Perhaps it is a number, ie 42? as in HHGTTG?

blat.

That isn’t a question.

is this like that tree falling in the woods thing?

The Rev Dodgson said:

That isn’t a question.

Maybe, but I didn’t say “that?”

Arts said:

is this like that tree falling in the woods thing?

Depends, which tree? and which woods?

There is a tree of which the exact location is unknown except to a very few scientists, all I know is it’s in Northern California, possibly hiding out with Elvis, Harold and Lord Lucan.

Hyperion

My previous response was not a comment on your question, it was an answer.

But since it was an answer, your question was a question to which it was an answer, so the answer was incorrect.

I have another answer, but if I tell it to you, it won’t be correct either.

The Rev Dodgson said:

My previous response was not a comment on your question, it was an answer.

But since it was an answer, your question was a question to which it was an answer, so the answer was incorrect.

I have another answer, but if I tell it to you, it won’t be correct either.

Good work Rev, now I think we are getting somewhere, keep going :-)

bob(from black rock) said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

My previous response was not a comment on your question, it was an answer.

But since it was an answer, your question was a question to which it was an answer, so the answer was incorrect.

I have another answer, but if I tell it to you, it won’t be correct either.

Good work Rev, now I think we are getting somewhere, keep going :-)

I’m not going to keep making false statements all afternoon just to keep you entertained bob :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

bob(from black rock) said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

My previous response was not a comment on your question, it was an answer.

But since it was an answer, your question was a question to which it was an answer, so the answer was incorrect.

I have another answer, but if I tell it to you, it won’t be correct either.

Good work Rev, now I think we are getting somewhere, keep going :-)

I’m not going to keep making false statements all afternoon just to keep you entertained bob :)

Awww why not? Politicians can keep it going all day.

What do you mean by “known”?

Bubblecar said:

What do you mean by “known”?

Err, I don’t know?

Bubblecar said:

What do you mean by “known”?

I don’t know, well, I’m not sure?

Would Donald Rumsfeld be able to help?

Existence.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Existence.

Or is that the answer to every possible question? hmmm

The Rev Dodgson said:

That isn’t a question.

This isn’t an answer.

Arts said:

There is a tree of which the exact location is unknown except to a very few scientists, all I know is it’s in Northern California, possibly hiding out with Elvis, Harold and Lord Lucan. Hyperion

Wow.

The Wollemi Pine was though to be extinct for 150 million years, then someone found one in NSW. Location still secret, AFAIK.

bob(from black rock) said:

Perhaps it is a number, ie 42? as in HHGTTG?

What is six times seven?

Rule 303 said:

Arts said:

There is a tree of which the exact location is unknown except to a very few scientists, all I know is it’s in Northern California, possibly hiding out with Elvis, Harold and Lord Lucan. Hyperion

Wow.

The Wollemi Pine was though to be extinct for 150 million years, then someone found one in NSW. Location still secret, AFAIK.

There are a limited number of Blue Mountain valleys. It could be found provided you were dilligent.

What is the question to which there is no known answer

wookiemeister said:

What is the question to which there is no known answer

What is 9 times 7.

this thread sponsored by Jeopardy Game Show!

Skunkworks said:

wookiemeister said:

What is the question to which there is no known answer

What is 9 times 7.

who wants to know?

As The Rev Dodgson pointed out, your question constitutes a proof by contradiction that every answer has a question.

If the question had been “What is the true answer to which there is no known question?”, then the answer would have been:

Any self-contradictory statement is a true answer to which there is no known question.

Or rather, it isn’t.

The Rev Dodgson said:

If the question had been “What is the true answer to which there is no known question?”, then the answer would have been:

Any self-contradictory statement is a true answer to which there is no known question.

Or rather, it isn’t.

:) that’s settled then. :)

KJW said:

As The Rev Dodgson pointed out, your question constitutes a proof by contradiction that every answer has a question.

I suppose some answers have to share a question… now we have answers to which there is only half a question…

Arts said:

KJW said:

As The Rev Dodgson pointed out, your question constitutes a proof by contradiction that every answer has a question.

I suppose some answers have to share a question… now we have answers to which there is only half a question…

or less

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Arts said:

KJW said:

As The Rev Dodgson pointed out, your question constitutes a proof by contradiction that every answer has a question.

