Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Riddle(WARNING:invovles logic).
eKardz:
--- Quote from: Trauma on January 03, 2006, 09:35:41 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
the boxes are locked. you can conclued that no coins are in boxes.
Trauma-san:
--- Quote from: eKardz on January 03, 2006, 10:20:46 PM ---
--- Quote from: Trauma on January 03, 2006, 09:35:41 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
the boxes are locked. you can conclued that no coins are in boxes.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Chief on January 04, 2006, 07:10:03 AM ---if we're going by how the stupid riddle was written, then the coins were scattered, so the question is flawed.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on January 04, 2006, 10:12:02 AM ---Jamal, This is an analogy
Boxes=Jews
Coins=Khazzar Bloodline
--- End quote ---
No shit Sherlock... that's why I made the post above. (check what I changed the topic title to in my post)
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on January 04, 2006, 10:12:02 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on December 21, 2005, 10:04:07 PM ---Genetic researches on Ashkenazi Jews don't show any Khazar bloodline
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on December 21, 2005, 10:04:07 PM ---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
--- End quote ---
^ 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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version