    Last edited by Summer; 03-05-2017 at 06:43 AM.

  3. #43
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Kiddies, give up and move on..... it will be time for the next friday question before you agree.....
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  4. #44
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    You're right. Summer is reading a rule against object that can be divided to allow a sequence of objects even though he admits such a sequence can be divided into its components! It's a pretty odd use of English. So I suppose I shall have to surrender.

  5. #45
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Kiddies, give up and move on..... it will be time for the next friday question before you agree.....
    No it wont.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  6. #46
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    No it wont.
    according to neo-alt-far-liberals, you can have Friday question on Monday.

    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •