Riddle(WARNING:invovles logic).

[I TO DA GEEZY]

10 boxes all locked- same size same color

Given- 5 coins have been scattered over 5  of the boxes

You've been aloud to open 4  boxes out of the 10.
After having opened them you realize all 4 are empty.

Now to the question:

Can you logically claim there are no coins within the rest of the boxes based on your findings?

[nibs]

yes, it's clear that all the boxes are empty. 

several reasons:
a) we know that the boxes were locked before the coins were scattered over them.  how can the coins get into a locked box?

b) we know that the boxes are identical.  there's no way the boxes are identical if some have coins in them and some do not. 

c) the coins probably fell onto the floor between the gaps in the boxes.  has anyone checked the floor?

d) who scattered these coins?  can we trust them?  i submit the coins were never scattered, but pocketed by an untrustworthy individual who then sent us on a wild goose chase.

e) what prevented hobos or pan handlers from retrieving the coins?  was anyone looking out for hobo's and panhandlers?

f) it's too expensive to continue searching through these boxes when preliminary results indicate the boxes are empty.

g) who checked the first four boxes?  how do we know that person is honest? if all five coins have already been recovered there can't be any more coins in the other six boxes.

h) there are no coins, and there are no boxes.

i) there are too many reasons why the boxes might be empty to conclude anything other than the boxes are empty. 

[J @ M @ L]

Genetic researches on Ashkenazi Jews don't show any Khazar bloodline

A researcher deals with science and facts and wouldn't say all Jews didn't have Khazar bloodline because that would be a generalization. Generalization is something you're used to

Now can we logically conclude that you're an idiot?

[[sepehr]]

Genetic researches on Ashkenazi Jews don't show any Khazar bloodline

A researcher deals with science and facts and wouldn't say all Jews didn't have Khazar bloodline because that would be a generalization. Generalization is something you're used to

Now can we logically conclude that you're an idiot?

LMAO

nibs nailed it

[Trauma-san]

No, you can't logically conclude that there's no coins in the box.  You can't conclude anything, because there isn't a large enough sample? (wording may be wrong) set.  If there were 10,000 boxes, and you opened 4,000 of them, and didn't find any of the 5,000 coins, then maybe you could conclude, logically, that stastistically speaking, there cannot be 5,000 coins in the remaining 6,000 boxes. 

4 out of 10 you can't conclude anything. 

[eKardz]

No, you can't logically conclude that there's no coins in the box.  You can't conclude anything, because there isn't a large enough sample? (wording may be wrong) set.  If there were 10,000 boxes, and you opened 4,000 of them, and didn't find any of the 5,000 coins, then maybe you could conclude, logically, that stastistically speaking, there cannot be 5,000 coins in the remaining 6,000 boxes. 

4 out of 10 you can't conclude anything. 

the boxes are locked.  you can conclued that no coins are in boxes.

[Trauma-san]

No, you can't logically conclude that there's no coins in the box.  You can't conclude anything, because there isn't a large enough sample? (wording may be wrong) set.  If there were 10,000 boxes, and you opened 4,000 of them, and didn't find any of the 5,000 coins, then maybe you could conclude, logically, that stastistically speaking, there cannot be 5,000 coins in the remaining 6,000 boxes. 

4 out of 10 you can't conclude anything. 

the boxes are locked.  you can conclued that no coins are in boxes.

Nope, you don't have enough information to conclude that there's no coins in the remaining 6 boxes.  --

[coola]

a. riddles are fucking stupid, what kind of logic does it want us to use ? how the fucking question is worded, or on the actual riddle ??

b. these things piss me off

c. if we're going by how the stupid riddle was written, then the coins were scattered, so the question is flawed.

d. if youre going by 'logic' then you cant conclude shit like trauma said... it is possible to open 4 boxes and recover no coins because there still are another 6 boxes remaining... even though unlikely...


i hate riddles, they are the stupidest thing ever created.

[I TO DA GEEZY]

if we're going by how the stupid riddle was written, then the coins were scattered, so the question is flawed.

Exactly my point, lol@people playing themselves. It is said 5 coins were scattered there is no way in which 5 out of the unopened boxes can be empty.



Jamal, This is an analogy
Boxes=Jews
Coins=Khazzar Bloodline

Even if you didn't find any you can't generalize especially when you have additional info. Not all Jews were tested and it's known for a fact that the Khazar tribe converted(Just like it's known for a fact 5 coins have been scattered), so when a scientist doesn't find Khazar traces he can't say "No Jews have Khazar genes" because 1.Not all Jews were tested 2.It is known for a fact the Khazar tribe converted and that some Jews have non-semite genes in addition to their semite genes[Although there is no certain Khazar prototype to compare with as well]. Fact remains that scientists didn't find any Khazar traces: non-semite eastern European genes do not necessarily mean Khazar.

