unreality

yeah though most people put em in New Puzzles, and when/if you split New Puzzles into categories people will see that 'these' are for puzzles posted by members and 'those' are for puzzles posted by the admin If you really want to be picky and stop people from posting in the Admin-Posted Puzzle forums, I'd just lock those forums from members making new topics, but make it so it's possible to REPLY to existing topics. You can do that on phpbb88 so I'm sure you can do it here yeah see the part in my OP where I said "before you freak out", lol uh, sure ;D i have lots of admin/mod experience, see the link to The Revival in my sig, and The Revival is our fourth forum. Oh and I moderate at a site called RPCentral but sure, I'd be up to the job

adding to my own post (which was quoted above, also bonanova has yet to answer my question about 0's, which can make ANY number work on the first round), what ALFRED said reminded of one of the properties of the number 9 the difference between a two-digit number and its inverse is 9 times the difference between the two digits making up the two-digit number for example, 35+18=53, cuz 9*(5-3)=18 It's very easy to see WHY that happens. That specific method only works with 2-digit numbers, though. And as ALFRED pointed out, in a sort of generalization of what I was just talking about, the difference between a number and its inverse is always a multiple of 9 so if: abc - cba = m9 (m9 meaning a multiple of 9) then abc+cba = abc-cba+cba+cba abc+cba = m9 + 2(cba) 453+354 = (453-354) + 2(354) 453+354 = 99 + 2(354) This is all pretty obvious stuff, but I'm just pointing it out for general use

(vote after you've read my entire post ) I've noticed lately there are (in the "New Puzzles" forum) FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND new posts EVERY NANOSECOND! Okay, maybe not that much, but once I made a puzzle topic, went away for like ten minutes, came back, and it was already shunted to the second page and swamped by tons of other topics. Not sure if they're all new or just resurrected older topics, but the posting is tremendous in the New Puzzles forum. To me, it seems kinda silly to have the main, most-used, swamped "New Puzzles" forum all crammed into one forum. There are so many new members now with so many topics and things that it's starting to get overwhelming. I hardly check "New Puzzles" anymore, only occasionally, and then only read a couple topics, because of the sheer amounts. So I'm suggesting splitting up "New Puzzles" into a couple of basic puzzle categories... math, logic, lateral, word and then another one called 'riddle' for poem-riddle-things as well as riddles where the actual category of the riddle is to remain hidden (ie, a lateral puzzle made to look like a math puzzle, etc, though you could put this in math section to make it extra-tricky) actually, my revised idea... split "New Puzzles" into: New Math Puzzles New Logic Puzzles New Lateral Puzzles New Word Puzzles New Riddles and Puzzles where "New Riddles and Puzzles" is just "New Puzzles" renamed now before you freak out, there would be NO ATTEMPT MADE to organize all currently existing topics into these categories. That would be a titanic job. It would take days without sleep. Therefore I'm suggesting that we leave all current riddles in "Riddles and Puzzles" but then FROM NOW ON people will post their riddle under the category of their choosing- it doesn't necessarily have to fit, ie, you could post a word puzzle under "Math" and a moderator won't move it. Some riddles would require the maker to put it in a different category. Anyway, what I'm saying is: it wouldnt be enforced, but recommended and people would do it anyway, with the forums there. That way all the "New Puzzles" aren't hyper-concentrated into one forum, they have some space to breath, and an added bonus is that people that like certain types of riddles, like me, can go to a specific forum of their liking and not have to sift through other riddles. For example, if I want a good math-related riddle, I can check out "New Math Puzzles" sound good? Vote and let me know what you think!

I agree Yeah, I see what you mean. I guess the point would be in the debate forum (whatever it's called), people would post topics that are INTENTIONALLY debates about a very specific thing. Obviously a 'debate' can spring up anywhere, but not an intentional, specified debate. That's what the debate forum would be for. And if we see a repeat in a debate, for example in the "why would God permit suffering", any readers would just tell them "there's already an ongoing debate in the Debate Forum about this, stick to the OP" I agree, as I said to LIS. There would have to be a sticky (or "pinned topic" or whatever) in the forum outlining respect and such things. I will make it like I made the voting guidelines, if rookie1ja wants yeah I see how the word "Debate" gives a negative impression and can turn away some people that are just there to share opinions (though certainly some debates are/will get heated, depending on how opinionated people are on different subjects- there are many subjects to debate that are both philosophical and critically important to today's events: religion, politics, scientific theories, stem cell research, abortion, law, etc). So a different name is a good idea. If rookie OK's the idea, we can think of a good name the person who voted "no": I please ask you to post and give your reasons and stuff- a simple "No" vote doesn't mean much unless you back it up, telling us why this would be a bad idea ;D thanks, ~ unreality

