Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 172 of 172
Like Tree26Likes

Thread: Does quantum mechanics violate the laws of logic?

  1. #101  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Dywyddyr 's example does not show this wrong at any way
    Yet you stated that I was "absolutely correct".

    [/QUOTE]
    I said it for your particular statement not for everything you posted
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Originally Posted by RAJ_K
    Dywyddyr 's example does not show this wrong at any way

    I am again saying your example is not logical
    So it does not show a true logic can violate other true logic
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Originally Posted by RAJ_K
    Do you mean earth planet has no length, width or height at any sense




    That's NOT what was said.

    That was not what was said , but much like this is said that is unrelated to main topic
    Main question is yet , what would be around space
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Originally Posted by RAJ_K
    Dywyddyr 's example does not show this wrong at any way

    I am again saying your example is not logical
    So it does not show a true logic can violate other true logic
    Then why did you say "absolutely right"?
    Or did you screw up on the quote?
    If you do disgree then please show, logically 1, where I am incorrect.

    1 And I do mean logically: don't just make (more) unsupported claims 2.
    2 Because we all know how good you are at that.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Do you mean earth planet has no length, width or height at any sense (although this is not related to topic)
    The surface (*) of the earth has no length or width (because it has no edges). And it is related to the topic, because you are using this as the basis of a "logical" argument.

    What can be around space if it is limited ?
    Nothing. The universe/space is all there is. There is nothing outside. There is no outside.

    When you say this is not "logical" you just mean you do not understand it.

    (*) Note: that is the surface of the earth. The SURFACE.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Well... since we're on the subject of logic:
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    If there is no evidence to enable us pick one above the other,then both must be seen as equal.
    I'd say that's incorrect.
    Lacking evidence either way does not, automatically, assign 50/ 50 probability.

    If I recall we had much the same with... er, someone, in the last month or so, regarding the existence of god (or not).
    Their claim was that, since we couldn't prove it either way, it MUST be 50/ 50. Which is blatantly incorrect.
    I said absolutely for upper Quote that was exactly what was in my mind
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    I said absolutely for upper Quote that was exactly what was in my mind
    Ah, so not only are you devoid of logic you're also incapable of quoting a post correctly.
    Got it.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548

    Nothing. The universe/space is all there is. There is nothing outside. There is no outside.

    When you say this is not "logical" you just mean you do not understand it.
    Even there is nothing there can be space
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    I'd say that's incorrect.
    Lacking evidence either way does not, automatically, assign 50/ 50 probability.

    If I recall we had much the same with... er, someone, in the last month or so, regarding the existence of god (or not).
    Their claim was that, since we couldn't prove it either way, it MUST be 50/ 50. Which is blatantly incorrect. These are your statements aobut which I said it right
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Space is not nothing.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Space is not nothing.
    It is not nothing
    But it can exist even if there is nothing physical existence
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    I'd say that's incorrect.
    Lacking evidence either way does not, automatically, assign 50/ 50 probability.

    If I recall we had much the same with... er, someone, in the last month or so, regarding the existence of god (or not).
    Their claim was that, since we couldn't prove it either way, it MUST be 50/ 50. Which is blatantly incorrect.
    These are your statements aobut which I said it right
    Post #106, also by you. directly contradicts that.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Space is not nothing.
    It is not nothing
    But it can exist even if there is nothing physical existence
    What?
    Space is NOT "nothing".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Raj, factoring in your pathetic understanding of physics (or logic or anything else) your posts in this thread are piss poor even for you. Please keep your nonsense to yourself until you get an education and know the basics of what you are talking about.
    In spite of just directing that everyone can
    show what is wrong and right
    If cannot stop just direction
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    I'd say that's incorrect.
    Lacking evidence either way does not, automatically, assign 50/ 50 probability.

    If I recall we had much the same with... er, someone, in the last month or so, regarding the existence of god (or not).
    Their claim was that, since we couldn't prove it either way, it MUST be 50/ 50. Which is blatantly incorrect.
    These are your statements aobut which I said it right
    Post #106, also by you. directly contradicts that.
    It does not
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Space is not nothing.
    It is not nothing
    But it can exist even if there is nothing physical existence
    What?
    Space is NOT "nothing".
    OK even space is not noghint

    If there is nothing, can not space there ?
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    In spite of just directing that everyone can
    show what is wrong and right
    If cannot stop just direction
    I think you just set a new record in incoherent incomprehensibility.
    PhDemon likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    In spite of just directing that everyone can
    show what is wrong and right
    If cannot stop just direction
    This makes as much sense as you "logic". None whatsoever. At first I thought it was a language problem, now I'm pretty sure it's a brain problem. It's obvious you prefer closed-minded ignorance to facts, you have no clue and don't want to know anything that doesn't agree with what you already believe. This is "anti-science", on a science forum this means you are essentially either a troll or a fool. I can't be bothered to work out which but I wish you'd stop polluting the forum with your collossally ignorant drivel.
    If anyone cannot show how it is wrong
    He choose like you simply say that it is wrong
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    If anyone cannot show how it is wrong
    He choose like you simply say that it is wrong
    I have shown how it is wrong.
    YOU are the one making unsupported claims.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post

