Das Paradox

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Oh yeah, paradoxes are fun, but cheap science jokes and statistics are even more fun.

I still love the old 2+2=5 for large quantities of 2.

No because 2=2

No, because 2 = 1.5 < 2 < 2.49 so 2 + 2 = 3 < x < 5

It plays on simple trickery of rounding and boundaries. If you say 2.0~ + 2.0~ then your answer would be 4.0~.

 

[2xDouble]

Actually it's just bad math. The guests paid $27, it's true. The manager kept $2, so $27-$2=$25, the cost of the room. The $2 tip is included in the $27 paid by the guests, so there is no need to add it in.

The real question isn't "where did the dollar go?", but "where did the extra $2 come from?". $27(paid) + $2("kept") + $3(returned) = $32.

Yay math!

Wouldn't that be $25(Paid)+3(returned)+2(kept). There is no extra 2.

Yes. That's what it should be. But that's not what is being presented in the problem. The problem pulls $2 out of thin air.

It's like asking two tens for five.

 

[Halceon]

I think this is called Curry's paradox:

If this statement is true, then Santa Claus exists.

It can be used to prove anything.

And what if it isn't true? Not much of a proof, is it?

 

[DSK-]

"All Cretans are liars" or something like that

 

[ssgt splatter]

I've got a time paradox from a Family Guy episode.

It was the episode in which Mort Goldman goes back in time to WWII and Brain and Stewie have to go back to save him. After they do they bring Mort back 30 seconds before he runs up to use the bathroom but here's the catch; if the Brian and Stewie that the story followed arrived 30 seconds before Mort ran upstairs then the Brain and Stewie who exsist in that particular time line when Mort ran upstairs is still downstairs in the living room watching the Oscar's so now there are 2 Stewies and 2 Brians...ok this is a little hard to write down but trust me it works.

 

[slacker09]

Actually it's just bad math. The guests paid $27, it's true. The manager kept $2, so $27-$2=$25, the cost of the room. The $2 tip is included in the $27 paid by the guests, so there is no need to add it in.

The real question isn't "where did the dollar go?", but "where did the extra $2 come from?". $27(paid) + $2("kept") + $3(returned) = $32.

Yay math!

Wouldn't that be $25(Paid)+3(returned)+2(kept). There is no extra 2.

Yes. That's what it should be. But that's not what is being presented in the problem. The problem pulls $2 out of thin air.

It's like asking two tens for five.

I see what you are saying now, thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Redingold]

So let me look this over. There are three panels. I choose one, then I have the chance to choose a different one instead of choosing the one of I have. Since I still only have one panel, why aren't my chances are still 33%?

Because one of the panel is turned and you have two remaining. One would guess there's 50:50 chance now, but it's actually 33:66. It took me a while to understand, check Wikipedia - Monty Hall problem [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem].

But once you pick another panel, isn't it still a 33:66 chance?

Edit: Here's my problem with it. Say you're looking at the three panels and you think "I want to pick number three, but there's a better chance to get it right if I switch." So instead of picking three and sticking with it, you pick panel one and then switch to three. That doesn't make it so the prize is more likely to be behind the third panel... or does it... is that a paradox within itself?

You're assuming that the host doesn't open door 3 to demonstrate that there's nothing behind it. He has a 50% chance of doing that, so it brings the odds back in line.

 

[kayisking]

This sentence is false.
Simple but effective.

 

[Thunderios]

Zeno's paradox:
a fox and a turtle are racing each other. Because the turtle is ten times as slow as the fox, he gets a 100 meter advantage.
After the fox ran the 100 meters, the turtle ran 10, still having an advantage.
After the fox ran the extra 10 meters, the turtle had been able to run another meter.
The fox runs that meter, but by that time the turtle is still 10 centimeters ahead.
And so on. The fox will never overtake the turtle.

 

[ultimateownage]

Wow, you only just now discovered paradoxes?
Also, the arrow one isn't really a paradox. More of a logical fallacy through viewing an event from a different angle. Like the one which states that if the arrow half's the distance between it and the target in 1 second, then half's the new distance in .5 seconds and so on, it will never hit it's target.

 

[dogenzakaminion]

You've got a sword that can penetrate any shield and a shield invincible to any sword or sharp object. What happens when your special sword hits your special shield?

Is this that Captain America vs. Juggernaut thing?

The thing is that paradoxes are only fun when they are real. There is no invincible shield or sword so it doesn't matter. Personally I prefer the "Set of all sets" one. Had that in Math class a couple years back and loved it in Portal 2.

 

[artanis_neravar]

I think this is called Curry's paradox:

If this statement is true, then Santa Claus exists.

It can be used to prove anything.

And what if it isn't true? Not much of a proof, is it?

It should be if this statement is not true, then Santa Claus exists

 

[artanis_neravar]

Oh yeah, paradoxes are fun, but cheap science jokes and statistics are even more fun.

I still love the old 2+2=5 for large quantities of 2.

No because 2=2

No, because 2 = 1.5 < 2 < 2.49 so 2 + 2 = 3 < x < 5

It plays on simple trickery of rounding and boundaries. If you say 2.0~ + 2.0~ then your answer would be 4.0~.

Incorrect, significant digits states that 2=2, if you meant 2.5, then you need to say 2.5, however the last part you have there is correct and if you are implying the approximation(~) then it would be true

 

[artanis_neravar]

"All Cretans are liars" or something like that

It has to be a Cretan who say it lol

 

[Hosker]

I think this is called Curry's paradox:

If this statement is true, then Santa Claus exists.

It can be used to prove anything.

And what if it isn't true? Not much of a proof, is it?

It's irrelevant what the second phrase refers to. Wikipedia can explain it much better than I can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry's_paradox

 

[artanis_neravar]

There is no life in the universe (operating under the assumption that there are an infinite number of planets) There are an infinite number of planets in the universe, however we know that no all planet have life, therefore only a finite number of planets in the universe have life. to figure out the percentage of planets with life you need to divide a finite number by infinity. For simplicity sake I'm going to use 1 for the finite number and % to represent infinity. in order to solve 1/% you must take the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity, as x gets large 1/x gets smaller (1/4 is smaller then 1/2). The limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity is 0 therefore there is no life in the universe and everyone you meet is just a figment of your imagination.
(From the Hitchhikers Guide to Galaxy I just used calculus to prove it)

Fortunately the universe is finite.

Prove it

It started out as a point, and has expanded at a finite rate for 13.7 billion years. It cannot have grown to infinity in this time. Besides, even if it was infinite, you'd still be wrong, because infinity (the number of planets) minus any finite number (the number of known uninhabited planets) is still infinity (the number of potentially inhabited planets left).

Even if there are an infinite number of populated planets, the denominator is still a large (or faster growing) infinity and my math still works out

 

[TimeLord]

I like time loop paradoxes.

For example, series 5 of Doctor Who had a paradox where The Doctor was stuck in the Pandorica. His future self travels back in time to free himself. Then the current timeline Doctor has to go back in time at some point in his future in order to free his past self so that he could free himself in the future.