Why would you take this offline? The whole point is to discuss it here my idea: if the number is made up of digits that in total add up to less than 10 (ie, add up to a single digit), than you get it in the first round: 2+1 = 3, which is a single digit, so: 21 + 12 = 33 4+1+1+2+1 = 9, single digit, so: 41121 + 12114 = 53235 1117 adds up to 10, but it doesnt necessarily mean it WONT be a palindrome on the first round: 1117 + 7111 = 8228 1218 + 8121 = 9339 So that leads to a more general (and obvious) rule, that if the corresponding flip-pairs each add up to a single digit, there is a palindrome in the first round, because there are no carry-overs for example, take 72133641 its flip pairs are 7&1, 2&4, 1&6, and 3&3. All of those add up to single digits, so there are no carry-overs, hence a perfect palindrome after round 1 note you can take this number in two ways: 716 716 + 617 = 1333 or 0716 + 6170 = 6886 This can obviously be done to any number to manipulate it so that its flip-pairs all add up to single digits... so bonanova, what's your rule on zeroes? btw congrats on post #1000 ;D

Rookie, I think the forum "Other" has become sort of two forums... the original purpose of "Other" and also "Debates". My idea is to make a new forum that is in that same bottom-most subsection- the new forum would be called "Debates", and would be for various debates- you could move the current debates in "Others" to there, such as the religious debate

which means he didn't show himself for sure Then why do you believe in god? Yes, it's irrational, as you said. So why do you think He exists? You believe in Him because priests and a book told you so. There is no proof, no evidence. Your faith has no basis. God doesn't exist. Then where did God come from? God would be infinitely more complex than the universe if he existed, and therefore infinitely harder to just exist as "i am a liar" said, you should read up on cosmology, Noa. It is my belief that the universe has existed forever, and always will (I think this is the belief of most atheists too)

still haven't thought of it...

and we have all the explanations for that, without God. The brain is a complex thing but even now we understand most of it and are learning more every day A brilliant design isn't needed. You can't understand our arguement without understand, at first, that. There is no worldly proof or need for a God at all, thus existence of a God is entirely faith-based. There is nothing here in the universe to prove that. I think you've said the same thing actually, in different words, in a few of your posts. I think we both agree that with faith you believe in God, nothing else. No God is needed cuz the universe is complicated- we've been over this several times in this debate, with success. If the universe is so complex to require a God, then God is so complex to require his own maker, and so on. The universe exists, but God (most likely, I'd say 99.9%) doesn't exist, at least if you look at it with evidence found in this universe. But with faith, he exists to you, Lausus. Admit it- you don't believe in a God because it's a necessity based on our world. It's not. I don't and I get by fine. The universe does not require a creator, AT ALL. No, the reason you believe in God is because you have faith that he exists, no doubt brought about by a religious upbringing and a faith passed down by parents and repetitive assertion that God is around us. But he's not, from all that we can tell. There is no basis for the faith, and thus it is a shaky faith. If you want to believe in God then go ahead. I'm sure it makes you feel good. I'm sure you are all cozy with your secured spot in heaven because "Jesus died for us". You can have all the faith you want. Me, I value the truth. obviously he didn't show himself FOR SURE, or we wouldn't be saying he doesnt exist, right now we should be able to demand something from a king. If he's a good king, that is. Maybe not each individual person, as that would be quite taxing, but he could at least show himself to his villagers so that they know for sure that he's there in his castle and he likes his people. What definition? What requires that there must be a supernatural? there is no supernatural! so you believe that the only God is God? What about Egpytian faiths? Greek faiths? Mayan faiths? Islam? Buddhism? Shintoism? they're all misguided, are they? Yet their religions are like the same as yours. Are you saying they're all doomed because they don't believe in your God? I'm sure they know that YOU are doomed because you don't believe in THEIR god... yes, I get that part. If you believed that God did in fact exist, he would be quite unfathomable. But it's irrevelant because he doesn't exist. And if he does, the unfathomableness is no proof that he does. That's what I was saying. Exactly, it's irrational, faith-based, rediculous, silly, etc, that's why I don't believe it. I'm not being insultive here, but saying it as I see it. But you made it sound as if I don't believe in God cuz I'm unwilling to accept the "unfathomableness", which is wrong. It's not for you to say why I'm an atheist. And again, this "fathomability" arguement is irrevelant. If God exists, then he is unfathomable. If God doesn't exist, then it doesn't matter. So let's discontinue this part of the arguement you're welcome, and vice versa to you ;D

