Impossible questions
- Thread starter Da pyro man 999
- Start date
Recommended Videos
How much wood can a wood chuck chuck, if a unicycle is going backwards uphill at -16 mph, how many pancakes does it take to shingle a dog house?
(THIS IS AN ACTUAL RIDDLE PEOPLE!)
(THIS IS AN ACTUAL RIDDLE PEOPLE!)
If your dumb enough to drown in a fountain, which in the Day when that was coined were puddles that were dripped in clay bowls, then yes.Internet Kraken said:
^^ Love that one. Although I heard it referred to as a Tree of Life, so can one hang themselves from it?
Would that be a relevent question? God is a limitless being, and the question assumes that he has to abide by the rules of limitations of Earth. I mean, this is a God that can be everywhere yet nowhere at the same time. To understand the answer, we have to place ourselves into the "Limitless Environment" of God. And that's something we, as humans, are so beyond our experience that we can't even imagine it.PimpinAngel said:
You've just claimed that what I've said is true. Which is right. I'm trying to see how many people say it's not true, so I can prove to them that it is true.Aby_Z said:.9(recurring) = 1 because the math book said so... HAH!Trivun said:0.9 recurring (that is, nines going on forever after the decimal point) does not equal 1. This is impossible, because it's untrue. The to numbers are indeed equal. Yeah. So anyone who posted on that maths thread ages ago and disputed that, I'd like to see you prove your point to a Maths undergraduate. Hah. I bet you can't, can you?
Have you ever read a maths book? This isn't me saying it's not true because I believe it isn't true. I made a mathematical statement. I can prove it. I have proved it before, I learned how to prove it, and I can do so again. Hence it must be that what I said was true, because I can prove that it is true. You have obviously never studied maths beyond the most basic level, otherwise you would understand my point. No offence meant, but what I said is not ridiculous in any way whatsoever.Epicurus said:
All glory to the Wikipedia!Trivun said:0.9 recurring (that is, nines going on forever after the decimal point) does not equal 1. This is impossible, because it's untrue. The to numbers are indeed equal. Yeah. So anyone who posted on that maths thread ages ago and disputed that, I'd like to see you prove your point to a Maths undergraduate. Hah. I bet you can't, can you?
EDIT: How many scientists does it take to screw in a light-bulb?
Oh, I read that wrong, I guess...Trivun said:You've just claimed that what I've said is true. Which is right. I'm trying to see how many people say it's not true, so I can prove to them that it is true.Aby_Z said:.9(recurring) = 1 because the math book said so... HAH!Trivun said:0.9 recurring (that is, nines going on forever after the decimal point) does not equal 1. This is impossible, because it's untrue. The to numbers are indeed equal. Yeah. So anyone who posted on that maths thread ages ago and disputed that, I'd like to see you prove your point to a Maths undergraduate. Hah. I bet you can't, can you?
Well, quite simply, .9 repeating isn't actually equal to 1. The reason why we say it is is because there's simply an infinitely small digit separating it from .9 repeating and 1, correct? Even if you were to solve an equation with .9 repeating instead of 1, the difference would be just about imperceptible.
Technically, it's not true, but us humans are either lazy or we know when something is too trivial to be bothered with, so both parties can be right here, neh?
An infinitely small digit is 0.000... (infinite noughts, then 1 at the end). Because the noughts go on forever, we never reach the 1, so we can see by intuition that the infinitely small number is equal to zero. Therefore there is a zero gap between 0.999 (infinite nines) and 1. Thus 0.999 recurring is equal to 1. So there's no triviality there, it's pretty much proven fact that the two are equal.Aby_Z said:Oh, I read that wrong, I guess...Trivun said:You've just claimed that what I've said is true. Which is right. I'm trying to see how many people say it's not true, so I can prove to them that it is true.Aby_Z said:.9(recurring) = 1 because the math book said so... HAH!Trivun said:0.9 recurring (that is, nines going on forever after the decimal point) does not equal 1. This is impossible, because it's untrue. The to numbers are indeed equal. Yeah. So anyone who posted on that maths thread ages ago and disputed that, I'd like to see you prove your point to a Maths undergraduate. Hah. I bet you can't, can you?
Well, quite simply, .9 repeating isn't actually equal to 1. The reason why we say it is is because there's simply an infinitely small digit separating it from .9 repeating and 1, correct? Even if you were to solve an equation with .9 repeating instead of 1, the difference would be just about imperceptible.
Technically, it's not true, but us humans are either lazy or we know when something is too trivial to be bothered with, so both parties can be right here, neh?
0.999 recurring scientistsHeadless Zombie said:All glory to the Wikipedia!Trivun said:0.9 recurring (that is, nines going on forever after the decimal point) does not equal 1. This is impossible, because it's untrue. The to numbers are indeed equal. Yeah. So anyone who posted on that maths thread ages ago and disputed that, I'd like to see you prove your point to a Maths undergraduate. Hah. I bet you can't, can you?
EDIT: How many scientists does it take to screw in a light-bulb?
Or in short, it's like a magnet, and blah blah blah (he asked for how it works, not math stating how well it works, no points for over-complicating in an effort to make yourself seem smarter)effilctar said:
It's currently unexplainable, all we know is that it DOES, and it does at a rate of blah blah blah. What he's asking for, (and me for that matter) is an explanation of how object X can pull on object Y with absolutely nothing connecting them in any way.
[edit] Disregard; I overlooked the "Gravitons", although that's hardly an explanation and I still discard your answer.
OT: If you have a gun that shoots bullets at exactly 2000km/h, and you were on a platform moving you exactly 2000km/h, and you fired the gun backwards... What would happen?