    What can be around space if it is limited ?
    Nothing ? even if it is nothing it is yet space
    Hi RAJ,

    Just going back to your question: "What can be around space if it is limited ?
    Nothing ? even if it is nothing it is yet space"

    The actual answer is we just don't know what is beyond space, all space lumped together we call the universe, what we can see of the universe is approximately 93 billion light years across (diameter), beyond this we really are purely into the realm of the unknown.

    We don't know whether the universe is bounded or unbounded, infinite or not beyond what we can see, but what we do know is it is expanding, though again into what is another of those questions as yet we simply cannot answer.
    JonG and RAJ_K like this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Junior anticorncob28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nebraska, USA
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by anticorncob28 View Post
    If a conditional statement is true, then its contrapositive is also true Only holds for a deterministic universe, which the quantum world is not.
    How can a conditional statement be true but not its contrapositive? In a non-deterministic universe, it is going to be pretty hard to find a conditional statement that is 100% true, but if you find one, it is the same as its contrapositive. Can you give me an example or something?
    Examples are easy to find in ordinary life. If object X is an automobile factory, and object Y was manufactured by object X, then object Y is an automobile.

    Take that logic backwards and it breaks. If object Y is an automobile, it does not therefore follow that object Y was manufactured by object X. Object Y could have been manufactured in another automobile factory.

    Some logical chains only work in one direction. Take them backwards and you can't draw any conclusions at all.

    Or do you mean something else by "contrapositive"

    If object X is a non-automobile factory, and object Y was manufactured by object X, then object Y is not an automobile.

    Yeah that works. How does QM fail that version of the test, though?
    You either don't know what a contrapositive is, or you weren't thinking clearly, or I didn't understand what you said. All you have demonstrated is that if a statement is true, then its converse is not necessarily true. There are plenty of statements that are true but not their converses, even in a deterministic universe. What I am asking is how a statement can be true, but failed when the statements are reversed AND negated, i.e., the contrapositive. The last part of your statement fits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    If anyone cannot show how it is wrong
    He choose like you simply say that it is wrong
    I have shown how it is wrong.
    YOU are the one making unsupported claims.
    You are unable to show me wrong

    What example you gave against "a true logic cannot violate other true logic"
    First point of your statement

    1. It cannot be in last cup as this will not make surprise ,if we reached 5th cup & then eliminate last cup

    It is not logical, or false logic

    When we reached 5cup , this means we know well about the the 5 cups out of 6 cups and
    It is not 6th cup that will make surprise , it is our absence of knowledge that will make surprise

    Note: It will not even make surprise even if it is in 1st cup and you have knowledge that ball is not in last 5 cups.

    Your example does not present "True Logic"
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    You are unable to show me wrong
    Unsupported claim, again.

    What example you gave against "a true logic cannot violate other true logic"
    Erroneous claim.

    First point of your statement
    1. It cannot be in last cup as this will not make surprise ,if we reached 5th cup & then eliminate last cup
    It is not logical, or false logic
    When we reached 5cup , this means we know well about the the 5 cups out of 6 cups and
    It is not 6th cup that will make surprise , it is our absence of knowledge that will make surprise
    If we have already turned over the first 5 cups then the ball can ONLY be under the 6th. If it can only be there then there is no "absence of knowledge".
    Therefore it cannot be a surprise.
    Please try to think.

    Your example does not present "True Logic"
    Since all you have presented so far is complete failure to grasp the example (maybe because understanding what is written would wreck your claim) then you still haven't refuted the example.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

    First point of your statement
    1. It cannot be in last cup as this will not make surprise ,if we reached 5th cup & then eliminate last cup
    It is not logical, or false logic
    When we reached 5cup , this means we know well about the the 5 cups out of 6 cups and
    It is not 6th cup that will make surprise , it is our absence of knowledge that will make surprise
    If we have already turned over the first 5 cups then the ball can ONLY be under the 6th. If it can only be there then there is no "absence of knowledge".
    Therefore it cannot be a surprise.
    Yes I am saying the same thing
    It cannot be in 6th cup not because it is 6 cup but because you assume we have knowledge of first 5cup
    That completely deletes surprise
    If we have knowlege of any 5 cups like 1,2,4,5,6we also know what is 3rd cup and third cup would not make surprice
    You are making it equal even if we do not have knowledge of 1,2,4,5,6 yet it cannot be in 3rd cup
    that is completely wrong
    Your statement does not give true logic
    and show nothing just meaning words
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    What can be around space if it is limited ?
    Nothing ? even if it is nothing it is yet space
    Hi RAJ,

    Just going back to your question: "What can be around space if it is limited ?
    Nothing ? even if it is nothing it is yet space"

    The actual answer is we just don't know what is beyond space, all space lumped together we call the universe, what we can see of the universe is approximately 93 billion light years across (diameter), beyond this we really are purely into the realm of the unknown.

