Is anyone else reminded of the thread with the plane on a treadmill?
[QUOTE=BaconDioxide;23317712]Is anyone else reminded of the thread with the plane on a treadmill?[/QUOTE]
What's the answer to that one, the plane WOULD take off, right?
[QUOTE=lettuce_head;23317632]I'm on the verge of figuring out where people are tripping up and why they're led to think it's himself.[/QUOTE]
Do it, and I'll show your post to my instructor. :v:
Alright, let's put the stamp on this thread.
[img]http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/271/itshisson.png[/img]
He's looking at his kid.
[QUOTE=lettuce_head;23317735]What's the answer to that one, the plane wouldn't take off, right?[/QUOTE]
Nah, the plane actually does take off. It's a trick question.
Of course, a stationary plane couldn't produce the lift required to take off. Everyone agrees on this, but the real question is whether it moves forward or not.
And it does. Because the jet engines push it. The treadmill is irrelevant.
The treadmill would only be relevant if the plane was a car with wings, because then all the motive power would be countered by the treadmill (terrible misuse of terminology but you get the idea)
Oh, you edited. Yeah, you're right.
[QUOTE=lettuce_head;23317735]What's the answer to that one, the plane WOULD take off, right?[/QUOTE]
I actually just saw the Mythbusters episode on this last night for the first time. It would take off, only because the engine/propeller/motion-causer is not on the runway like a car, but rather at the main body, and is not affected by the conveyor belt.
[QUOTE=jalb;23317745]Do it, and I'll show your post to my instructor. :v:[/QUOTE]
I give up, all I can think of is if you imagine holding a picture and saying "your father, is my father's son", and the person thinks "oh right, my father's son, that's me" so they think that it's them, they're feeling smart because they figured it out, and forget the part of "this man's [B]father[/B], is my father's son. so they think it's himself, or themself, without going back to figure it out properly.
[QUOTE=Detective P;23317805]I actually just saw the Mythbusters episode on this last night for the first time. It would take off, only because the engine/propeller/motion-causer is not on the runway like a car, but rather at the main body, and is not affected by the conveyor belt.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=90695&dateline=1272853733[/img]:respek:[img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=155620&dateline=1275688601[/img]
[QUOTE=lettuce_head;23317735]What's the answer to that one, the plane WOULD take off, right?[/QUOTE]
Yes.
[QUOTE=BaconDioxide;23317797]Nah, the plane actually does take off. It's a trick question.
Of course, a stationary plane couldn't produce the lift requires to take off. Everyone agrees on this, but the real question is whether it moves forward or not.
And it does. Because the jet engines push it. The treadmill is irrelevant.
The treadmill would only be relevant if the plane was a car with wings, because then all the motive power would be countered by the treadmill (terrible misuse of terminology but you get the idea)
Oh, you edited. Yeah, you're right.[/QUOTE]
exactly, I always thought "the wheels aren't the thrust, so the treadmill is irrelevant" That one is easy (I know I edited my post but that was a typing mistake)
And I saw the mythbuster's episode too :D
This is how i saw it.
Please tell me where i went wrong if i'm wrong.
[IMG]http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f48/guruworshipper/thismanriddle.jpg[/IMG]
I do philosophy at University, so i should actually be good at this.
Thus he is looking at a picture of his son. He is looking at a picture of his son, but he is discussing himself.
The picture is of his son, but he is talking about himself, in other words. The question asks who the picture contains, not who is being spoken of.
Just show them my thing:
[quote]No, Stephen is 'this man', so 'this man's father' is Stephen's father'. 'Is my father's son' is 'is Stephen's father's son.'
'Stephen's father is Stephen's father's son.'[/quote]
Obviously this wouldn't work.
Replace 'this man' with 'Stephen's son':
Stephen's son's father is Stephen's son's father's son.
So...
Stephen is Stephen's son.
Wait.
Did I just break something or did I just mess that up?
[QUOTE=Benf199105;23317876]This is how i saw it.
Please tell me where i went wrong if i'm wrong.
[IMG]http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f48/guruworshipper/thismanriddle.jpg[/IMG]
I do philosophy at University, so i should actually be good at this.
Thus he is looking at a picture of his son.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is correct, if 1 is Stephen's son
[QUOTE=Benf199105;23317876]This is how i saw it
[IMG]http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f48/guruworshipper/thismanriddle.jpg[/IMG]
[/QUOTE]
wow I'm fucking glad I don't see things your way lol
[editline]02:22AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Detective P;23317904]Just show them my thing:
Obviously this wouldn't work.
Replace 'this man' with 'Stephen's son':
Stephen's son's father is Stephen's son's father's son.
So...
Stephen is Stephen's son.
Wait.
Did I just break something or did I just mess that up?[/QUOTE]
uh, pretty sure you substituted "Stephen's son" instead of "Stephen".
Same thing though. Leads to a logical fallacy.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;23317908]Yes, that is correct, if 1 is Stephen's son[/QUOTE]
I need to sit and work through this.
