Novi (napisa): |
No ako krvnik uistinu dođe u neki dan kroz sedam dana onda se naša pretpostavka ruši, a time i baza, pa i svi dani o kojima smo zaključivali po indukciji. |
blob (napisa): |
"Koliko imam prstiju?" "Deset!" "Ne, nego 11." "Pa kako?" "10, 9, 8, 7, 6 i ovih 5 na drugoj ruci su 11" Brojanje od kraja ne daje nužno isti rezultat/ konkluziju kao brojanje od početka. |
vsego (napisa): |
@goranm: Vecina ljudi ima dvadeset prstiju... |
vsego (napisa): |
Sjeca li se netko kako Njegova Visost Broj Jedan dijeli plijen na dva jednaka dijela? |
Michiko (napisa): |
Zanimljivije je o tome, recimo, s filozofima razgovarati )
|
http://nnw.berlios.de/docs.php/intro-uh (napisa): |
Imagine that you have before you ten boxes labeled from 1 to 10. While your back is turned, a friend conceals an egg in one of the boxes. You turn around. "I want you to open these boxes one at a time," he tells you, "in serial order. Inside one of them I guarantee that you will find an unexpected egg. By 'unexpected' I mean that you will not be able to deduce which box it is in before you open the box and see it."
Assuming that your friend is absolutely trustworthy in all his statements, can his prediction be fulfilled? Apparently not. He obviously will not put the egg in box 10, because after you have found the first nine boxes empty you will be able to deduce with certainly that the egg is in the only remaining box. This would contradict your friend's statement. Box 10 is out. Now consider the situation that would arise if he were so foolish as to put the egg in box 9. You find the first eight boxes empty. Only 9 and 10 remain. The egg cannot be in box 10. Ergo it must be in 9. You open 9. Sure enough, there it is. Clearly it is an expected egg, and so your friend is again proved wrong. Box 9 is out. But now you have acted on your inexorable slide into unreality. Box 8 can be ruled out by precisely the same logical argument, and similarly boxes 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1. Confident that all ten boxes are empty, you start to open them. What have we here in box 5? A totally unexpected egg! Your friend's prediction is fulfilled after all. Where did your reasoning go wrong? |
ibidem (napisa): |
The judge speaks truly and the condemned man reasons falsely. The very first step in his chain of reasoning that he cannot be hanged on the last day is faulty. Even on the evening of the next-to-last day, as explained in the previous paragraph with reference to the egg in the last box he has no basis for a deduction. This is the main point of Quine's 1953 paper. In Quine's closing words, the condemned man should reason: "We must distinguish four cases:
first, that I shall be hanged tomorrow noon and I know it now (but I do not); second, that I shall be unhanged tomorrow noon and know it now (but I do not); third, that I shall be unhanged tomorrow noon and do not know it now; and fourth, that I shall be hanged tomorrow noon and do not know it now. The latter two alternatives are the open possibilities, and the last of all would fulfill the decree. Rather than charging the judge with self-contradiction, therefore, let me suspend judgment and hope for the best." The Scottish mathematician Thomas H. O'Beirne, in an article with the somewhat paradoxical title "Can the Unexpected Never Happen?" (The New Scientist, May 25, 1961), has given what seems to me an excellent analysis of this paradox. As O'Beirne makes clear, the key to resolving the paradox lies in recognizing that a statement about a future event can be known to be a true prediction by one person but not known to be true by another until after the event. It is easy to think of simple examples. Someone hands you a box and says: "Open it and you will find an egg inside." He knows that his prediction is sound, but you do not know it until you open the box. The same is true in the paradox. The judge, the man who puts the egg in the box, (...) each knows that his prediction is sound. But the prediction cannot be used to support a chain of arguments that results eventually in discrediting the prediction itself. |
Michiko (napisa): |
(p.s. recite mi gdje je umlaut, molim vas |
Michiko (napisa): |
Malo sam preletjela tvoj copy-paste tekstic i zamijetila da su nekako, stajaznam, prvi i drugi slucaj jednaki? |
Michiko (napisa): |
I jako me razveselilo "neocekivano jaje" |
Citat: |
Preciznije je tako postaviti problem a i ima nesto nadrealisticno u tome (Magritte i ostali |
Michiko (napisa): |
Cim procitam tekst, javim se!
Lijepe pozdrave saljem |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. Vremenska zona: GMT + 01:00.