Page 1 of 3
Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 14th, 2019, 8:37 pm
by Moosey
Ask hypothetical questions here!
To start, would a weapon involving cheese be feasible?
Would it be possible, for instance, to make a mortar launching scalding-hot globs of cheese? Presumably the outside would harden immediately, but perhaps the inside would remain scalding hot. If so, what kind of cheese would be the most dangerous/effective? And would the contraption
kill queen Maeve?
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 14th, 2019, 9:58 pm
by testitemqlstudop
Reminds me of what if xkcd.
What would happen, theoretically, if you "inverted" a strong gravitational wave's time direction, i.e. if instead of one object emanating GWs, GWs were focused on one object (coming in from all directions from that object's point of view)
What must the magnitude of the GWs be to obliterate a planet?
On a related note, how many Death Stars are needed to output enough energy to create an antimatter copy of Alderaan?
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 15th, 2019, 6:51 am
by Moosey
testitemqlstudop wrote:On a related note, how many Death Stars are needed to output enough energy to create an antimatter copy of Alderaan?
That depends on the mass of Alderaan and the energy output of the Death Star.
testitemqlstudop wrote:Reminds me of what if xkcd.
Yes, I was considering submitting the cheese question.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 15th, 2019, 11:28 pm
by testitemqlstudop
Moosey wrote:testitemqlstudop wrote:On a related note, how many Death Stars are needed to output enough energy to create an antimatter copy of Alderaan?
That depends on the mass of Alderaan and the energy output of the Death Star.
A good lower bound is calculated by gravitational binding energy.
gbe of earth = 2e32 joules
One gram of antimatter releases 1.493e+24 joules on contact with matter, and hence requires ~3e+24 per gram
Mass of earth = 5.972e27 g
5.972e+27 * 3e+24 / 2e+32 = 8.958e+19 death stars
9 * 10^19 = 90 quintillion death stars
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 20th, 2019, 1:42 pm
by gameoflifemaniac
Can you f**** a creeper?
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 20th, 2019, 3:18 pm
by Moosey
gameoflifemaniac wrote:Can you f**** a creeper?
Can you ask an actual hypothetical question like testitem's or mine, instead of what I believe is making reference to internet memes?
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 20th, 2019, 9:51 pm
by testitemqlstudop
gameoflifemaniac wrote:Can you f**** a creeper?
hmm what verb has FIVE letters and starts with an f and is not written by someone stupid
Moosey wrote:
Can you ask an actual hypothetical question like testitem's or mine, instead of what I believe is making reference to internet memes?
(bool)(124 * (6 / 3 - 2)) = (bool)0 = false
Here's a question more ridiculous than all previous ones.
What is the fastest growing well-defined googological function definable in under 1 KB?
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 20th, 2019, 9:55 pm
by fluffykitty
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 20th, 2019, 10:39 pm
by testitemqlstudop
testitemqlstudop wrote:well-defined
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 20th, 2019, 10:58 pm
by fluffykitty
Still works. Consider "x->(the fastest growing well-defined googological function definable in under 1 KB)(x)+1". If it's well defined then it's illdefined, and if it's illdefined then your question is illdefined as well.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 20th, 2019, 11:37 pm
by PkmnQ
testitemqlstudop wrote:gameoflifemaniac wrote:Can you f**** a creeper?
hmm what verb has FIVE letters and starts with an f and is not written by someone stupid
Can you
flank a creeper?
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 20th, 2019, 11:45 pm
by testitemqlstudop
fluffykitty wrote:Still works. Consider "x->(the fastest growing well-defined googological function definable in under 1 KB)(x)+1". If it's well defined then it's illdefined, and if it's illdefined then your question is illdefined as well.
The assumption is that my question is well defined, and if function illdefined implies question illdefined, then function illdefined implies false, so function illdefined = false, so then that function isn't well defined under my question either.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 21st, 2019, 12:53 am
by fluffykitty
testitemqlstudop wrote: [...] function illdefined = false, so then that function isn't well defined under my question either.
