## 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

# more prime thoughts

14 replies to this topic

### #11 bonanova

bonanova

bonanova

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

Posted 28 September 2007 - 06:08 AM

that's must be 4 because divide by zero.
1. there's no even prime numbers excludeing 2. so, the solution set is none {}.
2. "evenly" is the x^2/sizeof(x). however, the size of x is zero.

It's just like customers never visit the resturant, you can't tell which one of them love the food or not.

I claim it's how we describe categories of things.
No math needed...

[following added in edit]

In the case of the restaurant that has no customers,

ALL of the customers love the food. Because you can't find ONE that doesn't. and ...
NONE of the customers love the food. Because you can't find ONE that does.

It's logically ok to use universal quantifiers [all, no, none] with empty sets.
But you can't use particular quantifiers [one, some] with empty sets.
• 0

Vidi vici veni.

### #12 Benson

Benson

Junior Member

• Members
• 23 posts

Posted 28 September 2007 - 07:54 AM

I claim it's how we describe categories of things.
No math needed...

If you choose 4, you can ignore that as well.

ALL of the customers love the food. Because you can't find ONE that doesn't. and ...
NONE of the customers love the food. Because you can't find ONE that does.
It's logically ok to use universal quantifiers [all, no, none] with empty sets.
But you can't use particular quantifiers [one, some] with empty sets.

How about "Some of the customers love the food, because you can neither find a specific one that does, nor doesn't."
• 0

### #13 bonanova

bonanova

bonanova

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

Posted 28 September 2007 - 08:08 AM

I claim it's how we describe categories of things.
No math needed...

If you choose 4, you can ignore that as well.

ALL of the customers love the food. Because you can't find ONE that doesn't. and ...
NONE of the customers love the food. Because you can't find ONE that does.
It's logically ok to use universal quantifiers [all, no, none] with empty sets.
But you can't use particular quantifiers [one, some] with empty sets.

How about "Some of the customers love the food, because you can neither find a specific one that does, nor doesn't."

"Some" means "at least one."
And there isn't one.
Read existential import.

You can talk about all of nothing and about none of nothing.
But you can't talk about some of nothing.
• 0

Vidi vici veni.

### #14 Benson

Benson

Junior Member

• Members
• 23 posts

Posted 28 September 2007 - 09:54 AM

If the question asks "which one" and the answers has two, it sounds like 4 is correct.
• 0

### #15 bonanova

bonanova

bonanova

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

Posted 02 October 2007 - 08:41 AM

If the question asks "which one" and the answers has two, it sounds like 4 is correct.

You're right... there is no defensible best answer.

Um... except [4] is defensible.

Where does that leave us?
• 0

Vidi vici veni.

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users