    We don't know whether the universe is bounded or unbounded, infinite or not beyond what we can see, but what we do know is it is expanding, though again into what is another of those questions as yet we simply cannot answer.
    No doubt , we do not have experimentally proof whether space is limited or unlimited and we can not guaranty about the validity of final answer.

    But we do not assign every thing 50:50 chances based on our current knowledge ,logic and reasoning .

    Logically we cannot assign 50% chances to limited space
    It is valid as per reasoning and current knowledge to assign much more value to the unlimited space. Like 60:30, 80 :20 or any other as per our current knowledge, reasoning and logic
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Yes I am saying the same thing
    It cannot be in 6th cup not because it is 6 cup but because you assume we have knowledge of first 5cup
    That completely deletes surprise
    If we have knowlege of any 5 cups like 1,2,4,5,6we also know what is 3rd cup and third cup would not make surprice
    You are making it equal even if we do not have knowledge of 1,2,4,5,6 yet it cannot be in 3rd cup
    that is completely wrong
    Your statement does not give true logic
    and show nothing just meaning words
    Still grasping at straws I see.
    You persist in making vague hand-wavy claims - as opposed to carefully delineated logic - and then supposing that you've (somehow) shown the error.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    It is valid as per reasoning and current knowledge to assign much more value to the unlimited space.
    Why?
    You have, so far, failed utterly to present ANY reasoning 1 or reference to current knowledge to even support the idea of "unlimited space".

    Like 60:30, 80 :20 or any other as per our current knowledge, reasoning and logic
    Sheer bullshit - you have absolutely no way of assigning probabilities.
    As you have tacitly admitted by using such generalised values.


    1 Argument from incredulity is not classed as "reasoning".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    am sorry mr Duck for not realising that you were the one who posted that impotant experiment.i'd try better next time.

    Now at my first try on the six cup experiement i noted that if we were ever told that the ball was under any cup before we started looking,then finding the ball in any cup will not surprise us.because it was excatly noted that we would find the ball underneath one cup.

    if however(Duck permit me to expand the experiement)there was seven similar cups,that had the ball placed under one of them and all were mixed,and one cup was picked out randomly.
    if we are told that if we check the six remaining cups,there is a chance that we would find the ball in one.

    then the above system will always produce a surprise.for even if we have complete knowledge of the 1st 5cups,finding the ball under the 6th will still be a surprise. and if we have complete knowledge of all 6cups,then knowing that the ball is under the 7th cup that was randomly removed will still produce a surprise.
    Last edited by merumario; July 28th, 2013 at 01:44 AM.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    if however(Duck permit me to expand the experiement)there was seven similar cups,that had the ball placed under one of them and all were mixed,and one cup was picked out randomly.
    Regardless of the number of cups (providing it's more than 1 of course) checking at random will give the surprise.
    The logic relies on taking each cup in line sequentially.

    then the above system will always produce a surprise.for even if we have complete knowledge of the 1st 5cups,finding the ball under the 6th will still be a surprise. and if we have complete knowledge of all 6cups,then knowing that the ball is under the 7th cup that was randomly removed will still produce a surprise.
    No, if you've checked 6 out of 7 and not found the ball then it MUST be under the 7th - thus it won't be a surprise.

    I should note, for those haven't realised, that actually running the experiment WILL result in a surprise. Because, logically, there can't be a ball under any of them, then wherever it turns up (unless it does happen to be in the final cup) it will come unexpectedly.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Simply incorrect logic and does not match the truth
    Logically even if ball is at any six cups, its surprise depends on absence of knowlege
    And the absence of knowledge is there regardless of whether it's stated or not.
    Or do you disagree?
    Do you claim that, given a line of 6 cups and the assurance that a ball is under one of them, you know without looking which one has the ball?

    Your assumption if we know any five cups, is illogical for creating surprise
    What?
    Do you claim that, given 6 cups and the assurance that a ball is under one of them, when 5 cups are revealed not to hold the ball it WOULD be a surprise to find the ball under the remaining cup?

    And, one more time: And I notice that you have entirely neglected to address the simple logic showing the universe to be limited.
    Perhaps you could, while addressing this, also lay out for us the simple logic that the universe is NOT limited (since you have claimed that logic shows this is so).
    Your example is not logical and it shows how much reasoning capacity you have

    By stating your statements "logic" and make conclusion of this logic that ball cannot be in any cup to surprise is completely wrong
    But you will not understand I hope
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Your example is not logical and it shows how much reasoning capacity you have
    And another empty claim.
    Can you show where or how the logic is faulty?
    Can you rebut with anything other than empty repeated assertions?

