MATEMATICARI

Harrys · Post by **Harrys** » 10/05/2006 13:31

Paradoxe Emmenthal

-sto ima vise sira,ima vise rupa
-ili,sto ima vise rupa,ima manje sira
-dakle,sto ima vise sira,ima manje sira.

hajmo matematicari.

davis.ba · Post by **davis.ba** » 10/05/2006 13:39

Pa valjda kako što više sira ima proporcionalno ima više i rupa. Tako da ostane na istom bio sir veći ili manji.

Valja li ovo?

stanibal · Post by **stanibal** » 10/05/2006 13:53

Jao gluposti pa:
DRUGA RECENICA JE NETACNA.Jer:rupe u prvoj su u vecem broju jer raste sir,koliko god je njih vise toliko je i sira vise.
Evo primjer:
sir od 1m3 ima 0,2m3 rupa.
povecamo li sir na 2m3 on ce imati VISE sira (za 1m3) i VISE rupa(za 0,2m3),tacnije 0,4m3.
Sad tvoj zajeb je sto pretpostavljas da se zapremina novih rupa odnosi na stari sir,naime 0,4m3rupa/1m3sira,a ustvari to su rupe novog,veceg komada sira.
Tako,da iako kolicinski ima vise rupa,procentno ih ima isto(kao i sira),a sira vise kolicinski a ne manje(1,6m3 umjesto 0,8m3)!

Kratko:
1)Komad od 1m3:sir 0,8,rupe 0,2
2)Komad od 2m3:sir 1,6,rupe 0,4

1,6>0,8

Nije tacno:
STO VISE RUPA TO MANJE SIRA(jer u nasem slucaju sir raste,tacno je samo ako komad sira ne raste a samo rupe se povecavaju)

davis.ba · Post by **davis.ba** » 10/05/2006 13:55

Pa šta sam ja rekao?

stanibal · Post by **stanibal** » 10/05/2006 14:37

davis.ba wrote:Pa šta sam ja rekao?

Pa nisi rekao da mu nije tacna druga izjava.
Kriticni momenat:
Nove rupe se ne porede sa prvim komadom sira...

Ma nije ni vazno,vazno je da ga ja toliko ne volim...
Samo kao ''zacin'':)

Vingo · Post by **Vingo** » 10/05/2006 14:39

A onaj....kakve ovo veze ima s matematikom?

davis.ba · Post by **davis.ba** » 10/05/2006 14:41

stanibal wrote:
davis.ba wrote:Pa šta sam ja rekao?
Pa nisi rekao da mu nije tacna druga izjava.
Kriticni momenat:
Nove rupe se ne porede sa prvim komadom sira...

Pa dobro to se izvlači iz ove rečenice:

što više sira ima proporcionalno ima više i rupa

ali dobro, ti si to profesionalno dokazao.

Dajte nešto novo, teže ovo je bilo dosta lagano.

A onaj....kakve ovo veze ima s matematikom?

Pa jedino matematički možeš dokazati suprotno.

Harrys · Post by **Harrys** » 10/05/2006 16:04

Vingo wrote:A onaj....kakve ovo veze ima s matematikom?

Ko?

Harrys · Post by **Harrys** » 11/05/2006 10:03

zmijaIzmaj wrote:problem je cisto logicˇki...radi se o analognom zakljucivanju, gdje se napravila logicˇka gresˇka...to je primjer pogresnog analogno zakljucivanja

A gdje je logicna greska.Sve je logicno.

Fair Life · Post by **Fair Life** » 11/05/2006 13:07

Srecom... pa sir nisu balvani da se kubiciraju. Dragi kantar... oka i po dinar i po.

Koliko kosta 5 oka sira.

Saian · Post by **Saian** » 11/05/2006 13:11

Sjeca li se ko one reklame za "Sirelu" Bjelovar kratko prije rata?

A gdje sir?

A gdje sir?

Nema sira!!

i na kraju tip sjedi okruzhen hrpom razlichitih sireva i kaze :

"Ko kazhe da nema sira!!",

a majka jednog mog prijatelja je znala na to rec (bila je pod stare dane malo posenilila

)

"Pa ti si maloprije reko Bog te ne ubio!!"