Forgive Scraff for his rudeness... he means well but his points usually come across harsh and hostile. He doesn't represent al atheists, I assure you You can't make claims and then not back them up. Nothing in nature requires a higher deity. It functions on its own and saying the Bible is evidence for God is clearly not evidence at all... that's like saying "Jack and the Beanstalk" is foolproof evidence that giants walk around on clouds above us. There is no evidence in the Bible to assert its claims, just a bunch of religious sayings. Not everything in the Bible is true, so you can't be sure of anything the Bible says. I agree with that... I don't know what Scraff was thinking. It's more valuable to YOU, but not to us. What makes you think you know what the Word of God is? What makes you think you can control God and tell us his Word? According to your own words, you can't. The "Word of God" has no meaning if you don't believe in God. God has never shown himself FOR SURE for the WHOLE WORLD TO SEE. Why would you laugh at someone wondering if God exists? Are you saying God considers himself to good for people, he likes to keep people guessing? If God exists but doesn't interact with our world, there's no point in wasting time over him/her. A good excuse. How do you know any of that? The fact that he's "BEYOND US" is no proof for a god. I could say that Zeus is BEYOND US! Odin is BEYOND US! Unicorns and leprechauns exist, but they are BEYOND US, so we can't see them- they very well could exist, but your statement just makes that assumption, it doesn't prove anything. You can't expect to win a religious debate over atheists by saying that God is omni-amazing and we just can't fathom it. If God showed himself to the world, beyond a shadow of a doubt that he existed. You speak of miracles but there have been no such miracles. And remember what I said: BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT. He has not done so. So either, he doesn't exist, or he does exist but he wants (at least some) people to not think he exists.

bonanova: Yes, 2 spaces long if you want to get picky, if it's from the center of one square to the center of the other, but we practically mean that it covers 3 spaces, the starting space, middle space, and end space. If it started at the middle of each square it would make it 2 spaces long then. If it started at the ends it would make it 3. It starts at the ends ;D and did you see that my 328/441 was incorrect, the chances are 33/49 for white and 16/49 for black (and 79/147 to land on the same color) EventHorizon: yes that's what I was thinking. Maybe it's due to the fact that for a space that can reach less spaces, less spaces can reach that space too. I dunno, I'll think about it some more ;D good luck on your paper!

is a "stand" or "stance" like in a debate? no cuz you can keep your stance....hmmm....this is a good'un

Ah yes I'm sorry... I screwed up. I accidentally thought the 4 corners were all 1 instead of two 1's and two 1/2's, so I added on extra small amount which had to make me multiply 49 out to 441 to get a whole number numerator. Gah. I screwed up, I don't know what I was thinking. I had the numbers right but I misread my own handwriting when I was figuring out the averages. lol. To see exactly what I did wrong, pretend that the 1/2's adjacent the corners were 1's instead, that's what I read from my handwriting as I calculated the numbers (I did it all in my head), so yeah that came out to 328/441 (441 is 49*9). But yeah woops, sorry the correct answers are then: and the interesting thing about #1 and #2:

I see you edited your other post ;D you saw the problem with your idea then? it does need to add up to 49... if the chances to end on white + the chances to fall on black are less than 49, it means that there are chances to fall on something OTHER than black or white. But enough of that, you saw the error of your solution cuz you edited your other post anyways, you wanted my method, I'll give my method for solving #1:

Like I said, I will show my method (even though I just explained it mostly in the post above yours) after more people have tried as for you not being sold, your solution is clearly fallacious somewhere, as it totals to 35/49. There are only two colors on the board ;D I will try to re-explain WHY it's fallacious: you say x amount of spaces go to a white space... well most of those spaces can also connect to other white spaces, and black spaces too. You're counting backwards from each space... I suggest thinking forward from each space. For example, each corner space as a starting space has a 1/1 chance of the other end of the ruler landing on white. The spaces next to the corner spaces have a 1/2 chance of landing on white, the other 1/2 is inward, to a black. etc. Soon, after more people have tried, I'll show my exact methods for each three problems

I'll repost part of it: It seems everyone is having a harder time than I thought! I'll post my answers, and leave you guys to figure out the method still (I'll post my method too, but after a few other people have tried) ~~~~ you asked me what "multiple spaces can connect to multiple black squares" means... it means that for a black space, there can be multiple spaces that connect to that color... and in the spaces that connect to that color can also connect to other spaces of both colors (some of them just one though) What I did, my method, is to generalize them into groups (corner groups, side groups, middle square) and figure out as if each square was the starting space and what other spaces it can connect to. I did the chances of connecting to a white. For example, if one space can go to blacks in two directions, but white if its orientation becomes straight ahead, then it has a 1/3 of ending a white, etc, and I did that for all the spaces (though using symmetry to my advantage to only have to do a quarter of all the squares) and then figuring it out. Then the chance to land on a black is 1-w, where w is the chance to land on a white. I then double-checked the black answer of course.

