EPT"Now my nose will grow"
Oh well perhaps back to Iccup :D
Pinocchio riddle
| Blogs > Too_MuchZerg |
|
Too_MuchZerg
Finland2818 Posts
"Now my nose will grow" Oh well perhaps back to Iccup :D | ||
|
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 Posts
| ||
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1281 Posts
If his nose IS about to grow, then it will grow, since there is no rule stripulating it can't grow when he's not lying. If it wasn't about to grow, it is now. equilibrium state is that his nose is about to grow.... | ||
|
minus_human
4784 Posts
| ||
|
Monoxide
Canada1190 Posts
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090304140605AA4hDrn + Show Spoiler + The answer to this question really depends on the magical properties of Pinocchio's nose; there are several different things that could happen: If Pinocchio's nose doesn't respond to the truth values of future predictions, then nothing will happen. But this is boring. If his nose does respond to future events, then we need to know several more things: 1. Is there a delay between when he tells the lie and when his nose starts growing? 2. When his lie is no longer a lie, does his nose continue growing to its full length, stop growing, or shrink back down to how it was? 3. When something that wasn't a lie before becomes a lie, does his nose start growing again? 4. If something that was true before becomes a lie, will his nose register that as a whole new lie, will only respond once, or will it continue responding only until it reaches a given length? There are lots of cases here, and lots of boring ones where nothing happens. So, for the sake of argument lets say that his noes has the ability to detect a change in the truth value of one of this statements and respond. Lets look at a few of the more interesting cases: If there is no delay, and his nose shrinks down to its original size after something he said becomes true, nothing will happen. However, if there is a delay, his nose will oscillate back and forth between growing and shrinking either once or for the rest of his life depending on 4 (that's what you get for dicking around with forces beyond your comprehension). But that's not the worst of it... As we know, after telling four lies, Pinocchio's nose becomes a tree, and after five, it even has little critters in it. If his nose does not shrink down after something he said becomes the truth, things start to become pretty hairy for our little Pinocchio. If his nose responds instantly, it will grow smoothly, but at only half its normal speed. If there is a delay, it will start and stop. If he's lucky, his nose will stop growing after it reaches a certain length, or after a certain amount of time has passed. However, if he's unlucky, and his nose registers every change in truth value as a separate and independent lie, his nose will continue to grow, whether at only half speed, or in small pulses. It will slowly morph into a tree, with small critters in it at first, but eventually mythical creatures, and finally even dragons! It will continue to grow and grow, and as it does it will take root. The blue fairy, as we've seen can make Pinocchio's nose disappear when he's not actively engaged in lying. However it is unknown whether she can do this while it is currently growing. If this is not the case, she will be forced to step in and disenchant Pinocchio before the nose-tree becomes the size of a planet starts ripping apart continents. A sad fate perhaps, but an important lesson to us all Rest in Peace, Pinocchio - Taken from the site above Imo, it would grow, and then shrink continuously. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive If he intends to deceive, yes. If he doesn't, no. | ||
|
R3condite
Korea (South)1541 Posts
If there is no delay, and his nose shrinks down to its original size after something he said becomes true, nothing will happen. However, if there is a delay, his nose will oscillate back and forth between growing and shrinking either once or for the rest of his life depending on 4 (that's what you get for dicking around with forces beyond your comprehension). LOL i like this answer! btw he explodes as he throws a null exception error and burns up into nothing | ||
|
FirstBorn
Romania3955 Posts
First, we must have a firm grasp on some quatum physiscs notions. Quantum mechanics is a set of principles underlying the most fundamental known description of all physical systems at the submicroscopic scale (at the atomic level). Notable among these principles are both a dual wave-like and particle-like behavior of matter and radiation, and prediction of probabilities in situations where classical physics predicts certainties. Classical physics can be derived as a good approximation to quantum physics, typically in circumstances with large numbers of particles. Thus quantum phenomena are particularly relevant in systems whose dimensions are close to the atomic scale, such as molecules, atoms, electrons, protons and other subatomic particles. Exceptions exist for certain systems which exhibit quantum mechanical effects on macroscopic scale; superfluidity is one well-known example. Quantum theory provides accurate descriptions for many previously unexplained phenomena such as black body radiation and stable electron orbits. It has also given insight into the workings of many different biological systems, including smell receptors and protein structures The modern world of physics is founded on the two tested and demonstrably sound theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics —theories which appear to contradict one another. The defining postulates of both Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum theory are indisputably supported by rigorous and repeated empirical evidence. However, while they do not directly contradict each other theoretically (at least with regard to primary claims), they are resistant to being incorporated within one cohesive model. Einstein himself is well known for rejecting some of the claims of quantum mechanics. While clearly inventive in this field, he did not accept the more philosophical consequences and interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the lack of deterministic causality and the assertion that a single subatomic particle can occupy numerous areas of space at one time. He also was the first to notice some of the apparently exotic consequences of entanglement and used them to formulate the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, in the hope of showing that quantum mechanics had unacceptable implications. This was 1935, but in 1964 it was shown by John Bell (see Bell inequality) that Einstein's assumption was correct, but had to be completed by hidden variables and thus based on wrong philosophical assumptions. According to the paper of J. Bell and the Copenhagen interpretation (the common interpretation of quantum mechanics by physicists for decades), and contrary to Einstein's ideas, quantum mechanics was neither a "realistic" theory (since quantum measurements do not state pre-existing properties, but rather they prepare properties) nor a local theory (essentially not, because the state vector determines simultaneously the probability amplitudes at all sites, ). The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox shows in any case that there exist experiments by which one can measure the state of one particle and instantaneously change the state of its entangled partner, although the two particles can be an arbitrary distance apart; however, this effect does not violate causality, since no transfer of information happens. These experiments are the basis of some of the most topical applications of the theory, quantum cryptography, which works well, although at small distances of typically 1000 km, being on the market since 2004. There do exist quantum theories which incorporate special relativity—for example, quantum electrodynamics (QED), which is currently the most accurately tested physical theory —and these lie at the very heart of modern particle physics. Gravity is negligible in many areas of particle physics, so that unification between general relativity and quantum mechanics is not an urgent issue in those applications. However, the lack of a correct theory of quantum gravity is an important issue in cosmology. Since its inception, the many counter-intuitive results of quantum mechanics have provoked strong philosophical debate and many interpretations. Even fundamental issues such as Max Born's basic rules concerning probability amplitudes and probability distributions took decades to be appreciated. The Copenhagen interpretation, due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr, is the interpretation of quantum mechanics most widely accepted amongst physicists. According to it, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics predictions cannot be explained in terms of some other deterministic theory, and does not simply reflect our limited knowledge. Quantum mechanics provides probabilistic results because the physical universe is itself probabilistic rather than deterministic. Albert Einstein, himself one of the founders of quantum theory, disliked this loss of determinism in measurement (this dislike is the source of his famous quote, "God does not play dice with the universe."). Einstein held that there should be a local hidden variable theory underlying quantum mechanics and that, consequently, the present theory was incomplete. He produced a series of objections to the theory, the most famous of which has become known as the EPR paradox. John Bell showed that the EPR paradox led to experimentally testable differences between quantum mechanics and local realistic theories. Experiments have been performed confirming the accuracy of quantum mechanics, thus demonstrating that the physical world cannot be described by local realistic theories.[citation needed] The Bohr-Einstein debates provide a vibrant critique of the Copenhagen Interpretation from an epistemological point of view. The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a "multiverse" composed of mostly independent parallel universes. This is not accomplished by introducing some new axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet: All the possible consistent states of the measured system and the measuring apparatus (including the observer) are present in a real physical (not just formally mathematical, as in other interpretations) quantum superposition. (Such a superposition of consistent state combinations of different systems is called an entangled state.) While the multiverse is deterministic, we perceive non-deterministic behavior governed by probabilities, because we can observe only the universe, i.e. the consistent state contribution to the mentioned superposition, we inhabit. Everett's interpretation is perfectly consistent with John Bell's experiments and makes them intuitively understandable. However, according to the theory of quantum decoherence, the parallel universes will never be accessible to us. This inaccessibility can be understood as follows: once a measurement is done, the measured system becomes entangled with both the physicist who measured it and a huge number of other particles, some of which are photons flying away towards the other end of the universe; in order to prove that the wave function did not collapse one would have to bring all these particles back and measure them again, together with the system that was measured originally. This is completely impractical, but even if one could theoretically do this, it would destroy any evidence that the original measurement took place (including the physicist's memory). Bottom line is, who cares ? He's not even real. I'm bored T_T | ||
|
minus_human
4784 Posts
come watch bratok pwn @ ESL ^^ | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Cloud
Sexico5880 Posts
| ||
|
geometryb
United States1249 Posts
| ||
|
Too_MuchZerg
Finland2818 Posts
 | ||
|
EGMachine
United States1643 Posts
| ||
|
ZeroCartin
Costa Rica2390 Posts
On May 26 2009 02:48 Cloud wrote: You can only really lie about the past, the nose wont grow. same thing i thought :p | ||
|
Jusciax
Lithuania588 Posts
On May 26 2009 02:48 Cloud wrote: You can only really lie about the past, the nose wont grow. Hehe, good point. | ||
| ||