Lisac · Post by **Lisac** » 11/05/2006 13:21

mirishe sir

analogijom bi se dalo zakljuchit da i ustajale none mirishu

shto vishe gljivica, vishe sira

shto vishe kishe

vishe sira

logika

a ja nisam student psihologije

zhenska logika

oximoron

Harrys · Post by **Harrys** » 11/05/2006 15:14

Paradox of Emmenthaler cheese
An article of Wikipédia, the free encyclopaedia.

To go to: navigation, To seek

This article is an outline to be supplemented, you can share your knowledge by modifying it and by putting it in one of the categories of outlines by adding a parameter to this model.

This paradox is wrongfully known under the appelation paradox of Gruyere, which ruffled suceptibility of the amateurs of emmental (the Gruyere does not have holes with the difference, inter alia, of the emmental). Also we will remain neutral while speaking about cheese (with holes). It is stated then:

* The more there is cheese, the more there are holes;
* however the more there are holes, the less there is cheese;
* thus more there is cheese, less there is cheese.

It is most famous of the paradoxes builds according to a mode of syllogism called Barbara (or syllogism in A-A-A). It highlights that the application without understanding of the syllogism causes aberration.

Actually, it takes place here a subtle semantic slip between the average terms of the two premises; what prohibits the conclusion. This slip is due to a contextual difference. indeed, for each premise, there is an implied context which makes possible the acceptance of the premise as a truth. However these implicit contexts are opposed and invalidated the syllogism.

Concretely, one can schematize the thing by considering the volume of cheese (packed, i.e., holes included/understood) and the density of the cheese (the matter ratio/volume).

Terms
Major premise major means context
more there is cheese more there are holes increase in volume - constant density
however?
Minor premise means minor context
more there are holes less there is cheese constant volume - reduction in the density
thus?
Conclusion minor major confusion of the contexts
more there is cheese less there is cheese

But, there-A-you it not average to conclude?

Yes; if one adopts the point of view of mathematical logic. It is then necessary to consider the context as an axiom. The conclusion is then a theorem relating to axiomatic necessarily containing the conjunction of the contexts. Thus, it is deduced here that, when volume and density of cheese are constant, one has well ?more there is cheese, less there is cheese?. What can be reduced to an idiotic truism: ?as much there is cheese, as much there is cheese?.

See too

?Gruyere and Emmenthaler cheese? in the collection of howlers

Recovered of ?http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxe_de_l%27emmenthal?

Sarafcina · Post by **Sarafcina** » 11/05/2006 15:25

zmijaIzmaj wrote:hari, i sta si zakljucio (na nasem)

a sta imaju zakljuciti

da nisu definisali sta se gleda ...masa ili volumen u prve dvije premise

i onda sve se to mijesa do nebuloze u zakljucku

Harrys · Post by **Harrys** » 11/05/2006 15:28

da je na matematicarima da dokazu,problem materije.

Svemirski_Jebach · Post by **Svemirski_Jebach** » 12/05/2006 09:19

zmijaIzmaj wrote:problem je cisto logički...radi se o analognom zakljucivanju, gdje se napravila logička greška...to je primjer pogresnog analogno zakljucivanja

izvini ali ne postoji analogno zaključivanje...to nije logički pojam. postoji induktivni i deduktivni zaključak.

U ovom slučaju, jer se ide od pojedinačnog ka općem radi se o induktivnom zaključku.

Dobro je dokazano da to nije tačno, pogrešna premisa. Zaključak je kako to logičari kažu, ispravan logički ali neistinit.

To vam je kao:

Svi nijemci su debeli
Helmuth je nijemac
Helmuth je debeo.

Ispravan ali neistinit zaključak.

hehehe imao sam dobrog profesora logike ;

Sarafcina · Post by **Sarafcina** » 12/05/2006 09:31

Logika .... nacin dolaska do pogresnih zakljucaka...ali da budes potpuno ubijedjen u njih

Fair Life · Post by **Fair Life** » 12/05/2006 09:33

Njemu dovoljno... sa i bez rupa.

MATEMATICARI

#1 MATEMATICARI

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

#13

#14

#15

#16

#17

#18