791) Arminius, 10.08.2015, 13:42, 14:43, 17:45, 17:47, 18:35, 18:45, 19:10, 21:34, 21:41, 22:02 (3481-3490)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Dangerous in what way and to whom?“ **

Demographically armed societies are dangerous to the other socities and also to themselves, because they tend more to violence than the demographically unarmed societies.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Do you know Gunnar Heinsohn? ** **

Wikipedia wrote:

„He is known most widely for his theory of the Youth Bulge. He argues that an excess in especially young adult male population predictably leads to social unrest, war and terrorism, as the "third and fourth sons" that find no prestigious positions in their existing societies rationalize their impetus to compete by religion or political ideology. Heinsohn claims that most historical periods of social unrest lacking external triggers (such as rapid climatic changes or other catastrophic changes of the environment) and most genocides can be readily explained as a result of a built up youth bulge ....“ **

I think that Heinsohn's theory is quite interesting but not entirely true.« ** **

Typical NWOdor propaganda.“

You mean that Heinsohn's theory of the youth bulge is a „typical NWOdor propaganda“?

Orbie wrote:

„I cannot vote here, because i think another classified option is missing: below 'extremely dangerous' there should be one of, simply, 'dangerous'. To go from extremely to not, does not allow an intermediately dangerous option to be voted upon. If one would be introduced, i would opt for that option, vis. that demographically armed societies are more dangerous then non demographicslly loaded ones. Your introduction of the word 'extremely' introduces a bias error into the opinion.“ **

Okay, so you would vote:

„Demographically armed societies are extremely dangerous, thus very much more dangerous than other societies.“

But you do not need to vote. It is also okay to not vote.

Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

** ** ** **

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Information storage.

There are many information memories.

Concerning (1) nature: in all things of the universe, thus in everything that exists, thus also in brains.

Concerning (2) human culture: (2,1) in brains again; (2,2) in libraries; (2,3) in machines, thus also in computers, robotors, and so on.

NO ATHEISTS (examples):

Copied post in another thread.

Amorphos wrote:

„Trouble with me is that i always think i can out-think historical philosophers, as if we are the apex. What i said was true even if Goethe knows something, and what Goethe said in the quote seemed a tad arrogant [not that i can speak lol] and in itself not true.“ **

Arrogant? No. In no way. By no means.

792) Arminius, 11.08.2015, 01:35, 01:41, 02:43, 03:36, 14:14, 14:20, 14:45, 15:18, 15:41, 15:55, 18:20, 18:53, 19:34, 20:03, 20:11, 20:30 (3491-3506)

Platospuppy wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»How dangerous are demographically armed societies?« ** **

I would be more worried about the militarily armed societies. They use 20 times more resources per person than what the demographically armed societies use. Using the term 'demographically armed' is a bit misleading.“ **

Using the comparison of „military armed societiers“ and „demographically armed societiers“ is misleading. Both are „military armed societiers“.

Copied post in another thread.

Criticism of Dawkins' meme theory:

Luis Benitez-Bribiesca M.D., a critic of memetics, calls the theory a „pseudoscientific dogma“ and „a dangerous idea that poses a threat to the serious study of consciousness and cultural evolution“. As a factual criticism, Benitez-Bribiesca points to the lack of a „code script“ for memes (analogous to the DNA of genes), and to the excessive instability of the meme mutation mechanism (that of an idea going from one brain to another), which would lead to a low replication accuracy and a high mutation rate, rendering the evolutionary process chaotic.

British political philosopher John Gray has characterized Dawkins' memetic theory of religion as „nonsense“ and „not even a theory ... the latest in a succession of ill-judged Darwinian metaphors“, comparable to Intelligent Design in its value as a science.

Another critique comes from semiotic theorists such as Deacon and Kull. This view regards the concept of „meme“ as a primitivized concept of „sign“. The meme is thus described in memetics as a sign lacking a triadic nature. Semioticians can regard a meme as a „degenerate“ sign, which includes only its ability of being copied. Accordingly, in the broadest sense, the objects of copying are memes, whereas the objects of translation and interpretation are signs.[clarification needed]

Fracchia and Lewontin regard memetics as reductionist and inadequate. Evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr disapproved of Dawkins' gene-based view and usage of the term „meme,“ asserting it to be an „unnecessary synonym“ for „concept,“ Mayr reasoning that concepts are not restricted to an individual or a generation, may persist for long periods of time, and may evolve

Sources:

- Benitez Bribiesca, Luis (January 2001), „Memetics: A dangerous idea“ (PDF), Interciencia: Revista de Ciencia y Technologia de América (Venezuela: Asociación Interciencia) 26 (1): 29–31, ISSN 0378-1844, retrieved 2010-02-11, „If the mutation rate is high and takes place over short periods, as memetics predict, instead of selection, adaptation and survival a chaotic disintegration occurs due to the accumulation of errors.“

- Gray, John (2008-03-15), „John Gray on secular fundamentalists“. The Guardian (London).

- Deacon, Terrence,„The trouble with memes (and what to do about it). The Semiotic Review of Books 10: 3.

- Kull, Kalevi (2000), „Copy versus translate, meme versus sign: development of biological textuality“. European Journal for Semiotic Studies 12 (1): 101–120.

- Fracchia, Joseph, R. C. Lewontin (February 2005), „The price of metaphor“, History and theory (Weleyan University) 44 (44): 14–29, doi:10.1111/j.1468-2303.2005.00305.x, ISSN 0018-2656, JSTOR 3590779, „The selectionist paradigm requires the reduction of society and culture to inheritance systems that consist of randomly varying, individual units, some of which are selected, and some not; and with society and culture thus reduced to inheritance systems, history can be reduced to „evolution.“ [...] [W]e conclude that while historical phenomena can always be modeled selectionistically, selectionist explanations do no work, nor do they contribute anything new except a misleading vocabulary that anesthetizes history.“

- Mayr, Ernst (1997). „The objects of selection“. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (Stanford University's HighWire Press®) 94 (6): 2091–2094. doi:10.1073/pnas.94.6.2091. PMC 33654. PMID 9122151. Archived from the original on November 15, 2013.