THE MAN IN THE PHOTOS FATHER IS MY FATHERS SON.
THUS THE MAN IN THE PHOTO IS PERSON A, THE FATHER OF PERSON IN THE PHOTO IS PERSON B.
A's father is B's father's son.
B's father is C.
A's father is C's son.
Thus its B.
But, the point is not who it ends up as, but who the picture is of.
B is looking at A, and thats how the chain of conversation starts. B is looking at A, and B is A's father, so if we call B Stephen and A Stephens Son, then Stephen is looking at Stephens Son.
I think i'm right. fuck.
[QUOTE=Benf199105;23317961]There is an ambiguity then. We take it that he is either looking at a photo of himself or his son. Theres an ambiguity.[/QUOTE]
nope, no there isn't, nuh-uh
Can't be bothered to explain again. I'm going to bed, it's fucking two in the morning
[QUOTE=BaconDioxide;23317909]wow I'm fucking glad I don't see things your way lol
[editline]02:22AM[/editline]
uh, pretty sure you substituted "Stephen's son" instead of "Stephen".
Same thing though. Leads to a logical fallacy.[/QUOTE]
Whatever.
OP, just show her my original thing I quoted, that would show that it wouldn't work if 'this man' was Stephen. I think.
[QUOTE=Benf199105;23317961]There is an ambiguity then. We take it that he is either looking at a photo of himself or his son.[/QUOTE]
No there isn't. Your philosophy class sucks balls
[img]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png[/img]
so relevant to me
good fucking night :v:
I don't think it helps that it's 2:30am but my head hurts thinking about this now.
[QUOTE=BaconDioxide;23317975]nope, no there isn't, nuh-uh
Can't be bothered to explain again. I'm going to bed, it's fucking two in the morning[/QUOTE]
read the edit
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;23318021]No there isn't. Your philosophy class sucks balls[/QUOTE]
read the edit
If you type in "stephen father's son" on google this thread is on the first page.
For the lulz, I uploaded the piece of paper we (my mom and I) used to try and explain our logic to one another:
[img_thumb]http://www.upurload.com/files/d7ec0f1202594a1782a8f8c4de662fbb.jpg[/img_thumb]
(thumb'd for 5 megapixel camera)
[QUOTE=BaconDioxide;23317833][img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=90695&dateline=1272853733[/img][img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=155620&dateline=1275688601[/img]
what the fuck where's the emote for hi5 gone
OH WELL[/QUOTE]
Here
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=90695&dateline=1272853733[/img]:respek:[img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=155620&dateline=1275688601[/img]
or
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=90695&dateline=1272853733[/img]:hf:[img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=155620&dateline=1275688601[/img]
We awesome.
Furthermore.
The 'my fathers son' part obviously is himself as he is an only child.
So rewrite the statement as.
That mans father is me.
So it's his son!
[QUOTE=Benf199105;23317961]I need to sit and work through this.
THE MAN IN THE PHOTOS FATHER IS MY FATHERS SON.
THUS THE MAN IN THE PHOTO IS PERSON A, THE FATHER OF PERSON IN THE PHOTO IS PERSON B.
A's father is B's father's son.
B's father is C.
A's father is C's son.
Thus its B.
But, the point is not who it ends up as, but who the picture is of.
B is looking at A, and thats how the chain of conversation starts. B is looking at A, and B is A's father, so if we call B Stephen and A Stephens Son, then Stephen is looking at Stephens Son.
I think i'm right. fuck.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=23316862&postcount=31[/url]
[QUOTE=Benf199105;23318123]Furthermore.
The 'my fathers son' part obviously is himself as he is an only child.
So rewrite the statement as.
That mans father is me.
So it's his son![/QUOTE]
dun dun derr
[QUOTE=Benf199105;23317961]I need to sit and work through this.
THE MAN IN THE PHOTOS FATHER IS MY FATHERS SON.
THUS THE MAN IN THE PHOTO IS PERSON A, THE FATHER OF PERSON IN THE PHOTO IS PERSON B.
A's father is B's father's son.
B's father is C.
A's father is C's son.
Thus its B.
But, the point is not who it ends up as, but who the picture is of.
B is looking at A, and thats how the chain of conversation starts. B is looking at A, and B is A's father, so if we call B Stephen and A Stephens Son, then Stephen is looking at Stephens Son.
I think i'm right. fuck.[/QUOTE]
yeah that's right, I think, people trip up because they end up on person B (stephen) and then wrongly say that B is in the photo because they're confused and don't bother rethinking it.
[QUOTE=BaconDioxide;23318154]dun dun derr[/QUOTE]
Fucking 2.30am riddles. Fuck you all.
In other news, i'm going to bed.
[QUOTE=lettuce_head;23318176]yeah that's right, I think, people trip up because they end up on person B (stephen) and then wrongly say that B is in the photo because they're confused and don't bother rethinking it.[/QUOTE]
I just forgot the question. I was looking at where it ended up, not where it started. The question asks who the photo is of, not who is the father of who and such. Its late.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.