So, see my post between your two posts for the answers, and in the meantime I'll show your fault: according to you, the probability of the end space of the ruler being on white was: 23/49 according to you, the probability of the end space of the ruler being on black was: 12/49 those add to 35/49... so what other color is there on the board? lol

I think you posted before seeing my post above yours ;D

Nope, because multiple squares can connect to multiple black spaces. It seems everyone is having a harder time than I thought! I'll post my answers, and leave you guys to figure out the method still (I'll post my method too, but after a few other people have tried)

It is well known the Bible has many flaws, irregularities, falsehoods, etc, let's not debate individual passages. And it's clearly not the "Word of God" either, as you put it, since it is made up of little accounts written by many people... and at the Council of Whateveritscalled, that guy decided which passages would go in (the ones that made Jesus seem more holy, as opposed to the passages that showed Jesus as a mortal man and a good man and a religious leader, but not a magical superhuman like the ones put into the Bible say). Anyway, yeah, so moving on to something else you said: Sorry but you should take a course in logic or something.... it's MORE logical to assume that the universe has always been here than to assume that an UBER GOD has always been here. An UBER GOD is much more incredible and there is no evidence for such a being. It's much more logical to assume the universe has always been here. You worked yourself into a loophole The universe is eternal. The universe has no beginning and no end. The universe has always been here. Your so-called "logic" is not proof of a God you're right, it's not who says?

The Unreality Speaks! lol jk wow this topic had like 3 pages already by the time I found it ;D 1) everyone says "admins" but there's only one admin, that would be rookie1ja now that that pet peeve is over with: 2) I voted "No", cuz what Martini said originally had nothing to do with making new topics, it was about not resurrecting old topics. But still, looking at the OP was suggesting, new repeat puzzles are not a good idea.... like Scraff said, they would build up. Besides, everyone's heard those before. There's probably ten of the same locked ones here. Be original! A search isn't too much to ask, especially if you found the riddle somewhere, but if you made it yourself you shouldn't need to search (hopefully)

A hand in marriage? Taken often, but never kept = "take your hand in marriage", but you only do it once. You don't continually succesfully ask someone to marry you, with one success you can't do it again unless you divorce but you didn't "keep" it then ;D Never alone, have I wept = there has to be two people, obviously

EventHorizon has the wrong answers ;D except for #3, which is correct Clarification: yes the ruler covers 3 spaces, the "starting space", the "middle space" and the "end space" the "starting space" of the ruler has 1/49 chance to land on each of the squares. In other words, the starting space of the ruler is at a random space on the board the "end space" is a space two over from that, in one of the 4 orthogonal directions, but RANDOMLY. If the ruler would end up going off the board in one direction, it cant go in that direction. For example, if the starting space is in the upper left corner, it's equally random choices are down or right since there's no room to go up or left. And remember, like I hinted in my post, the ruler has THREE spaces and is 3 long, so "corner spaces" aren't just the 4 corner spaces, there are 16 corner spaces. And the "side spaces" that would only have 3 directions aren't just the few along each side, they go out 1 as well. Just like EventHorizon said:

You have a 7x7 board that looks like this: There are white spaces and black spaces on the board, as shown. You have a ruler three spaces long that are you going to put on the board... a random space is picked out of the 49 spaces (either random 7 to determine the row, and then random 7 to determine the column, or just random 49 to determine the square number, whatever, somehow you randomly determine, with equal chances, a square from the board). This random square on the board is where you start the ruler, and you place it facing any of the four orthogonal directions (left, right, up, down), randomly (ie, random out of 4). Obviously if it's in the corner it's only random out of 2 directions, or 3 directions if it's a side piece. (Remember, the ruler is 3 spaces long) 1. What is the probability that the ruler's end will fall on a white space? 2. What is the probability that the ruler's end will fall on a black space? 3. What is the probability that the ruler's end will land on a color that is the same color as the space under the ruler's beginning? (ie, one end is on black, the other end is on black, or one is on white and the other end is on white)

Then that's a ridiculous point of view, in my opinion, after giving a long think about your post and it just seems.... I dunno, like I said, ridiculous. It means everyone is going to Hell, cuz I'm sure according to your strict rules, that EVERYONE has sinned. Do you really believe that people are done for and are completely hopeless cases if they commit just one single sin? I think that sounds ridiculous even to most theists (though I could be wrong). And about new people in the debate, we like new people! Thanks for stopping by but be prepared to have things that you hold sacred be put up to scrutiny and questioning. You have to be open-minded and willing to possibly change positions, or at least put yourself in our shoes for a bit, or at least listen to what we are saying, otherwise nobody will value you in this debate, just warning you ;D So, just curious, WHY are you a theist? Were you raised in a theist background and never actually THOUGHT about why you think God exists, or whatever, tell us your story