Platospuppy wrote:

„If you don't have the atomic bomb, you can't be regarded as a serious militarily armed society. Those countries that have the atomic bomb should be regarded as the only dangerous societies. You can't pose any threat, if all you have is large population numbers. We are not living in ancient times when having a large army meant certain victory.“ **

Again:

Platospuppy wrote:

„The term »demographically armed« is an indirect racially discriminatory remark.“ **

No.

Ignorance upon ignorance.

Some people are not capable of seeing a tree, if one shows them a forest.

Jams S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»You mean that Heinsohn's theory of the youth bulge is a ›typical NWOdor propaganda‹?

Yes ..., anti-male for the West while anti-female for the East: Yin-Yang theory/model.

»All problems in the West are due to males .. especially white males. Thus soon there shall be none.
All problems in the East can be resolved by not having so many females.
Together they will eternally chase each other.«“ **

You (**) mean that the survived white females and the survived non-white males will eternally chase each other?

Maybe it would have been better, if I had not used the word „explain“ in my opening post. Economics, sociology, and pschology can and do not explain, ... they show, and they show what the common sense already knows (or at least: should know). Economics can show more than sociology and psychology together.

Does your (**) wife like them too?

And it seems that you have two left feet: **

Ierrellus wrote:

„Music soothes the pain.“ **

Probably. In any case: Music is without hate.

My most recent purchase:

Mathematical formulae do not show and prove or disprove anything and everything. But mathematical formulae are very suited for economics, despite the fact that some of them are completely redundant.

Platospuppy wrote:

„Arriving at a destination is always a big disappointment.“ **

That seems to be only YOUR experience.

Last week I read one of Lyssa's KT posts and wanted to respond to it by an ILP private message, but I think she can't open private messages coming from ILP. So I respond by this post.

Lyssa (on KT) wrote:

„I almost forgot, but a note of thanks to Arminius for his unexpected support.

I hope you get to read this.“ **

Yes. Thank you very much, Lyssa.

I hope you will come back to ILP, and I also hope you get to read this.

Orbie wrote:

„There is some music , unfortunately, that's classified as »hate music«. Skin head and white suprematist music is of such characterizations.“ **

It is merely classified as „hate music“. I am not interested in that music, but I think that also the people who like that music are not hateful but happy while listening to it.

I like classical music as well as rock music, especially progressive rock and jazz rock.

Phoneutria wrote:

„I like this.“ **

I like it too.

Orbie wrote:

„Me too, go on Ir! Please!“ **

Yes, go on, please, Ierrellus!

One lol-smiley is enough, isn't it?

793) Arminius, 12.08.2015, 04:47, 16:17, 17:47, 17:50, 18:14, 18:29, 19:15, 21:24, 23:54, 23:58 (3507-3516)

Platospuppy wrote:

„Beschenert!“ **

Did you mean that demographically armed societies are beschenert? Or did you mean that demographically armed societies are bescheuert?

Shieldmaiden has no clue of philosophy. Maybe it is even useless to explain to her what philosophy is.

The German philosopher, logician, mathematician Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) is the father of analytic philosophy, thus the philosophical father of Bertrand Russel (1872-1970) and all other analytic philosophers. See also here (just for example).

Allegedly Shieldmaiden's „darling“ is Bertrand Russel. But if she really knew him, then she would not tell such a nonsense about German philosophers, especially about Wolff and Kant, but also about most of the others. And she should try to write Wolff's name correctly.

Kant's theory about the emergence and development of planets has been true since 1755 when he invented this theory by thinking about it - without science, because the scientists knew nothing about it at that time. Compare: Immanuel Kant, Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels, 1755.

Shieldmaiden should post on a kindergarten webforum.

James S. Saint wrote:

„What was Kant's theory about the emergence and development of planets?“ **

And of suns!

Immanuel Kant was sure that (1) the sun emerged from a cosmic cloud, that (2) a dust disk with floating particles was formed by the centrifugal force of the still rapidly rotating sun, and that (3) the planets were „glued“ in this dust disk with floating particles. According to Kant suns and solar systems originate in a rotating cloud of gas that has thus become dense so that it collapses, and planets originate as „collections of sun durst parts“.

Copied post in another thread.

Platospuppy wrote:

„We all know you are a Nazi Fascist who hates Jews.“ **

That is a lie and an ad hom! And you know that it is a lie and an ad hom.

I never said anything about Jews. And Jews are not demographically armed societies. Demographically armed societies are societies with a youth bulge. That is known. But it is not known as a fascistic theory but as a globalistic theory. You may call globalists „Nazis“ or „Glozis“ (as I do) but not me.

Platospuppy wrote:

„Your rhetorical deceptions aren't fooling anybody. We all know what 'demographically armed' really means.“ **

I asked a question in my thread: „How dangerous are demographically armed societies?“ (**|**). This question implies that there are demographically armed societies. And you want to deny that there are demographically armed societies? There are war and terror in almost all countries with demographically armed societies, thus societies with youth bulges. My question does not mean that I am of the same opinion as Gunnar Heinsohn is, but that does not matter at all, because I just want to know how ILP members answer the question how dangerous demographically armed societies are and what they think about Heinsohn's theory of the youth bulge. That has nothing at all to do with fascism.