    By stating your statements "logic" and make conclusion of this logic that ball cannot be in any cup to surprise is completely wrong
    But you will not understand I hope
    Then explain WHY the conclusion is incorrect.
    Can you at least do that?
    Please, instead of making repeated assertions (based on, so far as I can tell, nothing more than your "religious" insistence 1 that you must be right) show me the logic that highlights the error.

    1 Superbly illustrated by your blatantly false signature.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Duck,the epanded 6cups experiement will always produce surprise. why?

    even if we have complete knowledge of 6cups and we now know that it was in the cup that was randomly picked,it will also be a surprise.

    this surprise however will not be due to the initial probability of the system but will be due to the randomness at which the cup was picked.

    in other words after checking 6cups we become instantly surprise that the cup that was randomly picked actually had the ball underneath it.this can also be said that the surprise was based on the uncertainty of whether the cup will randomly picked had the ball on it.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
    We have a line of (let's say 6, but the actual number doesn't matter) inverted cups and I tell you that under one of the cups is a ball. And I further add that it will be a surprise as to which cup the ball is under - you may only work down the line, i.e. check a cup then check the next, then the next...

    Logic:
    If finding the ball will be a surprise then, logically, the ball cannot be under the final cup. Because, having turned over all of the other cups you'd know that there's nowhere else the ball can be.
    That eliminates cup number 6 as a possible candidate.
    This therefore means that cup number 5 is the last possible hiding place but it also means that, since, it's now the last cup and the previous caveat holds true, cup number 5 cannot hold the ball.
    Therefore number 4 is the last one and....
    Therefore, logically there can be no ball under any cup, because if there were it wouldn't be a surprise.

    The "experiment", of course, consists simply of actually having six cups, one of which has a ball inside it.
    Is it really logically there can be no ball under any cup, because if there were it wouldn't be a surprise ?

    Ball in any cup can be surprise until you have the knowledge of other 5cups.
    So it is completely illogical to eliminate any cup

    Simply " if you have knowledge of any five cups out of six- suppose last five , it will not surprise if ball is in first cup"

    Again simply "If you do not have knowledge of cups, ball in first cup to make surprise

    Your fault" You are equalizing both illogically

    to show following false :

    "A true logic cannot violate other true logic, if it does one of them is not true "
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Ball in any cup can be surprise until you have the knowledge of other 5cups.
    So it is completely illogical to eliminate any cup
    PLEASE LEARN TO READ.
    It was CLEARLY stated that it could NOT be under the 6th cup - BECAUSE, having eliminated the previous 5 it could ONLY be under that one, and would, therefore, not be a surprise. And not being a surprise precludes it from being under that cup because of the conditions given at the outset.

    Simply " if you have knowledge of any five cups out of six- suppose last five , it will not surprise if ball is in first cup"
    What?

    Again simply "If you do not have knowledge of cups, ball in first cup to make surprise
    What you seem to be ignoring is that, having turned over the first 5 you DO have knowledge.

    "A true logic cannot violate other true logic, if it does one of them is not true "
    Bull. Shit.
    As has been explained to you more than once.

    Last chance: do have ANY argument OTHER than empty claims, misunderstanding or unsupported faith in a ridiculous premise?
    UNLESS you show the error, logically, in your next post I will ignore further replies from you on this subject except to point out any errors you display while posting to other people 1.

    1 I won't put you on ignore the way I did with Boing because, although you're at least as wrong as he was, you post far too often to be allowed to promote your specious crap uncorrected.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    RAJ K, you are right for saying that Duck is wrong. it is true that you cannot say because finding the ball must be a surprise then the last cup would'nt have the ball in it.(incorrect)

    But you failed in stating that the first Duck proposed thought experiment can never produce any surprise of any kind.
    His first statement that the ball will be find by surprise cannot be satisfied by the experiment.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    His first statement that the ball will be find by surprise cannot be satisfied by the experiment.
    On the contrary: the experiment shows (conclusively) that finding the ball is a surprise. As does the logic.
    For the simple reason that, having logically arrived at the conclusion that there is no ball under any cup, it's a surprise to discover that it is actually under one of them.

    Sorry I just noticed this:
    t is true that you cannot say because finding the ball must be a surprise then the last cup would'nt have the ball in it.(incorrect)
    Are you saying that it's incorrect to eliminate the last cup as a possibility?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Duck,saying that the ball was found in contrary to the condition will truly spring a surprise.(good for noticing that,although you were almost too late)

    On the other hand am not eliminating the last cup.am actually stating what you have just noticed in another way. i.e i am saying that the condition must not decide what we observe,the condition can only guide us. and now with our new understanding of the surprise the 6th cup will spring then i agree with the 6cup experiment and the expanded 7th cup experiment(since they don't contradict one another).
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Duck,saying that the ball was found in contrary to the condition will truly spring a surprise.
    I see what you mean, but, since the ball cannot be under any cup BUT the 6th (if the first 5 are elimated) then it's not that much of a surprise (and also means that the "surprise" condition was essentially a lie 1 - which is not the case when the experiment is performed).

