ICEINSPACE
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
Waning Gibbous 83.4%
|
|
16-06-2015, 02:59 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Scientific method (thinking) and the 4th estate.
If you were asked whether you employ the practice of critical thinking in formulating your world view, how many of you would answer; 'yes'?
Do you think you would be correct?
Here is a small thought experiment that I found very informative and interesting, and incidentally, when I tried it I failed (but learned something valuable)
(if you have seen this before, please don't spill the beans)
The nature of the situation is this:
You are tasked with trying to determine or uncover 'the law' or 'the rule' I have in mind.
You start with 1 free observation, that being: I provide a sequence of numbers. They are 2, 4 and 8
These three numbers obey the law.
In order to test your theory (of what this law might be) you can if you wish, experiment by submitting three numbers.
My response will be to either acknowledge that they are consistent with my law, or not.
So here we go...
2,4 & 8 obey the law.
when you think you understand it,
what is 'the law'.... ?
Last edited by clive milne; 16-06-2015 at 03:10 PM.
|
16-06-2015, 07:25 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Lynbrook, Australia
Posts: 611
|
|
A couple of possiblities
16 32 64 etc
or
32 256 8192 etc
Mind you, I also wouldn't be surprised that I have missed something!
Have fun
|
16-06-2015, 07:39 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iborg
16 32 64
|
Those numbers are consistent with the law.
|
16-06-2015, 07:40 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iborg
32 256 8192 etc
|
Those numbers are consistent with the law.
|
16-06-2015, 07:43 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iborg
Mind you, I also wouldn't be surprised that I have missed something!
|
There is a twist to it.
Are you inclined to state what the law is?
|
16-06-2015, 08:05 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ardrossan south australia
Posts: 4,918
|
|
Hi Clive. I suspect that the only "law" that could reasonably be derived by the rest of us might be that there are three numbers - with only one observation, pretty much everything else is up for grabs.
So my submission is -14, 1.74e17 and 0
Then again, I might be misreading the question...
|
16-06-2015, 08:27 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Lynbrook, Australia
Posts: 611
|
|
With a twist, any set of three!
|
16-06-2015, 08:53 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiraz
Hi Clive. I suspect that the only "law" that could reasonably be derived by the rest of us might be that there are three numbers - with only one observation, pretty much everything else is up for grabs.
.
|
Excellent Ray, I was hoping you would have a crack at this.
To answer your question
You have as many observations as you wish, and ' the law' is consistent
Quote:
So my submission is -14, 1.74e17 and 0
|
In the interests of others, I'll pm you as to whether these 3 numbers are consistent with the law (or not)
Quote:
Then again, I might be misreading the question..
|
That is getting to the crux of it.
|
16-06-2015, 08:57 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ipswich, Qld, Aust
Posts: 605
|
|
It doesn't say 2 4 8 is a sequence but they obey a law.
The law could be list 3 even numbers.
So 10, 12, 14
|
16-06-2015, 08:59 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iborg
With a twist,
|
My guess when presented with the 3 original numbers was that the law was the exponential function.
I failed...
The theory that the law can be described by the statement:
any set of three!
also fails.
Keep at it,
it's worth it.
best
c
|
16-06-2015, 09:01 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderchildobs
So 10, 12, 14
|
Those numbers obey the law.
(and you were perilously close to a fail)
|
16-06-2015, 09:49 PM
|
|
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,866
|
|
How can numbers obey a law. They can only be a result.
The only law must apply to the person writing down the numbers.
If it is indeed the author who is obeying the law the law can only be...you are commanded to write down three numbers.
|
16-06-2015, 10:21 PM
|
|
Novichok test rabbit
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere in the cosmos...
Posts: 10,388
|
|
Composite numbers only (i.e, no prime numbers)
Or ordinal?
|
16-06-2015, 10:34 PM
|
|
Trivial High Priest
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 392
|
|
8, 4, 2
the order - ie numbers are merely increasing in magnitude???
or perhaps something to do with the commas that separate the numbers (you had only one comma and an "&" sign between the 4 and 8??
Last edited by Eratosthenes; 16-06-2015 at 11:26 PM.
|
16-06-2015, 11:22 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Kelvin Grove
Posts: 1,300
|
|
367, 367367, 36736
|
16-06-2015, 11:24 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewisM
Composite numbers only (i.e, no prime numbers)
Or ordinal?
|
Both intelligent guesses, both subsets of the law, but neither define it.
Also a fail.... sorry Lewis, but an excellent try.
|
16-06-2015, 11:26 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eratosthenes
8, 4, 2
|
These numbers are consistent with the law.
|
16-06-2015, 11:27 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by julianh72
367, 367367, 36736
|
These numbers are consistent with the law....
|
16-06-2015, 11:28 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Kelvin Grove
Posts: 1,300
|
|
2^1/2, e, pi
|
16-06-2015, 11:28 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eratosthenes
the order - ie numbers are merely increasing in magnitude???
or perhaps something to do with the commas that separate the numbers (you had only one comma and an "&" sign between the 4 and 8??
|
No...
|
Thread Tools |
|
Rate This Thread |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +10. The time is now 12:50 AM.
|
|