We all know that you are a paid troll and that you never know what you are talking about. You do not know what „demographically armed“ rmeans. You do not even know what the difference between a virus and a bacterium is. And now you are outing yourself as a racist - a racist who hates demographically unarmed societies.

Are you paid by the military industry?

If you were for world peace and not against it, then you would argue in my way.

James S. Saint wrote:

„There are two apparent options;
1) forming from a cloud, as suggested.
2) stemming from an explosion, perhaps black holes colliding.“ **

But black holes could not be known at that said time, thus: were not known at that said time.

James S. Saint wrote:

„There must be a continuous source for such events, but either of those could be eternally occurring and perhaps both are eternally occurring. But at least he didn't proclaim that the entire universe arose from a Big Bang.“ **

Yes. Probably Kant would not have accepted it as we do not accept it. However: No human of the 1750's was talking about a „big bang“ ().

Kant said, for example, one should overcome dogmatism by using the own intellect.

The hypothesis of the „big bang“ has much more to do with dogmatism than with science.

Copied post in another thread.

As you know: He (**) does not know what he is talking about. He confuses viruses with bacteria, he confuses his text with any other text, he confuses destinations with disappointments, he confuses facts with values (like all ILP-Nietzscheanists), he confuses demographically armed societies with demographically unarmed societies, he confuses his own ideological belief with the fascism of the past. So it would be no surprise, if he also confused atomic bombs with demographically armed societies.

What shall we do with him?
Shall we ignore him?

Try to read this thread, and then you will see that you are absolutely wrong.

And if you are not interested in this thread, then search for another thread.

Which case do you mean?

794) Arminius, 13.08.2015, 01:00, 02:27, 04:45, 05:02, 05:48, 05:57, 15:13, 16:35 (3517-3524)

You are full of hate, envy, and resentments.

I was not talking about the Vienna Circle (Wiener Kreis).

Is there anything you can interpret correctly?

I also did not say anything against Bertrand Russell. I merely said where he philosophically came from.

If you want to put dirt on Russell's philosophically biography, then it is your flaw.

Copied post.

The German philosopher, logician, mathematician Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege (1848-1925), the father of analytic philosophy thus the philosophical father of Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) and all other analytic philosophers.

Platospuppy wrote:

„Hit and run. That is your style. You are not man enough to face me one on one, so you have to run to your mentors for moral support and to rely on generalizations of unsubstantiated facts.“ **

No, dear puppy, you are not man enough to face me one on one. And you are hiding yourself behind lies and ad homs.

Platospuppy wrote:

„All my theories make sense logically, and I can prove them to be right.“ **

No, unless you are Santa Claus.

Platospuppy wrote:

„You reply to questions with an emphatic »no!«.“ **

No.

Platospuppy wrote:

„Thus, you must think that you are some kind of a superhuman demi-god who knows all the answers and could never, ever be wrong in any respect what-so-ever.“ **

I think that was - again - your unconscious self-description.

Again: Frege is the father of analytic philosophy, thus the philosophical father of Russell and all other analytic philosophers.

And Jean van Heijenoort was a personal secretary to Leo Trotsky from 1932 to 1939, and from then an Trotskyist activist. While living with Trotsky in Coyoacán, now a neighborhood of Mexico City, van Heijenoort's first wife left him after clashing with Trotsky's spouse. Having parted company with Trotsky in 1939 for personal reasons, van Heijenoort was innocent of all circumstances leading to Trotsky's 1940 murder. Van Heijenoort himself was likewise murdered in Mexico City, 46 years later, by his estranged fourth spouse whom he was visiting at the time. She then took her own life.

The German Einstein had even two scientifical fathers who were also German: Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) as the precursor of Einstein's relativity theory and David Hilbert (1862-1943) who submitted the theory of the general realativiy five days before Einstein did it.

The German philosopher, mathematician, inventor, engineer, technologist, historian, diplomat, and policy adviser Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1713) was probably the greatest universal genius of all times - besides Leonardo da Vinci. Leibniz invented the infinitesimal calculus in 1665 (published 1684 - 3 years before Newton published it, 1687); Leibniz also invented and engineered the first calculating machine in the world (the earliest form of a computer), in 1673 - 268 years before the German inventor and engineer Konrad Zuse invented and engineered the first real computer in the world. Leibniz invented and originated more tham the said things, and he also founded the academy of sciences in Berlin and became the first president of it.

Platospuppy wrote:

„So, what should we do with this youth bulge? (A) Put them into a gas chamber? (B) Castrate them? (C) Drop the bomb?“ **

So you are the Nazi Fascist who hates Jews. Your rhetorical „questions“ aren't fooling anybody. We all know what those „questions“ really mean.

If you merely want to ask silly questions and to deny problems like wars and terror in all those countries with youth bulges, then you will not solve any single problem of them but probably strengthen them.

Palestinians, for example, have more and more children in order to get the possibility of attacking Israel; Afghans, for example, have increased the number of their children since the attacks and invasion of the USA; the same development in Iraq and in most of the countries of Africa. Those societies increase their youth bulge when they are attacked in order to get the possibility of attacking the attackers.

You opened a thread with the title „Zero population growth“. How do you want to achieve you reach that goal (= „Zero population growth“)?
So what will you do with those who prevent that the number of the population growth can really become zero?(A) Put them into a gas chamber? (B) Castrate them? (C) Drop the bomb?

Platospuppy wrote:

„You are thinking in terms of a military vocabulary. Only a militarily trained person would think of a country with an excess of youth as being »demographically armed«.“ **

That is - again - your unconscious self-description. You are the one who is thinking in terms of a military vocabulary.

Platospuppy wrote:

„You see population numbers as a threat which needs to be addressed.“ **

No. I asked a question.

Platospuppy wrote:

„World threats should be categorized in order of priority first. I would categorize nuclear arms as the most important threat to the world at the moment.“ **

Again: You are the one who is thinking in terms of a military vocabulary.

Platospuppy wrote:

„Population numbers could ultimately become a triggering device which could cause a poor country to use nuclear weapons as a threat to black mail the world into supplying them with resources.“ **

What solution do you suggest, my »militarily trained person«?

Zinnat wrote:

„That is really beautiful.

To me, the size, scale or the architecture qualities of that villa are not that important. The most beautiful thing about that building is its location and surroundings. It is there just right in the natural beauty, which tends to bloom in unintruded loneliness.

A simple 3-4 room village type cottage would have been not less beautiful than that villa.“ **

You should visit that castle. The following picture shows it from another perspective:

Zinnat wrote:

„What did you do that photo? It looks some kind of computer trick.“ **

A computer trick is not necessary at all (**). That photo is just taken from another perspective. Maybe that the sky is a little bit „photoshopped“ - but not the castle and the landscape.

Zinnat wrote:

„Nevertheless, I would like to visit that, if I could. Though, I do not know whether that would ever become possible for me or not.“ **

I hope that you will visit the castle as soon as possible.

We will have some glasses of large beer then:

The following photo shows my former purchase, Burg Eltz:

795) Hubert Brune, 14.08.2015 **(3525)

Sehr geehrter Herr Dr. Lauterberg.

Ich bedanke mich für Ihren Eintrag in mein Gästebuch (**). Ich erteile Ihnen die Erlaubnis, meine Arbeit zur Evolutionstheorie unter Hinweis auf meine Webseiten zu nennen. Versehen Sie bitte bei Hinweisen und Zitaten meinen Namen bzw. meine Webadresse mit den entsprechenden Verweisen (Links) zu den jeweiligen Seiten. Das ist die einzige, aber deutlich zu verstehende Bedingung, die ich stelle.

796) Arminius, 14.08.2015, 14:44, 14:53, 20:41, 23:20 (3526-3530)

Platospuppy wrote:

„Arminius - German warrior who defeated Roman army. Say no more!“ **

Arminius stands for FREEDOM. In order to get freedom, to free his country and his people, he had to fight, to be a freedom fighter. That is right. If he had not lived, fighted for freedom, and defeated the Romans (but he has!), then not merely several German tribes (as it was!) but all German tribes, thus almost all of the then Europeans would have become slaves, the further history of the Roman emprie would have been a very much different one and with more slaves than it already had.

So my username stands for FREEDOM.

I am fighting for freedom, yes, and here on ILP this does especially mean: I am fighting for the freedom of thoughts and speech.

I am fighting against enslavement, yes, and here on ILP this does especially mean: I am fighting against enslavement of thoughts and speech.

What does your username stand for?

Try to learn to read, boy! You have not read the whole thread correctly. I never said the natural slection did not work. Try to read my posts, boy!

James S. Saint wrote:

„Natural selection stops working when it stops being natural.“ **

Exactly.

Phyllo wrote:

„Does Christianity need God and/or Christ? Maybe love is all it needs.

Is Progressive Christianity the wave of the future or is it simply the throwing away God and Jesus in the name of love, compassion and inclusiveness?

If you stop talking about God and Jesus Christ, then differences and conflict will be reduced. And that's a good thing.“ **

A „Christianity without God and Jesus Christ“ would not be a Christianity anymore. It would be a modern religion, thus an ideological exercise, an ideological training.

Phyllo wrote:

„Didn't the Dalai Lama suggest that religion needs to be eliminated in order to move forward?

All the world’s major religions, with their emphasis on love, compassion, patience, tolerance, and forgiveness can and do promote inner values. But the reality of the world today is that grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate. This is why I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether. ** “ **

If spirituality is an exercise or a training, then it is something like a religion too (see above), thus „beyond religion“ is a rhetorical term - used in order to get the global version of something like a syncretistic religion.

You are wrong again. Try to read this thread or at least the following text:

„Religious syncretism exhibits blending of two or more religious belief systems into a new system, or the incorporation into a religious tradition of beliefs from unrelated traditions. This can occur for many reasons, and the latter scenario happens quite commonly in areas where multiple religious traditions exist in proximity and function actively in the culture, or when a culture is conquered, and the conquerors bring their religious beliefs with them, but do not succeed in entirely eradicating the old beliefs or, especially, practices.

Religions may have syncretic elements to their beliefs or history, but adherents of so-labeled systems often frown on applying the label, especially adherents who belong to "revealed" religious systems, such as the Abrahamic religions, or any system that exhibits an exclusivist approach. Such adherents sometimes see syncretism as a betrayal of their pure truth. By this reasoning, adding an incompatible belief corrupts the original religion, rendering it no longer true. Indeed, critics of a specific syncretistic trend may sometimes use the word "syncretism" as a disparaging epithet, as a charge implying that those who seek to incorporate a new view, belief, or practice into a religious system actually distort the original faith. Non-exclusivist systems of belief, on the other hand, may feel quite free to incorporate other traditions into their own. Others state that the term syncretism is an elusive one, and can be applied to refer to substitution or modification of the central elements of a dominant religion by beliefs or practices introduced from somewhere else. The consequence under this definition, according to Keith Ferdinando, is a fatal compromise of the dominant religion's integrity.

In modern secular society, religious innovators sometimes create new religions syncretically as a mechanism to reduce inter-religious tension and enmity, often with the effect of offending the original religions in question. Such religions, however, do maintain some appeal to a less exclusivist audience.“ **

If you are not interested in this thread, then search for another thread.

797) Arminius, 15.08.2015, 01:21, 01:22, 01:23, 01:45, 02:32, 02:35, 04:34, 13:30, 22:40, 22:59 (3531-3540)

Write numbers from 1 to 6 into the cells of the diagram of size 6 x 6, so that each number occurs exactly once in each row and in each column. A brick must contain an odd and an even number. Two half-bricks in a row at the left and right edge of the diagram form one whole brick.

Good speed!

A weighing problem.

On an ordinary beam balance the following shapes are in equilibrium:

• Circle and triangle with the square;
• Circle with triangle and pentagon;
• Two squares with three pentagons:

How many triangles weighs a circle?

The age of an uncle and his niece.

An uncle and his niece meet on a treat. The uncle says: „If one multiplies each age of three people, one obtains 2450. If one adds each age of the three people, one gets twice your age. „Well“, says the niece, „but that's not enough to elicit the age of three people“. The uncle agrees and says: „This year one of those three people celebrated a very special birthday. I celebrated this very special birthday five years ago.“

How old are uncle and niece?

Phyllo wrote:

„I imagine that 'beyond religion' means the elimination of specific dogmas. Ethics would not come from unique gods but from some universal human feeling (probably love) which would make it binding for all.“ **

That would mean a new and probably global version of a syncretistic religion.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Sudoku champion:
4 3 6 5 1 2
2 1 3 6 4 5
5 2 4 3 6 1
3 4 2 1 5 6
1 6 5 2 3 4
6 5 1 4 2 3“ **

That is false, because each brick must contain an odd and an even number!

James S. Saint wrote:

„How many triangles weighs a circle?

s = c+t
c = t+p
2s = 3p

s = 3/2 p
p = 2/3 s
c = t + 2/3 s = 2/3 c + 2/3 t
1/3 c = 2/3 t
c = 2t

1 circle = two triangles“ **

That is false too.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

›How many triangles weighs a circle?

s = c+t
c = t+p
2s = 3p

s = 3/2 p
p = 2/3 s
c = t + 2/3 s = 2/3 c + 2/3 t
1/3 c = 2/3 t
c = 2t

1 circle = two triangles‹ **

That is false too.« ** **

I had to interpret your English intention. Could you reword it, seeing how I am solving for it?“ **

Englsih intention? Reword it?

Your equations show me that you have understood my text correctly.

Howsoever. Maybe the following three pictures will help:

James S. Saint wrote:

„Ahhh ... I see that I left out a »t«.

s = c+t [that is the 1st pic]
c = t+p [that is the 2nd pic]
2s = 3p [that is the 3rd pic]

from 3rd:
s = 3/2 p
p = 2/3 s
from 2nd:
c = t + 2/3 s
from 1st:
c = t + 2/3 c + 2/3 t
c - 2/3 c = t + 2/3 t
1/3 c = t + 2/3 t
c = 5t

And in case you missed it from above:

And the correction for the first one:

2 3 6 5 1 4
4 2 3 6 5 1
6 1 4 3 2 5
3 5 2 1 4 6
1 4 5 2 6 3
5 6 1 4 3 2“ **

Well done.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Concerning the Uncle and Niece:

When I read »special birthday« I just dropped it. I dislike trying to figure out what someone might think of as a »special birthday«.

But later, just making guesses, I came up with a »special birthday« being 50, in which case the people could be:
7
7
50

While the Uncle is 55 and the niece 32.

I have no idea of that is the kind of thing that you were expecting.“ **

Well done.

For the age of the three persons (x, y, z): x • y • z = 2450 = 2 • 5 • 5 • 7 • 7.
The „special birthday“ is the 50th (= 2 • 5 • 5). The three persons are 50, 7, and 7 years old; the uncle is 55 years old (= 50 + 5); the niece is 32 years old (= (50 + 7 + 7) / 2).

Your watch has stopped. So it does not work anymore. The little hand of the watch indicates approximately ten o'clock, and the big hand of the watch indicates approximately two o'clock. Both hands of the watch form an identical angle. When did your watch stop precisely?

798) Arminius, 16.08.2015, 16:25, 22:31, 22:57, 23:09, 23:21, 23:40, 23:59 (3541-3547)

The table (**) is not precise.

1) The cumulative share of the global population is not precisely indicated.

2) There are some small and very small but independent countries that have a higher GDP-per-capita than USA or Germany.

I just name Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Monaco, Bermuda, Qatar ...

GDP density (GDP per km²):

GNI per capita based on PPP:

For comparison:
The per capita income in the provinces of the Roman empire in 14 AD:

Copied post in another thread.

James S. Saint wrote:

„I mean a masculine running half of the social world and a feminine running the other half ..., chasing each other.“ **

And they will never meet each other?

James S. Saint wrote:

„I hate always being the only kid in the class with his hand up.“ **

Really?

James S. Saint wrote:

„The belief that the world needs to be controlled causes the world's need to be controlled.“ **

Should the world be controlled or not?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Should the world be controlled or not?« ** **

For the sake of life:

NO!

Each small, very small, region "should" wisely control itself. The effort to control everyone else not merely causes all of the atrocities that Man has become so well known for, but destroys all hope of doing anything else until Man is no more..“ **

So SAM is the only solution?

799) Arminius, 17.08.2015, 01:26, 15:41, 16:13, 22:50, 23:19, 23:27, 23:33, 23:51, 23:52, 23:59 (3548-3557)

Maybe the following thread will help you to understand: **

There is no problem with the text, and the task is a pure mathematical one.

So again:

Copied post

Carleas!

Please come to the blackboard!

You are not capable of understanding more than two words in one sentence!

2 years old children are capable of understanding whole sentences although they can merely produce 2 or 3 words in one sentence by themselves.
Some adults are not capable of understanding whole sentences although they can produce them by themselves.

Sociology does not contain all economical aspects, and if we want to know the reasons for e.g. extortion, then we primarily have to accept the economical facts, regardless whether we want to or not.

Opa wrote:

„I agree that a whole lot of people visiting fora are doing so because they want to gain recognition.“ **

Yes. That's how it is.

„But still, if you would have stuck to your initial idea, I think I would have understood better what you want here. Could you explain it in a few sentences to one as dull witted as I?“ **

As far as I remember I started this thread in order to bring (more) philosophy (back) to ILP by telling about some basics.

Do not forget what Hegel said about the recognition.

Opa wrote:

„I want to change the scope of this topic from banning Carleas to making it possible to banning an unnamed owner. After the petition has passed, the political hierarchy of ILP should change to fit a hostile take-over, should it ever take place in the future.“ **

Would this „unnamed owner“ not be too similar to the „unknown soldier“?

Zoot Allures wrote:

This has to be a trick question. Arminius is too smart to ask a question that is so obviously answered with „10:00 is when the clock stopped.“. So, what's the trick dude? Nobody's playing so just give us the answer mmkay?“ **

I think it is a little bit too early to give you the answer.

Zoot Allures wrote:

„And what is an identical angle, anyway?“ **

I wrote:

„Both hands of the watch form an identical angle. When did your watch stop precisely?“ ** **

Both angles have the same degree. The angular degree is the same.

Economic is both natural and cultural.

Dan wrote:

„Right now my religion that I live by, is basically trying to be kind and just. It's very simple. The second part is metaphysics and cosmology but that is not very important. Golden rule stuff.“ **

Is it heathen?

800) Arminius, 18.08.2015, 02:51, 02:54, 04:43, 04:50, 05:11, 05:22, 05:28, 05:34, 05:35, 06:05, 07:58, 16:14, 16:16, 17:16, 17:45, 17:45, 18:19, 23:30, 23:43, 23:54 (3558-3577)

Zoot Allures wrote:

„I don't know what you mean by identical ....“ **

The mathematical meaning of the adjective „identical“ is identical with the mathematical meaning of the adjectives „same“ and „equal“.

Please look at the watch again:

There is no doubt. The same angular degree. The two hands of the watch have the same angle. Which one it is is easily to find out.

Zoot Allures wrote:

„But I'm not big on geometry ....“ **

And geometry is not enough.

The main part of the task is not a geometrical one, by the way.

Zoot Allures wrote:

„If you mean each angle leaves its point of origin with the same degree relative to a line or axis drawn between them, then yeah, you have two congruent lines. But you can do this with any two angles leaving the same point of origin if you place a line directly between them.“ **

What I mean is easily to find out by the text and the picture of my post:

Copied post

Zoot Allures wrote:

„Draw a line from the nut in the middle of the clock that bolts the hands down to the 12.“ **

No.

Zoot Allures wrote:

„There is your axis line. So each hand would have the same angle relative to the line.“ **

The 12 is the axis line, but that is already clear because of the text and because of the picture. Here comes the picture again:

Zoot Allures wrote:

„It would be a little more than a 45 degree angle for each hand, since the 3 and 9 would be a 90 degree angle while the 12 would be no angle.“ **

Zoot Allures wrote:

„But I'm not big on geometry ....“ **

Geometrically „no angle“ is not possible.

The equivalents betweenn the numbers of the watch and the degree values:

0 <=> 0°.
1 <=> 30°.
2 <=> 60°.
3 <=> 90°.
4 <=> 120°.
5 <=> 150°.
6 <=> 180°.
7 <=> 210°.
8 <=> 240°.
9 <=> 270°.
10 <=> 300°
11 <=> 330°.
12 <=> 360°.

Look at the watch again:

Zoot Allures wrote:

„No matter where you put the hands, you could draw a line directly between them, creating the same degree of each angle. That's why I don't understand what you mean when you say identical.“ **

Yes, I know, but that is irrelevant. Again: What I mean is easily to find out by the text and the picture of my post:

Copied post

Zoot Allures wrote:

„There is no such thing as an identical angle because all angles can be identical depending on the axis line between them.“ **

You know from your own language that the 12 is always the pivotal point. For example: You know what it means when you say „12 o'clock“, „3 o' clock“, or „5 past 12“, „5 past 3“, ... and so on. „12 o'clock“ <=> where are both hands of your watch? „5 past ...“ Why „5“? .... You know? It is always with reference to the 12.

Zoot Allures wrote:

„Now if you insist that the 12 be the axis line, then putting the little hand on the 6 and the big hand on the 3, you would not have identical angles. The little hand would have a 180 degree angle while the big hand would have a 90 degree angle.“ **

If the pivotal point was (it is not!) „half past 4“, then both would have identical angles (45 degrees, by the way - but according to the logic/mathematics and technique of all watches your example it is not possible, by the way). It is a tiny part of the task that one has to know what the pivotal point of a watch is.

Zoot Allures wrote:

„Really, mentioning that the angles are identical seems to be superfluous here.“ **

No. It is exactly the opposite that is true.

Phoneutria wrote:

„If there are only two lines in a circle, the only two angles that can be the same is 180, that's be either 0915 or 1445. You need another line.“ **

No.

Zoot Allures wrote:

„I understand everything you've said clearly. We are on the same page on that part. What I don't understand is why any mention of the angle is relevant to the problem.

If the big hand is on 10 and the little hand is on 2, and the watch functions like every other watch in the known universe, and the watch has stopped working, then it stopped working at 10:10.“ **

You have to read precisely. Your example here is not my example.You example does not work because of the logic/mathematics and technique of all watches, as I already said.

Again:

Copied post.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Graph the two angles.“ **

That is obviously your job. You need to do it. Perhaps you will have the effect of learning by doing.