I think you missed a negative somewhere.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 21st, 2019, 2:02 am
by testitemqlstudop
Firstly,
function well-defined => function ill-defined
function ill-defined => question ill-defined
question is not ill-defined
Hence,
function well-defined => function ill-defined
function ill-defined => false
question is not ill-defined
or
function well-defined => function ill-defined
function is not ill-defined
question is not ill-defined
so
function well-defined => false
function is not ill-defined
question is not ill-defined
or
function is not well-defined
function is not ill-defined
question is not ill-defined
Since P and (NOT P) is inherently impossible the function can't be well-defined and ill-defined at the same time, so it is not a function under the scope of this question.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 21st, 2019, 6:23 am
by Moosey
Testitem, I wrote a piece of mooseudocode
here:
Code: Select all
call oracle #call is like import in python
call runMoosedocodeString as run
call numbertostring #(a hypothetical code which could be written out
#but I don't want to right now since 1) I don't
#have it and 2) it would be long.
#basically, it just converts a number to a string. e.g. 1-> a, 2 -> b,
#(something around 30 or 40) -> aa, etc.
newvar x
newvar i
newvar y
newset A
x=0
i=0
protect i #new syntax! protect -> don't change value during runMoosedocodeString.
protect A
deprotect x #(makes sure x will never be protected)
while i < 500^(this.length) #500 can be any value as long as it's greater than the
#number of characters mooseudocode uses.
->y = numbertostring(i) #we assign y to that string...
->if oracle(y) = 1,
-> ->newent A
-> ->setent i of A x #this shot in the dark is okay since we're going over every string.
#Even if some fast-growing thing assigning stuff to a z
#appears we'll still get one assigning stuff to x.
-> ->x=0
x=0
i=0
while i <= A.length
->if ent i of A > x
-> ->x=ent i of A
Which is an example of something like Berry's paradox-- it sets x to the largest value produced by (effectively) all 1-character longer codes, and has 1010 characters (unless you count the things that it calls, but those could be integrated into a modified mooseudocode so it really doesn't matter), which is 1010 bytes, which is < a
kibibyte which is different from a
kilobyte but is probably what you wanted-- and it has a ton of comments to explain what it's doing, too! (Technically I had to get rid of the very first one but that doesn't matter)
Therefore, the answer to your question is undefined.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 21st, 2019, 6:37 am
by testitemqlstudop
Did you not read my response.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 21st, 2019, 6:38 am
by Moosey
testitemqlstudop wrote:Did you not read my response?
Which one, the long one?
Show that my setup is disallowed.
And show why it's disallowed.
I think I'll count to the smallest number that cannot be defined in fifty or fewer words while I'm waiting.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 21st, 2019, 8:01 am
by testitemqlstudop
Because my question is under the presumption is well defined, so any function (well-defined or ill-defined) that causes my question to be ill defined is not a function under the scope of my question.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 21st, 2019, 8:17 am
by Moosey
testitemqlstudop wrote:Because my question is under the presumption is well defined, so any function (well-defined or ill-defined) that causes my question to be ill defined is not a function under the scope of my question.
Oh, we're playing the arbitrary exclusions game! Very well, what if I define my number in a way that makes the welldefinedness of your question illdefined--i.e. it cannot make your function illdefined or welldefined.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 21st, 2019, 8:48 am
by testitemqlstudop
Moosey wrote:testitemqlstudop wrote:Because my question is under the presumption is well defined, so any function (well-defined or ill-defined) that causes my question to be ill defined is not a function under the scope of my question.
Oh, we're playing the arbitrary exclusions game! Very well, what if I define my number in a way that makes the welldefinedness of your question illdefined--i.e. it cannot make your function illdefined or welldefined.
