Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > General Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 16-06-2015, 02:59 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 16-06-2015, 07:25 PM
iborg's Avatar
iborg (Philip)
Registered User

iborg is offline
 
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
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 16-06-2015, 07:39 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by iborg View Post
16 32 64
Those numbers are consistent with the law.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 16-06-2015, 07:40 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by iborg View Post

32 256 8192 etc

Those numbers are consistent with the law.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 16-06-2015, 07:43 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by iborg View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 16-06-2015, 08:05 PM
Shiraz's Avatar
Shiraz (Ray)
Registered User

Shiraz is offline
 
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...
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 16-06-2015, 08:27 PM
iborg's Avatar
iborg (Philip)
Registered User

iborg is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Lynbrook, Australia
Posts: 611
With a twist, any set of three!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 16-06-2015, 08:53 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiraz View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 16-06-2015, 08:57 PM
thunderchildobs
Registered User

thunderchildobs is offline
 
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
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 16-06-2015, 08:59 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by iborg View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 16-06-2015, 09:01 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderchildobs View Post
So 10, 12, 14

Those numbers obey the law.

(and you were perilously close to a fail)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 16-06-2015, 09:49 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 16-06-2015, 10:21 PM
LewisM's Avatar
LewisM
Novichok test rabbit

LewisM is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere in the cosmos...
Posts: 10,388
Composite numbers only (i.e, no prime numbers)

Or ordinal?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 16-06-2015, 10:34 PM
Eratosthenes's Avatar
Eratosthenes (Peter)
Trivial High Priest

Eratosthenes is offline
 
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 16-06-2015, 11:22 PM
julianh72 (Julian)
Registered User

julianh72 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Kelvin Grove
Posts: 1,300
367, 367367, 36736
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 16-06-2015, 11:24 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewisM View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 16-06-2015, 11:26 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eratosthenes View Post
8, 4, 2
These numbers are consistent with the law.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 16-06-2015, 11:27 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by julianh72 View Post
367, 367367, 36736

These numbers are consistent with the law....
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 16-06-2015, 11:28 PM
julianh72 (Julian)
Registered User

julianh72 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Kelvin Grove
Posts: 1,300
2^1/2, e, pi
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 16-06-2015, 11:28 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eratosthenes View Post

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...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 12:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement