Re: Whinging
On 11/10/2006, at 6:31 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Actually, someone did a study where they took a bunch of snorers and had some of them take didgeridoo lessons, and follow-up found that that group had fewer problems with snoring after a number of months than the control group. I would have thought that practicing the didgeridoo would simply allow development of continuous snoring using the circular breathing technique. Not much of an improvement! Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Paradox, or, Breaking the mind of logic
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/10/06, maru dubshinki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, the stranger appears to be absolutely useless, but nevertheless, removed from the picture the whole thing breaks down in the case where N = 2. What is the use of the useless stranger? The key here as I see it is that prior to the stranger's announcement, each of the blue-dot natives thinks that either: 1) he is red-dot and there is only the one blue-dot native, who in turn sees all red-dot natives 2) he is a blue-dot, and the other blue-dot also sees one blue-dot native. But how does this work for N(blue) = 4? The initial state is that each native has two cases: 1) There are three blue-dot natives, and each blue dot native sees two blue dot natives. 2) There are four blue-dot natives, including himself, and each blue dot native sees three blue dot natives. In this case, I don't see how the naturalist provides any additional information. In the initial state, every native knows that every other native knows that there is at least one blue dot. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Paradox, or, Breaking the mind of logic
JDG wrote: But how does this work for N(blue) = 4? The key point is that the natives are omniintelligent and know that all other natives are also omniintelligent. The initial state is that each native has two cases: 1) There are three blue-dot natives, and each blue dot native sees two blue dot natives. 2) There are four blue-dot natives, including himself, and each blue dot native sees three blue dot natives. In this case, I don't see how the naturalist provides any additional information. In the initial state, every native knows that every other native knows that there is at least one blue dot. He does. Because of the omniintelligence hypothesis, each native can reason like this: (a) If there is only one blue dotted native, then, seeing that everybody else is red dotted, this native will commit ritual suicide in the first night. Induction Hypothesis: (b) Suppose that there are (N+1) blue dotted natives. Then, each of these natives, noticing that the other (N) blue dotted natives didn't commit suicide in the N-th night, will commit ritual suicide in the (N+1)-th night The naturalist provides information because he starts the process, by forcing step (a) of the induction. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Paradox, or, Breaking the mind of logic
At 10:41 PM Tuesday 10/10/2006, maru dubshinki wrote: A while ago on #Wikipedia, I fell into a discussion with a fellow editor. He posed me a question about the following riddle: Suppose there is an island with a number of natives on it. Each native has either a red or a blue spot on their forehead. But they are not allowed to indicate to each other or otherwise divine in any direct observational fashion what the color of their particular spot might be. One of the iron-clad customs of these indigenous persons is that any native who deduces the color of their spot through logic must kill themselves that midnight. Now, suppose further that of all the natives there, only two have blue spots and all the rest have red spots. A outsider comes along (perhaps he is an ignorant ethnographer), and truthfully mentions to the natives that At least one of you has a blue dot on your forehead. What will happen to the natives, and how long will it take? The smart ones get on eBay and order some moist towelettes. Or if that is insufficient, some good opaque coverup makeup. They ask for next-day express delivery. Reprogramming The Simulation [Kobayshi] Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Irregulars Question: smell of Phenol
Does anyone know how to eliminate the smell of Phenol? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars Question: smell of Phenol
At 11:44 AM Wednesday 10/11/2006, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Does anyone know how to eliminate the smell of Phenol? Alberto Monteiro Since you ask, I presume it is already too late for Don't use it in the first place? What do you wish to remove the smell from? (IOW, presumably you wish to eliminate the odor without damaging whatever the odor is on in the process.) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars Question: smell of Phenol
In a message dated 10/11/2006 9:54:45 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 11:44 AM Wednesday 10/11/2006, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Does anyone know how to eliminate the smell of Phenol? Alberto Monteiro Since you ask, I presume it is already too late for Don't use it in the first place? What do you wish to remove the smell from? (IOW, presumably you wish to eliminate the odor without damaging whatever the odor is on in the process.) Gee Ron, I expected you to say: Cut off your nose. That eliminates all smells. I once had to fan a book with baking soda to get the cigar smell out. Vilyehm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Whinging
Ray Ludenia wrote: On 11/10/2006, at 6:31 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Actually, someone did a study where they took a bunch of snorers and had some of them take didgeridoo lessons, and follow-up found that that group had fewer problems with snoring after a number of months than the control group. I would have thought that practicing the didgeridoo would simply allow development of continuous snoring using the circular breathing technique. Not much of an improvement! Regards, Ray. Apparently practicing the circular breathing technique while awake does something that cuts down on snoring while asleep. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Weekly Chat Reminder
As Steve said, The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over six years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat technologies, and even casts of regulars over the years, but the chat goes on... and we want more recruits! Whether you're an active poster or a lurker, whether you've been a member of the list from the beginning or just joined today, we would really like for you to join us. We have less politics, more Uplift talk, and more light-hearted discussion. We're non-fattening and 100% environmentally friendly... -(_() Though sometimes marshmallows do get thrown. The Weekly Brin-L chat is scheduled for Wednesday 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time. There's usually somebody there to talk to for at least eight hours after the start time. If you want to attend, it's really easy now. All you have to do is send your web browser to: http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/~brinl/mud/ ..And you can connect directly from William's new web interface! My instruction page tells you how to log on, and how to talk when you get in: http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html It also gives a list of commands to use when you're in there. In addition, it tells you how to connect through a MUD client, which is more complicated to set up initially, but easier and more reliable than the web interface once you do get it set up. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ This message was sent automatically using launchd. But even if WTG is away on holiday, at least it shows the server is still up. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Irregulars Question: smell of CH2O (formaldeide)
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Does anyone know how to eliminate the smell of Phenol? Yikes. I mistranslated. It's not Phenol, it's Formol (formaldeide, CH2O, whatever) Since you ask, I presume it is already too late for Don't use it in the first place? It's not for me; but I can't resist showing Wisdom in everything, even if I have to contact Higher Authorities :-) What do you wish to remove the smell from? (IOW, presumably you wish to eliminate the odor without damaging whatever the odor is on in the process.) I think it's clothes that are contaminated. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars Question: smell of CH2O (formaldehyde)
At 01:15 PM Wednesday 10/11/2006, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Does anyone know how to eliminate the smell of Phenol? Yikes. I mistranslated. It's not Phenol, it's Formol (formaldeide, CH2O, whatever) Since you ask, I presume it is already too late for Don't use it in the first place? It's not for me; but I can't resist showing Wisdom in everything, even if I have to contact Higher Authorities :-) What do you wish to remove the smell from? (IOW, presumably you wish to eliminate the odor without damaging whatever the odor is on in the process.) I think it's clothes that are contaminated. Alberto Monteiro If it's frex something that was used as a dry-cleaning fluid or to treat them for insects, the first thing I would suggest is hanging them outside in the fresh air for at least several hours. Twist the hangers sideways and/or use extra hangers or something to prop them open so the air can circulate both inside and out. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Paradox, or, Breaking the mind of logic
jdiebremse wrote: ... But how does this work for N(blue) = 4? The initial state is that each native has two cases: 1) There are three blue-dot natives, and each blue dot native sees two blue dot natives. 2) There are four blue-dot natives, including himself, and each blue dot native sees three blue dot natives. In this case, I don't see how the naturalist provides any additional information. In the initial state, every native knows that every other native knows that there is at least one blue dot. JDG JDG-- Maru's original post didn't say this, but the puzzle has an additional assumption: All the natives are expert logicians, they all know that all are, they all know that everybody knows that all the natives are expert logicians, etc. Without this, nothing happens even for only two blues, as each would say, So, maybe the other guy sees only reds but is dumb. The role of the outsider is to make it clear to everybody that any situation with only one blue leads to suicide. Of course when N = 4 everybody knows there are blues, but this is different. All the natives would eventually conclude that there could not be just three blues, since each of the three would only see two, and eventually wonder why those two hadn't killed themselves, finally concluding that the reason was that each of the two actually saw two blues, since the one thinking all this was the third blue. Etc! ---David Never argue with a Sicilian when death is on the line, Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Paradox, or, Breaking the mind of logic
On 10/11/06, David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: jdiebremse wrote: ... But how does this work for N(blue) = 4? The initial state is that each native has two cases: 1) There are three blue-dot natives, and each blue dot native sees two blue dot natives. 2) There are four blue-dot natives, including himself, and each blue dot native sees three blue dot natives. In this case, I don't see how the naturalist provides any additional information. In the initial state, every native knows that every other native knows that there is at least one blue dot. JDG JDG-- Maru's original post didn't say this, but the puzzle has an additional assumption: All the natives are expert logicians, they all know that all are, they all know that everybody knows that all the natives are expert logicians, etc. Without this, nothing happens even for only two blues, as each would say, So, maybe the other guy sees only reds but is dumb. True, true, but remember this is a logic problem, after all. If we wanted to specify all the assumptions, we'd get into silliness like there exists an objective reality or each native will succeed in killing themselves should they try. The role of the outsider is to make it clear to everybody that any situation with only one blue leads to suicide. Of course when N = 4 everybody knows there are blues, but this is different. But isn't the case of only one blue already clear without the outsider? All the natives would eventually conclude that there could not be just three blues, since each of the three would only see two, and eventually wonder why those two hadn't killed themselves, finally concluding that the reason was that each of the two actually saw two blues, since the one thinking all this was the third blue. Etc! ---David And this reasoning stands for all N equal to or greater than 3? ~maru Mmm... sicilian... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Paradox, or, Breaking the mind of logic
