The popularity of the Word Verification Game in November prompts me to initiate a new one.This is how this one will work:
Go to the "comments" link at the bottom of this post.
Submit your favorite "Headscratcher" (see my entry). Be original! Have fun! (Keep it family-friendly)
You can play as many times as you want.
On January 19, I'll put a poll here with the names of all participants, and anyone who wishes can vote for the most creative commenter! (Yours Truly will be exempt.) I'll snail-mail a $10 Starbucks card to the winner!
23 comments:
I sell Skateboard/GoPed items on ebay. Every time I sell a HELMET, I laugh when I bubble wrap it to ship it. If it can't withstand the USPS, can it keep you safe when you take a spill?
Well, heck, since everyone seems to think this game is so hard, I could win with one entry!
Why is it that to get certain jobs you have to have job experience in that field, but to get job experience you have to have worked at that same job that requires experience? Isn't that just circular reasoning? Wouldn't it be impossible, then, for anyone to get experience?
Good question "Bear"....kind of like which came "first the chicken or the egg!!!!"
Judi....you'll need to up date your picture...Caleb has gotten bigger!!!!!!!!
Thanks, done! (isn't he cute?)
Well, I'll leave one, but you'll have to get a Starbucks gift card in Sing Dollars since I won't be able to use a US card over in Singapore. . .
click here to see my headscratcher: http://rebeccaskitchenwindow.blogspot.com
/2007/12/isnt-it-ironic.html
Elizabeth: To get a starter job that requires experience in that job, you simply be the boss' son
or daughter.
One of the best cartoons ever showed a Boss introducing a young man to a bunch of workers.
The caption: "I want my son to start at the bottom...therefore I'm putting him in charge of this department."
Seriously, look for jobs that use apprentices.
Love,
Grandpa Clark
If Bob says, "This statement is a lie." Is he telling the truth or lying?
Cute new pic of caleb..I can totally see rebecca in him in that pic :) Still working on the headscratcher...
I'm glad you said that Barb, 'cause I REALLY saw Rebecca, too, but didn't know if it was just me. He looks like a dark-headed Rebecca. I'm thinking of a certain photo of her. If I can find it, I'll scan it and post it.
This is for all, but especially for IINTY: In a small, midwestern town there is only one barber: Tony. Tony shaves every man in town who doesn't shave himself. Who shaves Tony?
(scratch, scratch)
Tony has a beard?
Or Tony is really Toni.
Pup: You may have hit upon it! I've pondered that puzzle for about 60 years (off and on), but I have always had it presented aurally. Maybe the barber has been Ms Toni all this time, and the answer is "Nobody...she has used depilatory creams since age 14 and has recently advanced to electrolysis."
(on to the next scratcher...)
Grandpa, your "Tony" question is Russell's paradox.
The answer is that it is linguistically inconsistent because it violates the principle of self-referentials
=)
Yeh, If you google Russell's paradox, you find there must be millions, maybe billions of words written on the subject! C'mon academia, LIGHTEN UP!!! It's just a cute little head scratcher, fgs! Furthermore, it's not a paradox after all. See Pups suggestion that the barber is Toni and that she doesn't shave, may be the answer after all!
I like academia,
1. (AND) I like to keep things light,
2. (BUT) I also like to keep things light
so let's be tolerant around here!
BTW, another suggestion was made that Tony is a full-blooded American Indian. They don't have to shave. ;-D
Johnna: Respectfully, you are confused. Russell's paradox is something that arises from formal axiomatic set theory when you use the schemata of separation as an axiom. Everything here has just been an example of Russell's paradox.
The following is the complete definition of Russell's Paradox and Zeno Franklin Set Theory.
\{x : \Phi(x)\}\,\!, in which \Phi(x)\,\! is any predicate of first-order logic in which x\,\! is a free variable, denotes the individual A\,\! satisfying \forall x\,[x \in A \leftrightarrow \Phi(x)]\,\!.
Theorem. The collection R=\{x : x \notin x\}\,\! is contradictory.
(Good Evening)
I'm really impressed PMGS!
Did you copy and paste that from one of the dozens if sites that discuss these things? Or, could you (do you?) stand at a whiteboard and write that stuff without crib-notes?
Tell us the truth now...
Truthfully, to conserve time I cut and pasted the equation, although I can write it. The preceding paragraphs were my own composition.
Good day.
PMGS: Respectfully, you are in need of a real life.
Anyone who has to cut & paste gobbledegook formulas to impress others probably has difficulty in developing meaningful, inter-personal relationships. Have you sought counceling? Good luck in life...believe me, you will need it.
Gpa, there is no need to insult PMGS or tell him to "get a life" just because he is well-educated!
I happen to know the "PMGS" and he is very smart and loves to learn. The only reason he googled Russells paradox is to save the time of writing it out; not to impress someone (although by your own admission a few blogs ago, actually DID impress YOU!)
Johna, im not sure where this hostility comes from?
You first post a formal logical paradox, then you object when someone gives the only possible answer to a paradox (that with a paradox there is no consistent answer – you do know this is what the word “paradox” means right?), then when someone tries to explain to you what Russell’s paradox is exactly you respond by trying to insult them? Weren’t you the one who said we should keep this light and friendly? Weren’t you the one who brought up Russell’s Paradox? (did you only want to discuss it when you thought no one reading might possible know more about it than you?)
I have no need to cut and paste anything, like I said I’ve taken graduate logic and set theory courses from Russell’s Paradox is pretty well committed to memory. If you are offended because I didn’t take the time to type it out then I beg your forgiveness (it is rather cumbersome to type math out in a text box with out a 3rd party program – so I went with the copy and paste method). But it is apparent that you were nether familiar or understood the paradox in a formal setting that you were using (ironically in an attempt to belittle others) from your second post. I might have been foolish in hoping that showing you exactly what this question that you pondered for 60 years is about would be well received, or that you were familiar enough with first order logic to not be insulted by my post.
But as to your comments about my life, and my need to impress others – have no fear I don’t feel a need to impress you and if I did I would be using russell’s paradox to show off how smart I am.
correction:
if I did I would NOT be using russell’s paradox to show off how smart I am.
Post a Comment