Nevertheless:

Zoot Allures wrote:

„Oh, it's one of those problems. An exercise in Zeno's paradox. Infinite decimals and shit. Is it almost 10:10, almost almost 10:10, or almost almost almost 10:10? Holy moly, you can keep dividing the spaces between the minutes like ..., infinitely!“ **

You have not understood it.

Zoot Allures wrote:

„And I thought this was going to be something good.“ **

Show me the way of the solution, loudmouth. You have not understood it. This shows me your reaction. Again: Show me the solution process of the task. As I said: it is geometry, algebra, thus mathematics, and it is reading precisely, understanding the text, the logic and common sense in it, thus it is also linguistics. But the core of the task is mathematics. And you have not understood it.
_________________________________________________________________________________

This thread is about mathematics! What do you expect? Wonders? Miracles? „Something good“?

Zoot Allures wrote:

„Nuh-uh, because at a smaller level, the noise that composes the sub-atomic particles that compose the atoms that compose the molecules that compose the elements that compose the material that the hands are made of are still moving.

I told you it was a trick.“ **

It was no trick.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Your premise did not specify an angle between a clock arm and 12. That's what I mean by »you need another line«.“ **

No. If you meant it, then you would have said it. In addition: another line is not needed.

One has to figure out that the 12 is this „line“ you are talking about. That is common sense but has nothing to do with the mathematical task. The text of my post was clear. It is your problem, if you are not capable of imagine a line.

You have excuses. I know. Show me the solution process and explain it.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius obviously meant »the angles from 12 to the hour hand and 12 to the minute hand are identical when it stopped«.“ **

The first sentence: „Your watch has stopped.“. The second sentence: „So it does not work anymore.“. So the follwoing sentences refer to theses first two sentences. Of course!

I wrote:

„Your watch has stopped. So it does not work anymore. The little hand of the watch indicates approximately ten o'clock, and the big hand of the watch indicates approximately two o'clock. Both hands of the watch form an identical angle. When did your watch stop precisely?“ ** **

There is no text that begins with the last sentence and ends with the first sentence.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The answer:

Dubiously assuming that I did the tiny bit of math right:
Time on Clock = 10:9:13.8461538461538.

But you have to figure out how to find it.“ **

No problem.

Phoneutria wrote:

„I can imagine to make up for your poor problem constraint definition, but I can also get two exact angles by drawing a line to 6, getting a different answer whilw still being correct.“ **

That is irrelevant (see below). The said text with the task clearly says which angles are meant. Additionally I gave you this:

Mathematically it is absolutely irrelevant what Phoneutria said, namely that there is also a line to 6. You just need the information that the angles have the same degree in order to solve the problem mathematically. But which line you prefer is absolutely irrelvant for the mathematical solution.

Zoot Allures wrote:

„Either it's a trick, or it comes down to the impossibility of stopping the division of infinite decimals/fractions between minutes.

This is not an interesting problem. It is an age old paradox that baffled philosophers who had nothing better to do than be baffled.

James and/or Phoneutria. I demand that you solve the problem and answer the question immediately to prevent Arminius from pwning me.“ **

Why are you not capable of solving the problem? You have not understood it.

H = Hours. M = Minutes.
H/12 x 360 + M/60 x 360/12 = 30 H + 0.5 M.
Position of the big hand: M/60 x 360 = 6 M.
Position of the little hand: H/12 x 360 + M/60 x 360/12 = 30 H + 0.5 M.
The sum of both angles is 360°.
So: 30 H + 0.5 M + 6 M = 360.
For H = 10:
300 + 6.5 M = 360 => M = 60/6.5 = 9.231 minutes.
Thus: 9 minutes, 13.8 seconds.
Time on watch: 9 minutes and 13.8 seconds past 10.

___________________________

Zoot Allures, what is „pwning“?
___________________________

Phoneutria wrote:

„I can answer but I am not going to bother with calculating it because solving problems is fun, doing math isn't. I'll just hint at how to start solving it, as usual.

This is more akin to the hare and the turtle paradox, zoot, because both arms are constantly moving. By the time you reach 10 minutes, the hour clock has moved forward whatever much an hour arm moves in 10 minutes, making that not an exact angle, so one would have to calculate how many degrees of an angle per minute each of the arms move, (the hour arm moves 360 degrees in 12 hours and the minutes arm moves 360 in 1 hour), or something... I'd do the rest later. I'm tired.“ **

You do not have to do anything of that, because the solution and the solution process are already given.

H = Hours. M = Minutes.
H/12 x 360 + M/60 x 360/12 = 30 H + 0.5 M.
Position of the big hand: M/60 x 360 = 6 M.
Position of the little hand: H/12 x 360 + M/60 x 360/12 = 30 H + 0.5 M.
The sum of both angles is 360°.
So: 30 H + 0.5 M + 6 M = 360.
For H = 10:
300 + 6.5 M = 360 => M = 60/6.5 = 9.231 minutes.
Thus: 9 minutes, 13.8 seconds.
Time on watch: 9 minutes and 13.8 seconds past 10.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Yes, Arminius, after you put your imaginary like there, your premise was complete. Also very cute with my lil spider there.“ **

Zoot Allures wrote:

„Thanks guys. I understand now. But I'm still stuck on the infinite divisibility of the units of time thing. Also, what if the watch, which isn't digital, stopped before the gear system which turns the hands stopped before the gear teeth were completely seated? You know each each 'tick-tock' is the turn of the gear wheel.. so what if the tension created by the winding, which powers the gears, was at zero percent before the watch completed its final tick?

What time would it then be? You see the infinite divisibility of time units I'm talking about now in a different way. The watch's gear teeth need to be seated in order for a unit of its time to be recognized. It could have stopped somewhere between 10:10 and 10:10.1 for all we know. We have Zeno's wrist watch.“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„They used spiral gears - smooth, no slack.