    On the other hand am not eliminating the last cup.am actually stating what you have just noticed in another way. i.e i am saying that the condition must not decide what we observe,the condition can only guide us. and now with our new understanding of the surprise the 6th cup will spring then i agree with the 6cup experiment and the expanded 7th cup experiment(since they don't contradict one another).
    I'm not sure at all what you mean here.
    And changing the number of cups does nothing whatsoever to change the logic. (Unless you only have one cup - and all that does is eliminate most of the steps of the logic).


    1 I.e. in such a case the surprise would be predicated on a contradiction of the the wording of the conditions, not the conditions themselves.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    if the conditions state that finding the ball in any of the 6cups will be a surprise.

    and the experiment disagrees,then the experiment springs another form of surprise against the condition.(that can be considered as the surprise)
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    if the conditions state that finding the ball in any of the 6cups will be a surprise.

    and the experiment disagrees,then the experiment springs another form of surprise against the condition.(that can be considered as the surprise)
    But I've already said that finding the ball DOES come a surprise.

    In your example the "surprise" comes as a conflict between the stated conditions and the reality.
    Which is NOT the actual case.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    While in the expanded 6cups experiment(7cups) the experiment agrees with the condition because of the uncertainty of the ball being in the randomly picked cup.(this will spring a surprise for and not against the experiment).
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    His first statement that the ball will be find by surprise cannot be satisfied by the experiment.
    On the contrary: the experiment shows (conclusively) that finding the ball is a surprise. As does the logic.
    For the simple reason that, having logically arrived at the conclusion that there is no ball under any cup, it's a surprise to discover that it is actually under one of them.

    Sorry I just noticed this:
    t is true that you cannot say because finding the ball must be a surprise then the last cup would'nt have the ball in it.(incorrect)
    Are you saying that it's incorrect to eliminate the last cup as a possibility?
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    if the conditions state that finding the ball in any of the 6cups will be a surprise.

    and the experiment disagrees,then the experiment springs another form of surprise against the condition.(that can be considered as the surprise)
    But I've already said that finding the ball DOES come a surprise.

    In your example the "surprise" comes as a conflict between the stated conditions and the reality.
    Which is NOT the actual case.
    then on what base do you say the 6cups experiment would spring a surprise?( the surprise must be against the condition.)
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    While in the expanded 6cups experiment(7cups) the experiment agrees with the condition because of the uncertainty of the ball being in the randomly picked cup.(this will spring a surprise for and not against the experiment).
    No.
    If you check each cup sequentially then it doesn't matter how many cups are in the line. The same logic is applicable for 7 cups as it is 6. Or 506.
    And note that cups aren't selected randomly (maybe you missed that part).
    You start with cup 1 (say, the nearest to you) and work down the line.
    (The same logic doesn't apply with randomly-selected cups 1 because that would mean that the cups aren't in a fixed order and can't be sequentially eliminated).

    1 At least I don't think so, and I'm too tired to work it out.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    then on what base do you say the 6cups experiment would spring a surprise?( the surprise must be against the condition.)
    On the basis that, despite the logic, the ball IS under one of the cups - in agreement with the conditions.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    you seem not to understand the 78cups exp. a ball was place under the bottom of one cup and these cups were mixed together(we no longer know which cup).after this,one cup is picked from that seven,and we are left with the normal 6cups expt.

    the idea of the 7cups expt is that the cup that was picked will now affect the outcome of the remaining 6cups.

    in other words,the expt will always produce a surprise because of the uncertainty of not knowing whether the ball is among the 6cups or its under the one that was removed.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario
    His first statement that the ball will be find by surprise cannot be satisfied by the experiment.
    In this experiment one can surprise

    and this experiment satisfies condition of "surprise" practically
    Fault is in" false logic" that gives false output

    and if we do practically experiment "false output of logic" does not match with reality
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario
    His first statement that the ball will be find by surprise cannot be satisfied by the experiment.
    In this experiment one can surprise

    and this experiment satisfies condition of "surprise" practically
    Fault is in" false logic" that gives false output

    and if we do practically experiment "false Oo║░░║
    utput of logic" does not match with reality
    i would Say you should use the experiments to show what you are saying. Your statements are not making sense Ƒor Me.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario
    His first statement that the ball will be find by surprise cannot be satisfied by the experiment.
    In this experiment one can surprise
    i would Say you should use the experiments to show what you are saying. Your statements are not making sense Ƒor Me.
    OK if you practically do this experiment
    You start from 1st,
    Now 2nd
    Now 3 rd and ball is there
    Are not you surprised ?
    Yes
    Simply I am saying in this experiment you will surprise It is simple
    If not you can try practically
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Raj's statements make no sense to anyone but himself. I wouldn't worry about it...
    I know you only can say it has you have nothing more

    Are you disagree this experiment is able to make surprise ?
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Raj, your errors and inconsistencies have been pointed out many times by the Duck and others. What would be the point of me doing it again for you to ignore (again). You are a buffoon and it's less time consuming to point this out than prepare a post you will ignore. Lazy I know but any casual reader needs to know you post nonsense. I'm just going to put you on ignore now, I'm tired of your pig-headed idiocy.
    I really do not mind of people who have no mind
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Raj, your errors and inconsistencies have been pointed out many times by the Duck and others. What would be the point of me doing it again for you to ignore (again). You are a buffoon and it's less time consuming to point this out than prepare a post you will ignore. Lazy I know but any casual reader needs to know you post nonsense. I'm just going to put you on ignore now, I'm tired of your pig-headed idiocy.
    I really do not mind of people who have no mind
    You appear to be poor! i never expected тнιѕ level of reasoning.

    We are told that finding the ball will be a surprise but how the surprise will come we don't know.However,we know that the ball is of course in one of the cups.

    If we know the above then we will expect to see the cup at any point we check(hence no surprise).

    And if we find the ball without surprise contrary to the condition,then another form of surprise will be spring(in other words we will be surprised that the experiment violated the condition.)
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Originally Posted by RAJ_K
    Originally Posted by PhDemon
    Raj, your errors and inconsistencies have been pointed out many times by the Duck and others. What would be the point of me doing it again for you to ignore (again). You are a buffoon and it's less time consuming to point this out than prepare a post you will ignore. Lazy I know but any casual reader needs to know you post nonsense. I'm just going to put you on ignore now, I'm tired of your pig-headed idiocy.



    I really do not mind of people who have no mind


    I do not want to use this type of language
    He started first
    He can say simply me wrong
    But he always use this type of language
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Raj, your errors and inconsistencies have been pointed out many times by the Duck and others. What would be the point of me doing it again for you to ignore (again). You are a buffoon and it's less time consuming to point this out than prepare a post you will ignore. Lazy I know but any casual reader needs to know you post nonsense. I'm just going to put you on ignore now, I'm tired of your pig-headed idiocy.
    I really do not mind of people who have no mind
    You appear to be poor! i never expected тнιѕ level of reasoning.

    We are told that finding the ball will be a surprise but how the surprise will come we don't know.However,we know that the ball is of course in one of the cups.

    If we know the above then we will expect to see the cup at any point we check(hence no surprise).

    And if we find the ball without surprise contrary to the condition,then another form of surprise will be spring(in other words we will be surprised that the experiment violated the condition.)
    Explanation of Dywyddyr ‘s experiment and logic in very simple words





    1.Dywyddyr gave an experiment related to finding a ball in six cups in a row and it must satisfy condition of “surprise to find this ball”

    2. Now Dywyddyr gave his logic and output of this logic based on upper experiment.

    3. According to Dywyddyr ‘s logic “ Ball should not be in any cup because it will not satisfy condition of surprise “

    4. Logic is wrong – as it eliminates the cups one by one by assuming we have knowledge of other five starting from 6th and making output –ball cannot be in any cup or it will not make “surprise”

    5.Now we practically do this experiment and we also took output theoretically calculated by Dywyddyr ‘ logic

    6. Now in experiment, one would surprise when he find ball under 2nd cup, and he see result does not match with logic.

    7. There would be surprise in experiment.

    Logic is wrong because its eliminatation of cups is not valid because it is making it equal “ball cannot be in 6th cup because it will not make any surprise in particular cupt when we have knowledge of other 5cup “ with
    “ ball cannot be surprise even if we do not have knowledge have other 5 cups”

    Elimination of cup making equal sense of upper two lines.
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    I am going to do some work
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Originally Posted by RAJ_K
    Originally Posted by PhDemon
    Raj, your errors and inconsistencies have been pointed out many times by the Duck and others. What would be the point of me doing it again for you to ignore (again). You are a buffoon and it's less time consuming to point this out than prepare a post you will ignore. Lazy I know but any casual reader needs to know you post nonsense. I'm just going to put you on ignore now, I'm tired of your pig-headed idiocy.



    I really do not mind of people who have no mind


    I do not want to use this type of language
    He started first
    He can say simply me wrong
    But he always use this type of language

    These words are sounding ℓιкє the once my kid sister will use to complain!