What I mean is that any function's welldefinedness is illdefined when its welldefinedness will contradict the welldefinedness of the question.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 21st, 2019, 8:52 am
by Moosey
testitemqlstudop wrote:Moosey wrote:testitemqlstudop wrote:Because my question is under the presumption is well defined, so any function (well-defined or ill-defined) that causes my question to be ill defined is not a function under the scope of my question.
Oh, we're playing the arbitrary exclusions game! Very well, what if I define my number in a way that makes the welldefinedness of your question illdefined--i.e. it cannot make your function illdefined or welldefined.
What I mean is that any function's welldefinedness is illdefined when its welldefinedness will contradict the welldefinedness of the question.
But what if the contradictiveness (I'm looking for a word, dictionary, meaning how contradictory something is) isn't well defined?
I can keep doing this all day until you decide that your question is illdefined or has no solution.
Are you getting confused? Honestly, I'm getting a little confused with all this tongue-twisting:
:etorw testitemqlstudopodutslqmetitset wrote:...any function's welldefinedness is illdefined when its welldefinedness will contradict the welldefinedness...
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 21st, 2019, 9:07 am
by testitemqlstudop
Any function's (INSERT PROPERTY HERE) is illdefined when its (INSERT PROPERTY HERE) will contradict the welldefinedness of the question.
... How is the statement "p AND (NOT p) is contradictory" contradictory? Since "p AND (NOT p)" is contradictory then the statement is inherently well defined and true. Furthermore "This statement is contradictory" is well defined and false, and "This statement is not contradictory" is well defined and true.
We have now magically made a boolean statement evaluate from two states (true, false) into four states (true, false, contradictory, ill-defined). How much further can we go?
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 21st, 2019, 9:09 am
by testitemqlstudop
Moosey wrote:testitemqlstudop wrote:u can't nest so many quotes
What I mean is that any function's welldefinedness is illdefined when its welldefinedness will contradict the welldefinedness of the question.
But what if the contradictiveness (I'm looking for a word, dictionary, meaning how contradictory something is) isn't well defined?
I can keep doing this all day until you decide that your question is illdefined or has no solution.
Are you getting confused? Honestly, I'm getting a little confused with all this tongue-twisting:
:etorw testitemqlstudopodutslqmetitset wrote:...any function's welldefinedness is illdefined when its welldefinedness will contradict the welldefinedness...
Contradictiveness is true or false. Give me a statement whose contradictiveness is ill-defined.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 21st, 2019, 9:19 am
by Moosey
testitemqlstudop wrote:Any function's (INSERT PROPERTY HERE) is illdefined when its (INSERT PROPERTY HERE) will contradict the welldefinedness of the question.
Good job! Now we're at fix #w! We still have a lot to go before we get to some more notable ordinals!
What if the property's contradiction of the welldefinedness of the question ay exist and may not? (w+1, though I swear this is the same thing as 1 in which case you didn't even fix all the stuff I threw at you)
Or, what if welldefinednesslayer_w is illdefined and thus we can not determine whether any lower layers would contradict the welldefinedness of the question?
dopstuqlitemtest wrote:
... How is the statement "p AND (NOT p) is contradictory" contradictory? Since "p AND (NOT p)" is contradictory then the statement is inherently well defined and true. Furthermore "This statement is contradictory" is well defined and false, and "This statement is not contradictory" is well defined and true.
We have now magically made a boolean statement evaluate from two states (true, false) into four states (true, false, contradictory, ill-defined). How much further can we go?
I'd say we need to have well-defined in there somewhere in your list of four.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Posted: September 21st, 2019, 9:25 am
by Moosey
testitemqlstudop wrote:
Contradictiveness is true or false. Give me a statement whose contradictiveness is ill-defined.
You can have multiple statements that have illdefined contradictive behavior together, of the general format:
1) paradoxical statement
2) statement which is contradictive iff 1 is true
Or something which is contradictive iff it is not:
1) statement which is true iff the group of statements is contradictive
2) statement which is contradictive iff 1 is false
Honestly, aren't contradictiveness and paradoxicality flavors of illdefinedness?