On 10/11/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . He does. Because of the omniintelligence hypothesis, each native can reason like this: (a) If there is only one blue dotted native, then, seeing that everybody else is red dotted, this native will commit ritual suicide in the first night. Induction Hypothesis: (b) Suppose that there are (N+1) blue dotted natives. Then, each of these natives, noticing that the other (N) blue dotted natives didn't commit suicide in the N-th night, will commit ritual suicide in the (N+1)-th night The naturalist provides information because he starts the process, by forcing step (a) of the induction. Alberto Monteiro This is basically my conclusion as well. I put it differently, though: with the outsider's pronouncement, each native can know reason about the beliefs of each of the others. While it is true that the outsider provides no new information about the physical situation to each blue dot, each blue dot now knows something new: that each native *must* believe there to be at least one blue dot, because the stranger told them all so, where before each blue dot could believe that they themself were red and the other blue dot ignorant of their status. With this forcing of belief, the induction argument becomes operative. ~maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Paradox, or, Breaking the mind of logic
At 03:32 PM Wednesday 10/11/2006, maru dubshinki wrote: On 10/11/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . He does. Because of the omniintelligence hypothesis, each native can reason like this: (a) If there is only one blue dotted native, then, seeing that everybody else is red dotted, this native will commit ritual suicide in the first night. Induction Hypothesis: (b) Suppose that there are (N+1) blue dotted natives. Then, each of these natives, noticing that the other (N) blue dotted natives didn't commit suicide in the N-th night, will commit ritual suicide in the (N+1)-th night The naturalist provides information because he starts the process, by forcing step (a) of the induction. Alberto Monteiro This is basically my conclusion as well. I put it differently, though: with the outsider's pronouncement, each native can know reason about the beliefs of each of the others. While it is true that the outsider provides no new information about the physical situation to each blue dot, each blue dot now knows something new: that each native *must* believe there to be at least one blue dot, because the stranger told them all so, where before each blue dot could believe that they themself were red and the other blue dot ignorant of their status. With this forcing of belief, the induction argument becomes operative. I take it this is your alternative explanation of what really happened on Easter Island? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Paradox, or, Breaking the mind of logic
- Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 4:28 PM Subject: Re: Paradox, or, Breaking the mind of logic At 03:32 PM Wednesday 10/11/2006, maru dubshinki wrote: On 10/11/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . He does. Because of the omniintelligence hypothesis, each native can reason like this: (a) If there is only one blue dotted native, then, seeing that everybody else is red dotted, this native will commit ritual suicide in the first night. Induction Hypothesis: (b) Suppose that there are (N+1) blue dotted natives. Then, each of these natives, noticing that the other (N) blue dotted natives didn't commit suicide in the N-th night, will commit ritual suicide in the (N+1)-th night The naturalist provides information because he starts the process, by forcing step (a) of the induction. Alberto Monteiro This is basically my conclusion as well. I put it differently, though: with the outsider's pronouncement, each native can know reason about the beliefs of each of the others. While it is true that the outsider provides no new information about the physical situation to each blue dot, each blue dot now knows something new: that each native *must* believe there to be at least one blue dot, because the stranger told them all so, where before each blue dot could believe that they themself were red and the other blue dot ignorant of their status. With this forcing of belief, the induction argument becomes operative. I take it this is your alternative explanation of what really happened on Easter Island? On Easter Island an evil naturalist proclaimed publicly that until he had come to this island he had never seen anyone with a green dot. xponent Evil Con Carne Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: More on the Maya
Debbie wrote: big DEFANGED_snip The population at Laguna appears robust and exhibits minimal pathologies, perhaps due to a more diverse and protein rich diet facilitated by reforestation... Debbi who has stocked up on books from the library, as we're expecting snow today (it was 80oF on Saturday!) Thanks for all the good stuff Debbie. Unfortunately I'm so busy these days I don't have time for an engaging reply. I don't even have time to tell Dan He's full of it. 8^) Not only am I busy at work, we're in the final stages of a major remodel (what an f'n nightmare) and my daughter is 8 months pregnant with our second grandson (offsets nightmare 8^))). Just to complicate matters my first grandson, Ethan, got food poisonimg earlier this week and took a nasty spill this morning. Not to mention my email went belly up a few weeks ago and I haven't gotten to the bottom of that problem. Nick or Julia; are messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] bouncing? Phew!! In any case, thanks for the review, and Ill have something on the next chapter soon. I wish someone else with a few spare moments would have something to say about the Myans - it seems a very interesting juxtiposition of abundance and irresponsibility... Doug No patience for spell check tonight; sorry William, Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
