One second. You simply place a cross on the crosswalk. :3Squidden said:How long will it take you to cross a crosswalk if with each step, you cut the distance you walked with the prior step by half?
One second. You simply place a cross on the crosswalk. :3Squidden said:How long will it take you to cross a crosswalk if with each step, you cut the distance you walked with the prior step by half?
If you have eternity, you'll make it eventually.Silent observer said:You'll never make itSquidden said:How long will it take you to cross a crosswalk if with each step, you cut the distance you walked with the prior step by half?
OT: Gimme a coupla minutes...I'll come up with something...
Uhh..Father Time said:I say it again what's
1. The
2. Smallest
3. Number
4. Not
5. Nameable
6. In
7. Under
8. Ten
9. Words?
Silly, Zombies don't fight each other, they hunt for BRAINZ!! :3samuraiash1991 said:One fine day in the middle of the night, two dead men got up to fight, back to back they faced eachover, drew the swords and shot eachover.
best paradox story i know
First off this is a thought experiment, not a paradox, as someone else pointed out.blalien said:Sorry, the scientific definition of sound is the oscillation itself. Pretty much any professional scientist in the field will agree with that.Piflik said:Actually oscillation of air-pressure is just that, until it is interpreted by an observer...his brain will turn the pressure oscillations into sound...the oscillations will be generated without an observer, too, but it will not be soundblalien said:Since sound is defined as an oscillation of pressure in the air, the existence of sound does not depend on anybody hearing it.
But asking a question about reality and then not using science to answer it is lazy. That's what science is there for, to analyze the world and solve the tough problems.TWRule said:First off this is a thought experiment, not a paradox, as someone else pointed out.blalien said:Sorry, the scientific definition of sound is the oscillation itself. Pretty much any professional scientist in the field will agree with that.Piflik said:Actually oscillation of air-pressure is just that, until it is interpreted by an observer...his brain will turn the pressure oscillations into sound...the oscillations will be generated without an observer, too, but it will not be soundblalien said:Since sound is defined as an oscillation of pressure in the air, the existence of sound does not depend on anybody hearing it.
Second, the debate here is purely semantic. If you're talking about whether sound exists by the scientific definition, then of course the answer is "yes, there will be a sound."
If you're talking about where a sound will be perceived (assuming there is no one around to perceive it) then the answer is "no."
Surely that'd be the other way round, unless purple is ultraviolet and infrared at the same time...Piflik said:Sorry, but purple is not a wavelength of light. In fact it is the only color that doesn't exist as a wavelength. Visible light goes from red (long) to blue (short); purple would be shorter than blue and at the same time longer than red...
That's what I'm saying - the answer only depends upon what aspect of the sound you are discussing, so neither of you is wrong, so you have no reason to disagree.blalien said:But asking a question about reality and then not using science to answer it is lazy. That's what science is there for, to analyze the world and solve the tough problems.TWRule said:First off this is a thought experiment, not a paradox, as someone else pointed out.
Second, the debate here is purely semantic. If you're talking about whether sound exists by the scientific definition, then of course the answer is "yes, there will be a sound."
If you're talking about where a sound will be perceived (assuming there is no one around to perceive it) then the answer is "no."
And of course the sound wouldn't be perceived. That's kind of the whole point. But sound doesn't only affect living things, either.
If you're talking about the intent of the croc, then he should us that as a basis (i.e.: if he originally intended not to return the child, he should return them, and if he originally intended to return the child, he should not). If you're talking purely about the actions of the croc, he must ultimately return the child, because he could not start to leave without breaking his word, or he'd have to return the child anyway.GWarface said:If a crocodile steals a child and promises its return if the father can correctly guess what the crocodile will do, how should the crocodile respond in the case that the father guesses that the child will not be returned?
ninja'd! damn you lolRenamedsin said:What happens if Pinochkio says: my nose will grow now!