Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

 Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account. As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends. Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games. If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top. If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen. Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse

38 replies to this topic

#31 bonanova

bonanova

bonanova

• Moderator
• 6161 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:New York

Posted 02 October 2007 - 07:40 AM

Since Berry's Paradox leads the conclusion that there are only a finite number of integers, we must then conclude that

d) there will be a final episode of General Hospital.

However, since we know that d is impossible, we enter an entirely new kind of paradox.

Fabulous...!

Now, who's gonna tell the producers?
• 0

Vidi vici veni.

#32 bonanova

bonanova

bonanova

• Moderator
• 6161 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:New York

Posted 02 October 2007 - 07:45 AM

Ah, I think I get it now. The fallicy is juxtaposing the well ordered principal and the concept of "the smallest
number not specifiable using fewer than 23 syllables" to define an empty set. Sorry I was so slow on that one.

Not at all.

Re-reading my post, I don't think I made the connection clear; tossed it in as a teaser, kind of ...
• 0

Vidi vici veni.

#33 WitchOfDoubt

WitchOfDoubt

• Members
• 168 posts

Posted 05 June 2012 - 09:06 AM

Let's make it worse.

Allow me to define a new word: 'blonk.'

Blonk is a generic term for 'the smallest number not specifiable using fewer than 23 syllables.'

Have I just specified it in one syllable?
• 0

#34 Kikacat123

Kikacat123

Senior Member

• Members
• 507 posts
• Gender:Female
• Location:In a chair, held captive by the cat on my lap

Posted 07 April 2013 - 08:45 PM

I think that I might have an answer to this question. We were only supposed to use positive numbers, which technically, includes fractions. This is the smallest finite number that I can think of that is not specifically using fewer than 23 syllables. 1/googolplex to the googolplex power to the googolplex power...and continuing on for slightly less than infinity. This fits all requirements, but I am not sure if it is what you were looking for. It is an interesting question, though! : )

Edited by Kikacat123, 07 April 2013 - 08:53 PM.

• 0
"Silflay hraka, u embleer Rah!" - Thlayli, Watership Down

#35 Kikacat123

Kikacat123

Senior Member

• Members
• 507 posts
• Gender:Female
• Location:In a chair, held captive by the cat on my lap

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:51 AM

Sorry, correction for above-"not specifiable using fewer than 23 syllables".
• 0
"Silflay hraka, u embleer Rah!" - Thlayli, Watership Down

#36 vigmeister

vigmeister

Newbie

• Members
• 11 posts

Posted 02 May 2013 - 05:09 PM

Back here after almost 6 years of absence I used to be known as kingofpain, but I lost the password... I still remember discussions with bonanova, so it only made sense that start off replying to him

An assumption you make is that all numbers are specifiable. This is not proven.

- The list of specifiable numbers with less than 23 syllables is finite.

- "The smallest number not specifiable using fewer than 23 syllables" does not exist

The conclusion here is that if a number is specifiable, it can be specified with less than 23 syllables. In other words, the list of specifiable numbers is finite. PAradox resolved!

• 0

Newbie

• Members
• 15 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 02:30 AM

the smallest number not specifiable using fewer than twenty-three syllables describes a number, and it is 23 syllables! there you have it.

• 0

Newbie

• Members
• 15 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 02:30 AM

i meant 22,sorry

• 0

Newbie

• Members
• 15 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 02:31 AM

and since you dont specify a number, it could be negative infinity for all i care (which is also less than 23 sylables)

• 0

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users