[J @ M @ L]

Jamal, This is an analogy
Boxes=Jews
Coins=Khazzar Bloodline

No shit Sherlock... that's why I made the post above. (check what I changed the topic title to in my post)

Even if you didn't find any you can't generalize especially when you have additional info. Not all Jews were tested and it's known for a fact that the Khazar tribe converted(Just like it's known for a fact 5 coins have been scattered), so when a scientist doesn't find Khazar traces he can't say "No Jews have Khazar genes" because 1.Not all Jews were tested 2.It is known for a fact the Khazar tribe converted and that some Jews have non-semite genes in addition to their semite genes[Although there is no certain Khazar prototype to compare with as well]. Fact remains that scientists didn't find any Khazar traces: non-semite eastern European genes do not necessarily mean Khazar.

1. That would imply that the descendants of those who converted have become extinct. The researchers KNOW FOR A FACT that Khazars have converted... and up until they had done this research, it was believed that Ashkenazi Jews were PRIMARILY descendants of this ONE TRIBE (Khazar)... after the research, they were able to conclude that they're NOT PRIMARILY descendant of this ONE TRIBE.

2. What you're implying would mean that the descendants of those who converted have become extinct.... which is a retarded unfounded claim.... OR it could simply mean that it is more likely that those Jews sent into exile have become extinct... which is it?


3. So who's the one used to generalizations, you retarded clown? LOLLLL read your post until you laugh at yourself, you fucking waste of human life.

Genetic researches on Ashkenazi Jews don't show any Khazar bloodline

A researcher deals with science and facts and wouldn't say all Jews didn't have Khazar bloodline because that would be a generalization. Generalization is something you're used to

^ This explains it all. You're a fucking idiot. You really have no reason to come back and try to justify yourself after displaying this extreme stupidity. You don't have the ability to put 2 and 2 together.

[J @ M @ L]

if we're going by how the stupid riddle was written, then the coins were scattered, so the question is flawed.

Exactly my point, lol@people playing themselves.

You're a fucking idiot, man... LOLLLL

[I TO DA GEEZY]

  Again it is amusing to see how a person who has nothing grounded to say is resorting to personal remarks.


1. Ashkenazi Jews being primarily descendants of Khazars is a recent- highly disputed and subsequently disproved- theory. Trying to present this as some sort of a conjectural broad consensus among scientists prior to the research again showes how you like to generalize and how easy it is for you to contradict yourself.

up until they had done this research, it was believed that Ashkenazi Jews were PRIMARILY descendants of this ONE TRIBE (Khazar).

The only thing that's debated is if Ashkenazi Jews are PRIMARILY descendant of the Khazars

See the diff between consensus and debate?- But you're going to say "believed" is in no way different from "debated", and that I am making assumptions , right?
Only that when you say "it was believed Jews were primarily descended from Khazars" without mentioning that "it was [also] believed they weren't" you are saying it was a consensus among researchers.

2.No it doesn't imply that descendants of those who converted don't exist anymore. It simply means a percentage of those Khazars who converted intermixed with semite Jews and that those who didn't intermix wouldn't have any semite trace in them, hence, they wouldn't be defined as "semites"\"descendants of exiled Jews" . Thing is there is no certain Khazar specimen nowdays to compare with, while there is a Semite-Israelite-Jewish one.

3.How in hell would it mean descendants of exiled Jews have become extinct when we're talking about semite-"exiled Jews"-genes among Ashkenazi Jews?- Man you seem to have lost your last remainders of rationality.

[coola]

what the fuck are you guys talking about ? makin me feel like chubacca...

[I TO DA GEEZY]

lol...Sorry man, this "so called" riddle was an analogy targeted at Jamal. Something to help him get along with reality.Something to point out what happens when you generalize when your generalization entails the contradiction of known/given facts.

[J @ M @ L]

1. Ashkenazi Jews being primarily descendants of Khazars is a recent- highly disputed and subsequently disproved- theory.
Are you really this dumb? Go back and read the posts to see how often I emphasized the word primarily... the fact that a certain proportion of Ashkenazi Jews must be descendants of Khazars is NOT disputed... the fact that they're primarily descendants is disputed... which is exactly what I said from the beginning. If you agree to this, then you're an idiot for arguing it in the first place, and you finally admit that you're wrong.

2.No it doesn't imply that descendants of those who converted don't exist anymore. It simply means a percentage of those Khazars who converted intermixed with semite Jews and that those who didn't intermix wouldn't have any semite trace in them
Thank You. Explanation in point #1. I'm right, you're wrong.

3.How in hell would it mean descendants of exiled Jews have become extinct when we're talking about semite-"exiled Jews"-genes among Ashkenazi Jews?- Man you seem to have lost your last remainders of rationality.
Maybe this one went way over your head... as everything else usually does... but I wasn't even implying it... I was just pointing out that your statements made the implication, and I could've have used your train of thought (rather... lack of one) to state how this would also justify somebody saying that the exiled Jews are extinct. Both statements are stupendous... and you're the idiot who made one such implication.


Read my sig.