And even if you wanted to quantize the whole thing, you would still solve it in the same way but then truncate the answer to the nearest quantum step.“ **

If the said watch was digital, then there would be no geometrical aspect in the said task. It would become senseless, because there would be no geometrical circle but merely numbers. The task is about realising the facts given in the text, the recognition of the geometric facts, and the finding of the algebraic solution.

Carleas wrote:

„Not a solution, but: EDIT: oops, missed a page of discussion on this one, :oops: Anyway, this is my untainted first stab.

I'm assuming the equal angle is between the hands of the clock and the vertical. I'm also assuming that the hands are meant to be moving fluidly, such that at exactly 10 O'clock, the hour hand points straight at 10 and the minute hand points straight at 12. At 10:15, the minute hand points straight at three, and the hour hand points at the spot 1/4 of the way between 10 and 11.
So, we can narrow the answer down to between 10 and 10:15.

To find the answer, we need to convert time to radians, take the speed of each hand in radians/second, such that the speed of the minute hand 12x faster than the speed of the hour hand, and then find where the values cross (using the absolute value and counting up to pi and back down).

Does that at least get the question right?“ **

I have already given the solution process.

H = Hours. M = Minutes.
H/12 x 360 + M/60 x 360/12 = 30 H + 0.5 M.
Position of the big hand: M/60 x 360 = 6 M.
Position of the little hand: H/12 x 360 + M/60 x 360/12 = 30 H + 0.5 M.
The sum of both angles is 360°.
So: 30 H + 0.5 M + 6 M = 360.
For H = 10:
300 + 6.5 M = 360 => M = 60/6.5 = 9.231 minutes.
Thus: 9 minutes, 13.8 seconds.
Time on watch: 9 minutes and 13.8 seconds past 10.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Realising the facts given in the text.« ** **

....“ **

I said this:

„The task is about realising the facts given in the text, the recognition of the geometric facts, and the finding of the algebraic solution.“ ** **

Mathematically it is absolutely irrelevant what Phoneutria said, namely that there is also a line to 6. You just need the information that the angles have the same degree in order to solve the problem mathematically. But which line you prefer is absolutely irrelvant for the mathematical solution.

Phoneutria wrote:

„He means this fact ....“ **

No. You have not understood it.

To find out that the 12 is the line is already part of the task, namely the part that refers to the common sense. Everything you say about the time on the watch refers to 12, e.g.: „... o'clock“, „10 past ...“, „20 past ...“, „10 to ...“, ... and so on, thus it depends on the position of the big hand (minute hand).

Mathematically it is absolutely irrelevant what Phoneutria said, namely that there is also a line to 6. You just need the information that the angles have the same degree in order to solve the problem mathematically. But which line you prefer is absolutely irrelvant for the mathematical solution.

Again:

Your watch has stopped. So it does not work anymore. (Thus: The hands of the watch do not move anymore!) The little hand of the watch indicates approximately ten o'clock, and the big hand of the watch indicates approximately two o'clock. Both hands of the watch form an identical angle. (Thus: Both hands form the same angle [to 12 or to 6 - indifferent for the mathematical solution!], so they have the same number of degree! The imvisible line is irrelevant for the mathematical solution!) When did your watch stop precisely?

Duh!

Yes. But the line is irrelevant when it comes to find the mathematical solution!

Phoneutria wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Zoot Allures, what is ›pwning‹?« ** **

....“ **

That was meant ironically, Phoneutria. I had just given him the solution process.

I wrote:

„Zoot Allures, what is »pwning«?

H = Hours. M = Minutes.
H/12 x 360 + M/60 x 360/12 = 30 H + 0.5 M.
Position of the big hand: M/60 x 360 = 6 M.
Position of the little hand: H/12 x 360 + M/60 x 360/12 = 30 H + 0.5 M.
The sum of both angles is 360°.
So: 30 H + 0.5 M + 6 M = 360.
For H = 10:
300 + 6.5 M = 360 => M = 60/6.5 = 9.231 minutes.
Thus: 9 minutes, 13.8 seconds.
Time on watch: 9 minutes and 13.8 seconds past 10.“ ** **

Phoneutria wrote:

„Help a linguist out.“ **

That is not necessary (see above).

Phoneutria wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»You do not have to do anything of that, because the solution and the solution process are already given.“ ** **

So you put solutions in tabs, but you don't know why?
Should tabs - in this thread (!) - not be used because of discretion?

Phoneutria wrote:

„Ah, ok. You're just really bad at irony.“ **

Very bad!

Phoneutria wrote:

„Tabs are used so when you give the solution, you don't spoil it for people who want to try to solve by themselves.“ **

I called it „descretion“.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Carleas knows that he can click the tabs and see the answer, but he wants to try to solve it on his own. Threads like this aren't really about being the first to solve (since anyone can probably just google for the answers).“ **

Ah, I see.

Carleas! Good luck!

Phoneutria wrote:

„Threads like this aren't really about being the first to solve (since anyone can probably just google for the answers).“ **

Yes, I know.

Since the beginning of the so-called „Neolithic Revolution“ the human beings have been (unconsciously or even consciously) creating something in order to be replaced someday. This „something“ and this „someday“ come nearer and nearer.

In my job as a private teacher I have to explain very much, and I am pretty sure that I am good at explaining.

On ILP the situation is a bit different:

Unfortunately ILP has not much to do with explaining, because most ILP members just want recognition and nothing beside it. And unfortunately I have to translate all my thoughts into a foreign language. I am not looking for excuses, because I have to admit that I do not want to address many but merely some ILP members, namely those who are really interested in the topic of the thread.

So actually I am not much interested in making a topic attractive to posters.

They are either interested or not interested.

It is the economic reality that mainly dictates, for example the (part of) reality that money causes.

==>