bonanova

11 = 3 + 3 + 5. Are you objecting to using 3 twice? Yes, I thought that was the condition, that p1, p2, and p3 were distinct primes. My apologies if I'm conflating two conversations. In the strong form, the primes are distinct; the weak form [three primes for odd numbers] relaxes that condition. If the 3 can be repeated, then the weak form is established immediately from the strong form. I'm not an expert in number theory. But I found this interesting - that it's universally believed but still not proved. There's more about it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach's_weak_conjecture

Considering 1 not to be prime, this conjecture fails for 11. 11 = 3 + 3 + 5. Are you objecting to using 3 twice?

A chestnut ... usually the giraffe goes in first.

Bentley Brooklands? [url:99581]http://www.leftlanenews.com/bentley-brooklands.html

Moving along ... how about Mazda Millenia? Possible objection to Millenia is it's not spelled Millennia, so it's suggestive of, not identical to, a plural word. There's also the Kia Optima. Optimim is both noun and adjective.

Maxima is [a] a car model name and the plural form of the noun maximum. Spectra is [a] a car model name and the plural from of the noun spectrum. Maximas is the plural of "car named maxima" and pluralizes the notion of "car". Referring to a single Maxima car does not make the car's name singular, as you suggest. Mark 5:9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.

You're going south then going west. Even in poetry, that would be a right turn.

I've got it coming ... have at it. And stay safe.

The world breathes a sigh of relief j/k.

Wait. It gets even tougher ... I have no brothers. What's the probability that either of my two sisters has a brother? or that they both do? [remember to multiply] This must be the longest thread for a New Puzzle. Amazing.

Now that I get the idea, I'd do better if you do another of these. Nice.

Going for plural endings, whether meaningful or not, 5. Maxima - pl of maximum 6. Integra - pl of ? [iffy] might be f. of integer, with n. being integrum, rather than pl. 7. Accura - for that matter, but it's even farther off the track. Kudos to my unnamed friend, [who also suggested Spectra].

If you have a three dimensional view of the world but are a little twisted,

I'm more at home with analytical puzzles; this is of a different type. Like, nothing ... then, aha! Haven't had the aha yet. And, it's not your worst poetry ...

Nicely put. Acutally I first solved it by going North. It just seemed more crisp to deal with positive statements. Anyway, I've retired and have time to travel.

Hah! Cute. The reverse of Soccer teams [so called by us colonists] surprisingly having singular names as opposed to say Minnesota Vikings. Like WB, I'm thinking - and I've enlisted the aid of an automobile historian friend.

The friend sold sixty marbles at 40 cents apiece [5 marbles = $2] and got $24. But the women expected $25. The mystery is not where is a missing dollar; it's why did they expect $25?

Cute, but I'm clueless. What's the general subject?

I don't understand what you're concluding about B and C. Anything?

Three negated signs are true. The correct number is thus named three times, on cups 1, 2 and 4. Couldn't be much simpler than that.

Change the signs on the cups to their opposite.

I just checked and learned that 1 is not considered a prime number [3 is the smallest odd prime] so Goldbach's "weak" conjecture applies for odd N greater than 5. N = p1 + p2 + p3; [N odd, >5] Let p3=3 [N-3] = p1 + p2; [(N-3) is even, >2]

Well no, because primes are odd. So N couldn't be odd. Goldbach suggested N = p1 + p2 + p3 when N is odd. Let p3=1, then [N-p3] = p1 + p2. Since N-p3 is now even, they're essentially the same conjecture. Neither version has been proved - although everyone believes they're true.

This is not a paradox. It's a misapplication of Newton's 3rd law. Newtons 2nd Law says that an object of mass m, acted upon by a net force F, experiences an acceleration a, in the direction of F, such that F=ma. The cart accelerates because it experiences an imbalance of forces. Newton's 3rd law is different. It does not apply to an object. It does not say that the vector sum of the forces acting upon an object is zero. It says that at the interface between two objects, equal and opposite forces are exerted. The ground, the donkey and its harness all combine to exert an unopposed force to the cart, so it accelerates. That happens because these objects are in contact, and Newton's 3rd law is obeyed at these points of contact. Take a baseball hit by Alex Rodriguez's bat. Ball and bat exert equal and opposite forces on each other [N3]. No other force acts on the ball, so the ball accelerates. [N2] Because the ball exerts an equal force on the bat [N3], the bat slows down [N2]. The motion of objects does not contradict a right application of Newton's 3rd law.