Jonathan Posted November 28, 2018 Share Posted November 28, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted November 28, 2018 Share Posted November 28, 2018 15 minutes 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted November 28, 2018 Author Share Posted November 28, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted November 28, 2018 Share Posted November 28, 2018 I won’t stop trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted November 28, 2018 Author Share Posted November 28, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted November 28, 2018 Share Posted November 28, 2018 Ok, that’s going to help. I’m on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 16 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted November 29, 2018 Author Share Posted November 29, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 It =don’t feed the bears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 22 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 On 11/28/2018 at 11:02 AM, 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted December 5, 2018 Author Share Posted December 5, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted December 5, 2018 Author Share Posted December 5, 2018 Oh yeah? Well, hawrgrwarsh! When you come back in six months, don't bring line n with you as a crutch to induce on angle 7! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 There is no spoon! Remember the bald kid in “The Matrix”? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now