|
View Poll Results: HOW FAT IS U | |||
REAL FAT | 15 | 4.09% | |
130-150lbs overweight | 12 | 3.27% | |
110-130lbs | 6 | 1.63% | |
90-110lbs | 4 | 1.09% | |
70-90lbs | 4 | 1.09% | |
60-70lbs | 2 | 0.54% | |
50-60lbs | 5 | 1.36% | |
40-50lbs | 12 | 3.27% | |
30-40lbs | 20 | 5.45% | |
20-30lbs | 29 | 7.90% | |
10-20lbs | 54 | 14.71% | |
0-10lbs | 66 | 17.98% | |
im in shape (lie) | 84 | 22.89% | |
. | 9 | 2.45% | |
. | 5 | 1.36% | |
. | 11 | 3.00% | |
. | 8 | 2.18% | |
. | 9 | 2.45% | |
. | 4 | 1.09% | |
. | 8 | 2.18% | |
Voters: 367. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The importance of being (Error!)
To get started I'm going to pose a hypothetical.
Fred Astaire is always right. He never makes a mistake. If you give him a problem that he can solve, he will solve it correctly 100% of the time. But Fred can't handle differential equations. Starting somewhere around basic calculus, he just can't wrap his mind around the problem. Fred's a logical person, he's right where all of the common-sense stuff is concerned, and he's a great poker player. Ginger Rogers makes mistakes. She makes lots of mistakes. In fact, in every problem she tries to solve, she has a 50% chance of [censored] up. What's 3+3? "7." What's the largest mammal? "The shrew." How many fingers am I holding up? "Erk - NaN." But Ginger can handle any kind of problem. She consistently scores 60 on the Putnam exam, and if she sets out to prove the Goldbach conjecture, she has a 50% chance of success. Yes, no matter what the problem is, Ginger has a 50% chance of solving it. Ginger is often seen as irrational due to her mistakes, and she frequently hemorrhages money in poker. So, who's smarter? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The importance of being (Error!)
madnak, Ginger of course. Everyone knows Ginger did everything Fred did in heels going backwards. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The importance of being (Error!)
Ginger is an impossibility.
It would take a parlay of many 50% error free steps (on 3+3 =7 type ones) for her to solve difficult problems. D |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The importance of being (Error!)
[ QUOTE ]
Ginger is an impossibility. It would take a parlay of many 50% error free steps (on 3+3 =7 type ones) for her to solve difficult problems. D [/ QUOTE ] this is why i couldn't vote. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The importance of being (Error!)
Ginger appears to be some sort of freakish idiot savant.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The importance of being (Error!)
[ QUOTE ]
Ginger appears to be some sort of freakish idiot savant. [/ QUOTE ] ROFL [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The importance of being (Error!)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Ginger is an impossibility. It would take a parlay of many 50% error free steps (on 3+3 =7 type ones) for her to solve difficult problems. D [/ QUOTE ] this is why i couldn't vote. [/ QUOTE ] It's a hypothetical. Suspend this. How she solves the problems is irrelevant, it's the results that matter. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The importance of being (Error!)
[ QUOTE ]
Ginger is an impossibility. D [/ QUOTE ] So is Fred. Anyone who can do math questions up to differential equations perfectly, is not going to all of a sudden hit a wall if he tackles harder subjects. Especially since most, if not all, math problems can eventually be broken down into simple logic. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The importance of being (Error!)
[ QUOTE ]
Especially since most, if not all, math problems can eventually be broken down into simple logic. [/ QUOTE ] Not true, not even close unless you mean by exhaustive search (which no human can do) and even then its not true. chez |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The importance of being (Error!)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Especially since most, if not all, math problems can eventually be broken down into simple logic. [/ QUOTE ] Not true, not even close unless you mean by exhaustive search (which no human can do) and even then its not true. chez [/ QUOTE ] Who is correct here? |
|
|