Amirite?
now you can be right wherever you are.

On the subject of paradoxes ..Can God create a stone so heavy even he can't lift it... you can give an answer or list one of your favorite paradoxes
says Surfcrab on Mar 27th 17 (#807234)

Comments

I guess the answer depends on if he goes to the gym a lot
says Surfcrab on Mar 27th 17 (#2531867)
Reply | +3 | 3

I really have nothing more to say on the matter thank you very much
says Surfcrab on Mar 27th 17 (#2531871)
Reply | +3 | 3

Can you fold an object that is unfoldable?
says VicZinc on Mar 27th 17 (#2531877)
Reply | +4 | 3

Well I would believe that its atoms can be considered folded in layers no?
says Surfcrab on Mar 28th 17 (#2531916)
Reply | +4 | 4

Maybe...
says VicZinc on Mar 28th 17 (#2531927)
Reply | +3 | 3

Mash potato you can't fold mash it just makes a big f-ing mess. (nrd)乂^◡^乂
says Ada on Mar 28th 17 (#2531941)
Reply | +2 | 2

Way to go, ADA! Ha!
says Will_Janitor on Mar 28th 17 (#2532290)
Reply | +1 | 1

Ada science. (jolly)(hehe)乂º◡^乂
says Ada on Mar 28th 17 (#2532293)
Reply | +1 | 1

Why would he want to?
says JustJimColo on Mar 27th 17 (#2531885)
Reply | +4 | 3

I'll ask him that for you when I'm dead
says Surfcrab on Mar 28th 17 (#2531917)
Reply | +3 | 3

Can something be sliced so thin it only has one side?
says Surfcrab on Mar 28th 17 (#2531919)
Reply | +4 | 4

http://data.amirite.net/user_im...9bac0a6fb5.jpg
says Bozette on Mar 28th 17 (#2532016)
Reply | +3 | 3

This one's a killer hon. .. what did you get for an answer?
says Surfcrab on Mar 30th 17 (#2533827)
Reply | +1 | 1

Ya up on your geometry, hon? https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/paradox/
says Bozette on Mar 30th 17 (#2533870)
Reply | +1 | 1

I definitely get the gist I looked at what you sent period there's also one would a chocolate bar if you cut it a certain way after eating one piece you can make the entire bar again.. that's what I thought what you posted was akin to because I was going to actually say maybe the missing Square is borrowing a slight amount of area from each box..in other words if you had a undetectable stripe of one color edging all the other colors to make it vanish
says Surfcrab on Mar 30th 17 (#2533903)
Reply | +1 | 1

http://data.amirite.net/user_im...d2d5f87021.jpg
says Bozette on Mar 30th 17 (#2533932)
Reply | 0 | 0

There's an easy way to see that the lower figure contains an extra square cm. In both cases, the entire colored figure is drawn on a 5 x 13 cm rectangle of area 65 sq cm. If you work out the blank area OUTSIDE the first colored figure, you get 12 + 5 + 16 = 33 sq cm, so the figure itself must contain 65 - 33 = 32 sq cm. Doing the same for the outside of the lower colored figure, you get 12 + 5 + 15 = 32 sq cm, so the figure itself must contain 65 - 32 = 33 sq cm, one more than in the first case. http://data.amirite.net/user_im...91bcc7da9c.jpg
says Thinkerbell on Apr 20th 17 (#2550389)
Reply | +1 | 1

The lower figure contains exactly the same amount of blue, red, green, and purple areas, it is just taking up more space because the colored areas were moved and one squares worth of uncolored space is now located inside the colored area, instead of outside.
says Bozette on Apr 21st 17 (#2550470)
Reply | +1 | 1

Yes, that happens because the (entire) colored area is not a true triangle in either case. The slope of the green triangle is a little steeper than that of the red one. It is a packing problem. In the first case, the 32 colored squares pack together perfectly with no gaps to form the upper pseudo-triangle; In the second, the 32 colored squares pack together with one blank square left over. That's the 33rd square of the lower pseudo-triangle.
says Thinkerbell on Apr 21st 17 (#2550481)
Reply | 0 | 0

I know why it is tbat wau, even supplied a link explaining it.
says Bozette on Apr 21st 17 (#2550507)
Reply | +1 | 1

Sure, but the link then proceeded to show that the extra area was 1 sq cm by a needlessy complicated calculation.
says Thinkerbell on Apr 21st 17 (#2550532)
Reply | 0 | 0

Whatwver, Thinkerbell. It was an accurate explanation.
says Bozette on Apr 21st 17 (#2550540)
Reply | +1 | 1

Ploddingly accurate? Yes. Elegantly simple? No. (biggrin)
says Thinkerbell on Apr 21st 17 (#2550570)
Reply | 0 | 0

I am sorry, Thinkerbell, but I didn't find your explanation "elegantly simple". Have a nice night.
says Bozette on Apr 21st 17 (#2550587)
Reply | +1 | 1

You didn't? Gee, you only needed simple arithmetic to follow my solution. Just addition, subtraction and multiplication of integers. The link's proof was so complicated, Thomas even had to leave out steps, in the interests of "sparing you the arithmetic" of adding and subtracting quantities raised to the fourth power and then taking the square root of the result, but I guess you did all that in your head. (biggrin) http://data.amirite.net/user_im...986a173e5d.jpg
says Thinkerbell on Apr 21st 17 (#2550601)
Reply | 0 | 0