    Face it man! All we need is some logical statement that we can understand.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Raj, your errors and inconsistencies have been pointed out many times by the Duck and others. What would be the point of me doing it again for you to ignore (again). You are a buffoon and it's less time consuming to point this out than prepare a post you will ignore. Lazy I know but any casual reader needs to know you post nonsense. I'm just going to put you on ignore now, I'm tired of your pig-headed idiocy.
    I really do not mind of people who have no mind
    You appear to be poor! i never expected тнιѕ level of reasoning.

    We are told that finding the ball will be a surprise but how the surprise will come we don't know.However,we know that the ball is of course in one of the cups.

    If we know the above then we will expect to see the cup at any point we check(hence no surprise).

    And if we find the ball without surprise contrary to the condition,then another form of surprise will be spring(in other words we will be surprised that the experiment violated the condition.)
    Explanation of Dywyddyr ‘s experiment and logic in very simple words





    1.Dywyddyr gave an experiment related to finding a ball in six cups in a row and it must satisfy condition of “surprise to find this ball”

    2. Now Dywyddyr gave his logic and output of this logic based on upper experiment.

    3. According to Dywyddyr ‘s logic “ Ball should not be in any cup because it will not satisfy condition of surprise “

    4. Logic is wrong – as it eliminates the cups one by one by assuming we have knowledge of other five starting from 6th and making output –ball cannot be in any cup or it will not make “surprise”

    5.Now we practically do this experiment and we also took output theoretically calculated by Dywyddyr ‘ logic

    6. Now in experiment, one would surprise when he find ball under 2nd cup, and he see result does not match with logic.

    7. There would be surprise in experiment.

    Logic is wrong because its eliminatation of cups is not valid because it is making it equal “ball cannot be in 6th cup because it will not make any surprise in particular cupt when we have knowledge of other 5cup “ with
    “ ball cannot be surprise even if we do not have knowledge have other 5 cups”

    Elimination of cup making equal sense of upper two lines.
    Mr RAJ i would advice you not to base the entire experiment on that surprise condition only.

    The experiment is treated like a probability system.if тнιѕ is So,then all cups have equal chances of having the ball(1/6),however if we have knowledge of the 1st cup the probability of finding the ball in the remaining cups is=1/5 Ƒor all cups.

    If according to you we now find the ball in the second cup that has probability of(1/5) will now collapse to (1) and the rest will have a probability of 0.

    By the above what brings the surprise? Nothing. That's why i made an expanded version. Which now brings a surprise because one cup that is not among the six might have the ball.So when the ball is found among the six,we are then surprise that it was not the cup that had the ball we removed. And if we don't see the ball among the 6cups then we will be surprise that the cup(7th cup) we picked away before we started actually had the ball(Ƒor better understanding see post 148#)
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    you seem not to understand the 78cups exp. a ball was place under the bottom of one cup and these cups were mixed together(we no longer know which cup).after this,one cup is picked from that seven,and we are left with the normal 6cups expt.

    the idea of the 7cups expt is that the cup that was picked will now affect the outcome of the remaining 6cups.

    in other words,the expt will always produce a surprise because of the uncertainty of not knowing whether the ball is among the 6cups or its under the one that was removed.
    You mean that we don't look under the "7th cup" after we've removed it?
    In which case you have completely altered the conditions - it cannot be stated with certainty that there is a ball under one of the 6.
    It's therfeore not the same conditions, nor the same experiment.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    1.Dywyddyr gave an experiment related to finding a ball in six cups in a row and it must satisfy condition of “surprise to find this ball”
    2. Now Dywyddyr gave his logic and output of this logic based on upper experiment.
    3. According to Dywyddyr ‘s logic “ Ball should not be in any cup because it will not satisfy condition of surprise “
    Correct so far.

    4. Logic is wrong – as it eliminates the cups one by one by assuming we have knowledge of other five starting from 6th and making output –ball cannot be in any cup or it will not make “surprise”
    Do you deny that if we have turned over 5 cups then the ball MUST be under the 6th?

    Logic is wrong because its eliminatation of cups is not valid because it is making it equal “ball cannot be in 6th cup because it will not make any surprise in particular cupt when we have knowledge of other 5cup “ with
    “ ball cannot be surprise even if we do not have knowledge have other 5 cups”
    Your English is so garbled here I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; July 28th, 2013 at 12:50 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Since the 6cups experiment can only spring a surprise against the condition and the 7cups experiment will spring a surprise Ƒor the condition,i do not argue that they same experiment.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Since the 6cups experiment can only spring a surprise against the condition
    Surprise is part of the condition in the 6 cup variant.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Fault is in" false logic" that gives false output
    You persist in saying this.
    But you have yet to show where that fault lies.
    Merely claiming that it is faulty without being able to actually show where and how just makes your objection a "lucky guess".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Since the 6cups experiment can only spring a surprise against the condition
    Surprise is part of the condition in the 6 cup variant.
    If whether the surprise is Ƒor or against a given condition should be noted.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario





    Mr RAJ i would advice you not to base the entire experiment on that surprise condition only.