I suppose some answers have to share a question… now we have answers to which there is only half a question…

or less

which then prompts the question, what question has the most known answers?

Arts said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Arts said:

I suppose some answers have to share a question… now we have answers to which there is only half a question…

or less

which then prompts the question, what question has the most known answers?

if.

• What is the question to which there is no known answer

There are heaps of those:

What are you looking at?
Does this make me look fat?
etc…

• which then prompts the question, what question has the most known answers?

Why?

Arts said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Arts said:

I suppose some answers have to share a question… now we have answers to which there is only half a question…

or less

which then prompts the question, what question has the most known answers?

The half-remarkable question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xEaEALzyJo

Didn’t Godel have something to say about this? For any mathematical system containing the natural numbers there is a question that has no answer. Godel even told us how to construct one.

A cruder version of the question with no answer is of course given by simple recursion:
‘Is the statement “This statement is false” true or false?’
Mathematics can bypass that loophole in several ways but each necessarily leads to more loopholes, more undecidable propositions.

As for the answer with no known question, how about the answer:
“spd0f9g8” ?

• As for the answer with no known question, how about the answer: “spd0f9g8” ?

What do you get if you put the number 8 at the end of spd0f9g?

mollwollfumble said:

Didn’t Godel have something to say about this? For any mathematical system containing the natural numbers there is a question that has no answer. Godel even told us how to construct one.

A cruder version of the question with no answer is of course given by simple recursion:
‘Is the statement “This statement is false” true or false?’
Mathematics can bypass that loophole in several ways but each necessarily leads to more loopholes, more undecidable propositions.

As for the answer with no known question, how about the answer:
“spd0f9g8” ?

.

Q: What was mollwollfumble’s anwer?

A: “spd0f9g8”

mollwollfumble said:

Didn’t Godel have something to say about this? For any mathematical system containing the natural numbers there is a question that has no answer. Godel even told us how to construct one.

Not quite. Gödel’s theorem has two parts. The part to which most people seem to refer basically says that no mathematical system based on the natural numbers can be both complete and consistent. Incompleteness (of a consistent system) is manifested by the existence of true statements that can’t be proven within the system. Such a statement is: “This statement has no proof”. Note that this statement is not quite the same as: “This statement is true”.

However, I have come to realise that this part of Gödel’s theorem is actually quite trivial (compared to the Gödel numbers used by Gödel in his proof). The incompleteness of any mathematical system based on natural numbers emerges from the fact that the natural numbers themselves are not finite, and that every natural number has a property that is not satisfied by any other number, the property that defines the number.

KJW said:

However, I have come to realise that this part of Gödel’s theorem is actually quite trivial (compared to the Gödel numbers used by Gödel in his proof). The incompleteness of any mathematical system based on natural numbers emerges from the fact that the natural numbers themselves are not finite, and that every natural number has a property that is not satisfied by any other number, the property that defines the number.

In general, if one has an infinite set defined by a set of axioms, there will always be a proper subset of that set whose elements satisfy properties that cannot be proven by the axioms that define the original set. These are the axioms that define the subset, and which cannot be proven by the axioms of the original set because the elements of the original set not belonging to the subset do not obey them. If the subset is also infinite, then this process can be applied to them. And if the subset is finite, then there are an infinite number of them. Thus, a complete set of axioms for an infinite set can never be finite.

KJW said:

In general, if one has an infinite set defined by a set of axioms, there will always be a proper subset of that set whose elements satisfy properties that cannot be proven by the axioms that define the original set. These are the axioms that define the subset, and which cannot be proven by the axioms of the original set because the elements of the original set not belonging to the subset do not obey them. If the subset is also infinite, then this process can be applied to them. And if the subset is finite, then there are an infinite number of them. Thus, a complete set of axioms for an infinite set can never be finite.

Furthermore, if one relaxes the requirement that the set of axioms be finite by merely requiring them to be countable, then the set of axioms for an uncountable set (e.g., the real numbers) cannot even be countable.

I’m‘a go right out there and say that I can find a question for any answer you put forth.

Life

Life, oh life, ohhh life, oh life
do do do do

I don’t want to see a ghost,
It’s a sight that I fear most
I’d rather have a piece of toast

Some of the worst lyrics evah, right there.