Logic test

[Wiccan_Child]

In the encyclepedia from the early 1880ies or parahaps early 1920ies it said that that formula was in connection with witchcraft.

Do you know the name of it?

My guess is that this particluar formula induce repetative thoughts. "The devils repete your thoughts at the opera and rotate to them" is the actual meaning of the mentioned formula...

Is that a particularly common expression? Because I've never heard of it, Google's never heard of it, and I can't for the life of me understand it (even if 'repete' is meant to be 'repeat' or 'replete').

And also, your snow formula isn't as symmetric as phantom of the opera formula...

In what way is the Phantom of the Opera 'symmetric'? And how can an opera's 'symmetry' be compared to the 'symmetry' of a linguistic square? It's like comparing the taste of a joke ("That joke was in poor taste") to the taste of a mature cheese.

 

[Delphiki]

What does that even have to do at all with logic?

 

[Lillen]

Similarities usually comes with the IQ tests...

Sorry i don't know the name of it!! most of the information is outdated anyways... Now when i think of it - it was a lexicon parhaps... i found the series of book and this particular book (s-t) in a barn were a jew stored his inherited belongings. It was 10 years ago i saw it.

I just noticed the symmetry in the formula.

SATOR
AREPO
TENET
OPERA
ROTAS

But don't get hunged up on it, it tear your thoughts apart...

 

[Tinker Grey]

But the conclusion states that we are examining water. It doesn't say that we will conclude that a given sample of stuff is water iff it's water - it says that, when examining water, we'll forever conclude that said sample (which we know is water) is indeed water.

But that could clearly be wrong. If the sample of genuine H[sub]2[/sub]O goes through a faulty analyser, we would 'reveal' that the sample is oil - yet it really is water.

The test is basically saying "The truth of past and present experiments doesn't ensure the validity of future experiments", IMO.

Yeah. I came to a similar conclusion while away from the computer. As I noted in my first post, that is probably the trap of that question ... the logic of definition is not the same thing as deduction.

Found myself arguing with myself.

 

[Lillen]

You need to dare to think diffrently... 2.4.6.8.? whats next... the most simpliest answer would be 10. But answering 32 could be very creative if we look at it as a x^5 equation with 32 as the fift root...

 

[3sigma]

You need to dare to think diffrently... 2.4.6.8.? whats next... the most simpliest answer would be 10. But answering 32 could be very creative if we look at it as a x^5 equation with 32 as the fift root...

Six is not a power of two so your “creative” reasoning fails. For 32 to be the answer, you should have written: 2, 4, 8, 16…

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Six is not a power of two so your “creative” reasoning fails. For 32 to be the answer, you should have written: 2, 4, 8, 16…

She has a point though, given any series of numbers, you can say anything and create a function that fits that series.
Given 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, if I said the next is '314159', I'd be right - the numbers are the x-coordinates of the roots of the equation y(x) = (x-1)(x-2)(x-3)(x-4)(x-5)(x-6)(x-7)(x-8)(x-9)(x-314159).

Yes, I wish I'd picked a shorter series

 

[3sigma]

She has a point though, given any series of numbers, you can say anything and create a function that fits that series.

Well, yes… However, Lillen specifically stated that the reason for his (note the gender icon) “creative” answer of 32 was that it was the fifth power of x, implying that the series was powers of two and 32 was the next in the series. Actually, Lillen said that it was the fifth root, which makes even less sense, though it is unclear whether that is due to difficulties with English or mathematics. Even discounting that error, given the series: 2, 4, 6, 8, it is not reasonable to think they are powers of two and the next in the series is 32.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

100% but too scared to take the second one. /bites nails

 

[canukian]

80%.

all threem wrong i INTUITIVLY wanted to mark other that i did.

murder suspect, h2o and second crime-poverty.

 

[Lillen]

though it is unclear whether that is due to difficulties with English or mathematics

Both it was a long time ago i read math, and wiht root i mena how many times the curve cross the x axis... equations with x^5 involved cross the axis five times.

And i am just saying that answering "pot" on "hand is to glove as head is to ?" could be very creative!

 

[Red Gold]

SATOR
AREPO
TENET
OPERA
ROTAS


A old witch formula i found in a old encyclepedia. I would guess every similarity test are deduced from there...

it is a christian formula!

 

[pgp_protector]

14/15. Got caught on the very last one, the water one.

I'd argue that one.

a) Water is a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
b) Every observation or examination by microscope has confirmed this.

Conclusion
Therefore we can predict that every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition.

As they then try to claim something else LIKE Water (but not Water) might be made of something else other than H2O.

Invalid. The syllogism itself is invalid and can only be considered as a strong inductive argument and not deductive. It is the 'we can predict' part of the conclusion which comes from nowhere, so the argument is not strictly formal. There is an ongoing debate within philosophical circles as to whether water must conform to the molecule H2O. Some argue that it is logically possible for a substance to appear exactly as water and yet still be of a different chemical composition.