    The experiment is treated like a probability system.if тнιѕ is So,then all cups have equal chances of having the ball(1/6),however if we have knowledge of the 1st cup the probability of finding the ball in the remaining cups is=1/5 Ƒor all cups.

    If according to you we now find the ball in the second cup that has probability of(1/5) will now collapse to (1) and the rest will have a probability of 0.

    By the above what brings the surprise? Nothing. That's why i made an expanded version. Which now brings a surprise because one cup that is not among the six might have the ball.So when the ball is found among the six,we are then surprise that it was not the cup that had the ball we removed. And if we don't see the ball among the 6cups then we will be surprise that the cup(7th cup) we picked away before we started actually had the ball(Ƒor better understanding see post 148#)
    In Dywyddyr 's experiment condition of surprise refers " Probability should not collapse to 1 until we check the cup" For exapmle he said -it cannot be in 6th cup because when we checked first five cups, probability would collapse to 1 in final cup before checking it


    Actually " if experiment is unable to make surprise Dywyddyr 's logic proved to be true "
    As output of Dywyddyr 's logic matches with real output of experiment.

    After some time ,today I will try your extended version of logic which may be more reliable
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    [QUOTE =DYDYDDYR]
    4. Logic is wrong – as it eliminates the cups one by one by assuming we have knowledge of other five starting from 6th and making output –ball cannot be in any cup or it will not make “surprise”
    Do you deny that if we have turned over 5 cups then the ball MUST be under the 6th?

    [QUOTE ]

    No I am not denying , it is exactly right
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
    Do you deny that if we have turned over 5 cups then the ball MUST be under the 6th?
    No I am not denying , it is exactly right
    Excellent.
    Therefore it CANNOT be under the 6th cup, because we will know where the ball is and be expecting it. Thus it will not be a surprise - which contradicts one of the initial conditions.
    Do you deny this?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Fault is in" false logic" that gives false output
    You persist in saying this.
    But you have yet to show where that fault lies.
    Merely claiming that it is faulty without being able to actually show where and how just makes your objection a "lucky guess".
    Fault in very simple words

    1 Probability collapse to 1 in a cup if we checked the remaining five cups

    2. But this will not collapse to 1 until we checked the other cups.

    So making both equalize is wrong and elimination of cup is not valid.
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    What?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    49
    This am probably wrong, but this is what I think. Like many other theories, quantum physics requires you to accept its axiom. One of these axioms is that under the correct conditions, a system (particle) can have more than one state simultaneously. This never happens to us, so we thing of this idea as being illogical. Because of this, when we hear the idea our brains automatically label it as silly nonsense. We go our whole lives thinking a particular way and this axiom says we have to reverse all that. That's why it fells so weird when you think about it, your brain labeled it as weird. So quantum physics violates common sense, but not logic. I hope this idea is correct and that i explained it well. If its wrong please tell me how it should be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    Like many other theories, quantum physics requires you to accept its axiom. One of these axioms is that under the correct conditions, a system (particle) can have more than one state simultaneously.
    I don't think that is an axiom but a prediction of the theory (confirmed by experiment).

    So quantum physics violates common sense, but not logic.
    Exactly. Unfortunately, some people think that common sense = logic. (Although, the OP was referring to formal mathematical logic.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    49
    Well, that is my mistake. At least I had some part right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1
    well the example you gave of the relativity of simultaneity depends on your veiw of time.
    if you hold to the A-theory of time, then past events aren't real.
    However if you hold to the B-theory of time, past events are real just as the present is real...the B-theory of time is supported by einstein's theory of relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Apart from the examples above, it is worth noting that this simplistic logic doesn't even apply in the real world because things can be observer dependent.

    For example, in relativity, there is no absolute concept of time and simultaneity. One person may measure to events to have happened at the same time, while another will say that one clearly happened before the other. So the events are both simultaneous and not-simultaneous.

    Or an even more mundane one: if I toss a coin, what is the probability of heads versus tails? You may say 50%. But what if I toss a coin and look, but don't show you? For you, the probability is still 50% but for me it is 100% (or 0%). So even probability is observer dependent (which isn't surprising as it is really just a measure of how much information we have).
    Aren't there two types of probability? One that is relative to the observer and based on ignorance while the second is fundamentally built into the universe via uncertainty?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Quantum Mechanics
    By TheScienceNerd in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 6th, 2010, 03:17 AM
  2. What is Quantum Mechanics?
    By TheScienceNerd in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 5th, 2010, 07:43 PM
  3. laws of mechanics
    By EV33 in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 19th, 2008, 09:09 AM
  4. Digital Logic Vs. Quantum logic
    By Truth_Table in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 23rd, 2007, 01:43 PM
  5. quantum mechanics
    By shawngoldw in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 17th, 2007, 03:41 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •