Sign in to follow this  
Jonathan

The Eggheads’ Dilemma Conundrum Paradox

Recommended Posts

 

45179589715_0f48ff7984_b.jpg

Line m is parallel to line n. Transversal p intesects lines m and n. Angle 1 is equal to angles 4, 5, and 8. Angle 2 is equal to angles 3 and 6, but not to 7. Angle 7 should be equal to 2, 3, and 6, but it‘s not! It’s a paradox! Resolve the paradox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

 

45179589715_0f48ff7984_b.jpg

Line m is parallel to line n. Transversal p intesects lines m and n. Angle 1 is equal to angles 4, 5, and 8. Angle 2 is equal to angles 3 and 6, but not to 7. Angle 7 should be equal to 2, 3, and 6, but it‘s not! It’s a paradox! Resolve the paradox.

Angle 2 is equal to ANGLE 7, not 7.

Angle 7 is equal to ANGLES 2,3, and 6, but is not equal to 2,3 or 6, as asserted.

Resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Angle 2 is equal to ANGLE 7, not 7.

Angle 7 is equal to ANGLES 2,3, and 6, but is not equal to 2,3 or 6, as asserted.

Resolved.

Oooh, you're close, but not quite there. You have to accept the premise of the dilemma conundrum paradox where your attempted solution denies or alters the premise.

You really are close, but you have to egghead it just a little more.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hint: Remember that it's an eggheaded thought experiment, so the idea is to think not consistently in terms of reality, but to accept contradictions and throw in just the right amount of nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

45179589715_0f48ff7984_b.jpg

Line m is parallel to line n. Transversal p intesects lines m and n. Angle 1 is equal to angles 4, 5, and 8. Angle 2 is equal to angles 3 and 6, but not to 7. Angle 7 should be equal to 2, 3, and 6, but it‘s not! It’s a paradox! Resolve the paradox.

what paradox?  angles 1, 5, 4, 8  are equal  and angles 2, 6, 3, 7 are equal.    <7=<6=<2=<3    what is the problem <7 = <6  by alternative angles  < 3 = <2 by alternate angles   <7 = < 3 by corresponding angles, <2 = <6 by corresponding angles.   A similar proof applies to  angles 1,4, 5, 8.  No paradox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

what paradox?  angles 1, 5, 4, 8  are equal  and angles 2, 6, 3, 7 are equal.    <7=<6=<2=<3    what is the problem <7 = <6  by alternative angles  < 3 = <2 by alternate angles   <7 = < 3 by corresponding angles, <2 = <6 by corresponding angles.   A similar proof applies to  angles 1,4, 5, 8.  No paradox.

Bob, this isn't a regular problem. It's a special type of problem. It's an egghead's thought experiment, which means that it contains a premise which contradicts reality, but we are to ignore that fact, and instead, we are to accept it for the sake of argument, and make ourselves believe that it doesn't contradict reality, all for the sake of having the fun of pondering "solutions" which don't actually solve anything. The goal is to attempt to show others how brilliant we believe we are by arguing why our own preferred non-solution is more brilliant than theirs.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Line m is parallel to line n. Transversal p intesects lines m and n. Angle 1 is equal to angles 4, 5, and 8. Angle 2 is equal to angles 3 and 6, but not to 7. Angle 7 should be equal to 2, 3, and 6, but it‘s not! It’s a paradox! Resolve the paradox.

Non-Euclidean geometry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It =don’t feed the bears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

45179589715_0f48ff7984_b.jpg

Line m is parallel to line n. Transversal p intesects lines m and n. Angle 1 is equal to angles 4, 5, and 8. Angle 2 is equal to angles 3 and 6, but not to 7. Angle 7 should be equal to 2, 3, and 6, but it‘s not! It’s a paradox! Resolve the paradox.

I will make a feeble attempt at this.

Lines m,n,p are on some land. There is a hill in angle 7. Because of the hill, the line (not drawn) connecting line n and line p in angle 7 is longer than it would normally be. Then angle 7 calculates (by trigonometry) to larger than normal.A valley would have the same effect.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2018 at 11:02 AM, Jonathan said:

 

45179589715_0f48ff7984_b.jpg

Line m is parallel to line n. Transversal p intesects lines m and n. Angle 1 is equal to angles 4, 5, and 8. Angle 2 is equal to angles 3 and 6, but not to 7. Angle 7 should be equal to 2, 3, and 6, but it‘s not! It’s a paradox! Resolve the paradox.

I have it!

The diagram represents REALITY.

Angle 2 is equal to angle 7, when you correctly IDENTIFY reality.

REALITY doesn’t do shoulds, so angle 7 being inequal to 2,3 and 6 just IS, again REALITY.

All of it is just REALITY, so there is no paradox to resolve.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

I have it!

The diagram represents REALITY.

Angle 2 is equal to angle 7, when you correctly IDENTIFY reality.

REALITY doesn’t do shoulds, so angle 7 being inequal to 2,3 and 6 just IS, again REALITY.

All of it is just REALITY, so there is no paradox to resolve.

Jon,

You captured the essence of taking an axiomatic concept to the realm of transcendent faith perfectly. 

After all, A is B.

Except when it's A.

And I mean it.

:) 

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

I have it!

The diagram represents REALITY.

Angle 2 is equal to angle 7, when you correctly IDENTIFY reality.

REALITY doesn’t do shoulds, so angle 7 being inequal to 2,3 and 6 just IS, again REALITY.

All of it is just REALITY, so there is no paradox to resolve.

You're doing well in adopting Merlinian-Tonian 'Jectivism, and you're 99 percent there, but we can't skip that last one percent.

To completely solve the problem, you have to get over your old method of thinking, and stop imposing or inducing things where they don't belong. For example, why have introduced line n in relation to angle 7? That line applies only to the other angles. It was never intended to be there for angle 7, so don't let people fool you with their hawrgwarsh con scam art into accepting its existence.

Understand? Now, if you see reality clearly, the solution is quite simple yet elegant, no?

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t beleive you rejected my resolution!

You are such a concretist.

Micahel says I nailed, so I guess that’s two-to-one against the scam artist.

I’ll be back in six months and we’ll start all over again, ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about your other crutch, p? You can’t function without it.

Maybe I’ll hack Michael’s site and improve the “dilemma,” how about that, maybe that’s how I come back in six months - and then you won’t have your crutch! It’s all hargwarsh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no spoon!

Remember the bald kid in  “The Matrix”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this