Simply counting the squares does not explain the why of the illusion.
says Bozette on Apr 21st 17 (#2550859)
Reply | +1 | 1

The why of the illusion was obvious from the beginning... the colored pseudo-triangle can't be a real triangle. The vertical and horizontal sides are straight, so the hypotenuse must be bent. I'm talking about proving that the extra blank area is exactly 1 sq cm. The link used a sledge hammer to crack a peanut. http://data.amirite.net/user_im...986a173e5d.jpg I once had an algebra teacher that told us not to make problems more complicated than they needed to be. That was wise advice then, and remains so today.
says Thinkerbell on Apr 21st 17 (#2550990)
Reply | 0 | 0

Were it obvious to everyone, it wouldn't be a paradox, now would it? I agree with your teacher and that the link went further into the math than was necessary. Your original statement, however, was an oversimplification that still didn't explain the paradox to those it was not obvious to. Have a nice weekend, Thinkerbell.
says Bozette on Apr 21st 17 (#2551139)
Reply | 0 | 0

There are easily-resolved momentary paradoxes (like this "triangle" illusion) and there are also difficult paradoxes (such as those posed by quantum mechanics) that even the world's greatest physicists have not yet been able to resolve after 100 years. Here is an old paradox, akin in some ways to the "triangle." Three traveling salesmen, in order to save money, agree to share a room at a cheap hotel. The desk clerk tells them the overnight rate for the room is $30, and collects $10 from each salesman. A short time later, the clerk realizes he made a mistake, that he should only have charged $25 for the particular room he gave the salesmen. So the clerk gives the bellhop $5 in singles and sends him to the room with instructions to give the $5 to the salesmen. But the bellhop is dishonest, giving only $3 to the salesmen ($1 to each), and keeping $2 for himself. Now comes the question: Each salesman made a net payment of $9, or $27 total. The bellhop has $2. What happened to the remaining dollar of the original $30?
says Thinkerbell on Apr 22nd 17 (#2551664)
Reply | 0 | 0

This statement is false.
says Carmo on Mar 28th 17 (#2532033)
Reply | +2 | 1

Was a question, i believe
says Carla on Mar 28th 17 (#2532178)
Reply | +3 | 2

The youth of the sixties tried so hard to change the world Why are they now trying so hard to change it back?
says Carla on Mar 28th 17 (#2532179)
Reply | +4 | 4

Cause they all live in northern CA? :)
says Will_Janitor on Mar 28th 17 (#2532294)
Reply | 0 | 1

The answers you seek my dear are in University
says Surfcrab on Mar 30th 17 (#2533825)
Reply | +1 | 1

Please explain.
says Carla on Mar 30th 17 (#2533961)
Reply | 0 | 0

The Omnipotent Paradox dates back to the 12th century to Averroës who asked, “Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even they could not lift it?” This would be like seeking an answer to the question, “What would happen if an irresistible force were to meet an immovable object?” This statement seems to make sense at first, but upon closer examination, we must ask if there is a force that is irresistible, and if there was, then there can be no immovable object. Both cannot be true because if an irresistible force does exist, then there cannot be an immovable object. The point is an object cannot in principle be immovable if a force exists that can in principle move it. The answer is NO He cannot "do" that. Note that there is no limit however to the size of a rock that He can create, and there is no limit to the size of a rock that He can lift. Thus the question - answered in the negative - involves no limitation on God's prerogatives; if answered in the positive however does. The whole thing is a play on words.
says Budwick on Mar 28th 17 (#2532198)
Reply | +3 | 4

Yes but God could add material to the Rock and limit himself to how much material he can lift without wearing a safety harness
says Surfcrab on Mar 30th 17 (#2533904)
Reply | 0 | 0

What's your point Surf?
says Budwick on Mar 30th 17 (#2533905)
Reply | +1 | 0

Jokingly the point is we don't know if God has a limit to his own powers. When youman Ben's say he can do anything it might just pertain to what we consider anything no?
says Surfcrab on Mar 30th 17 (#2533909)
Reply | 0 | 0

A joking point? You don't know about the power of God. I don't know youman Ben or what he has said.
says Budwick on Mar 30th 17 (#2533918)
Reply | 0 | 0

That was a talk text error but let's stop beating this dead horse
says Surfcrab on Mar 30th 17 (#2533925)
Reply | 0 | 0

OK, let's. Surf, Your disbelief is not a license to berate others for their belief. You don't take God seriously; I understand. I do - understand?
says Budwick on Mar 30th 17 (#2534143)
Reply | 0 | 0

No, but he did need a rest on the 7th day after the creation........
says voxlug on Mar 28th 17 (#2532201)
Reply | +2 | 1

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfe...75298608-5.jpg
says Will_Janitor on Mar 28th 17 (#2532298)
Reply | +4 | 4

This puppet is false
says Surfcrab on Mar 30th 17 (#2533826)
Reply | +1 | 1

Can God make everybody believe in him if God doesn't exist?
says DW2 on Apr 21st 17 (#2550594)
Reply | 0 | 1

You beat me to that one!
says AliceD on Apr 21st 17 (#2550692)
Reply | 0 | 1

I usually do. :) :)
says DW2 on Apr 22nd 17 (#2551529)
Reply | 0 | 0

That's just silly. The bible mentions several things God can't do. For instance, He can't lie and He can't change.
says SmartAZ on Apr 21st 17 (#2551212)
Reply | 0 | 0

Add A Comment
If you would like to leave a comment, please login or create an account.