gordonm888
gordonm888
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 2859
November 7th, 2018 at 10:42:41 AM permalink
Mike Shackleford, who is a well-known logician, asked a casino exec "Where has my money gone?" The casino executive replied by stating that each dollar Mike had walked into the casino with seems to have turned into a penny, and wrote this as an explanation:

$1 = 100¢ = (10¢)^2 = ($0.10)^2 = $0.01 = 1¢

Of course, Mike knew that this was nonsense and that his money had disappeared because of the 6:5 rule at the BJ tables. Explain the error in the evil casino executive's argument. Use Spoiler tags.

Michael Shackleford rule: If your name is Michael Shackleford then we know you can solve this! Please allow a little time to see who else in the forum comes forward first with the correct answer.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
Joeman
Joeman
Joined: Feb 21, 2014
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1904
Thanks for this post from:
OnceDear
November 7th, 2018 at 11:23:43 AM permalink
The trouble here begins when he squares the monetary unit. (10¢)^2 does not equal 100¢, but rather 100¢2 (whatever ¢2 means -- square cents?). Then, he tries to make 100¢2 and $20.01 equivalent by stating (10¢)^2 = ($0.10)^2. The problem here is that while $1 = 100¢, $21 does not equal 100¢2... you must also square the conversion ratio, so $21 = 10000¢2.

Just like 1 yard = 3 feet, but 1 sq. yard = 9 sq. feet.

You, Mr. Casino Exec, should focus more on keeping the free play and RFB coming, and let the logicians worry about the math!
"Dealer has 'rock'... Pay 'paper!'"
Dalex64
Dalex64
Joined: Feb 10, 2013
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 1067
November 7th, 2018 at 11:28:21 AM permalink
What Joeman said. I hit refresh when getting ready to post and he explained it better than what I had prepared, anyway.
gordonm888
gordonm888
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 2859
November 7th, 2018 at 1:15:25 PM permalink
Quote: Joeman

The trouble here begins when he squares the monetary unit. (10¢)^2 does not equal 100¢, but rather 100¢2 (whatever ¢2 means -- square cents?). Then, he tries to make 100¢2 and $20.01 equivalent by stating (10¢)^2 = ($0.10)^2. The problem here is that while $1 = 100¢, $21 does not equal 100¢2... you must also square the conversion ratio, so $21 = 10000¢2.

Just like 1 yard = 3 feet, but 1 sq. yard = 9 sq. feet.

You, Mr. Casino Exec, should focus more on keeping the free play and RFB coming, and let the logicians worry about the math!



This is the correct answer. I thought this puzzle was cute but apparently it was too easy for this forum.

Of course, almost anything short of proving the Riemann Hypothesis might be too easy for this forum.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
Joeman
Joeman
Joined: Feb 21, 2014
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1904
November 7th, 2018 at 2:30:58 PM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

This is the correct answer. I thought this puzzle was cute but apparently it was too easy for this forum.

Of course, almost anything short of proving the Riemann Hypothesis might be too easy for this forum.

I enjoyed it. I think I've taken too many courses/tests over the years where getting the units to work out is half the battle of solving the problems.

Here's another one along the same vein: The Whiskey & Water Diet

A 1.5 oz (44 ml) shot of whiskey contains about 100 calories. If I mix that with 2.75 oz (81 ml) of ice water, I have a cocktail that is 125 ml in volume at 0°C. Assuming a specific gravity of 1, 125 ml = 125 g.

Everyone knows that the definition of a calorie is the energy needed to heat 1 gram of water 1°C. When I drink this cocktail, my body must expend energy to heat the beverage to body temperature, which is 37°C. This amount of energy would be equal to 125 (g) x 37 (°C) = 4,625 calories!

Remember that the whiskey is only 100 calories (and the ice water is 0). That comes out to a net loss of 4,525 calories per drink. If I am pounding these drinks, why the heck am I not losing weight?

under a spoiler tag, please!
"Dealer has 'rock'... Pay 'paper!'"
TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 2244
November 7th, 2018 at 3:31:52 PM permalink
According to Professor Emerys physics lecture on alcohol in the fall of 1998

Whiskey has 100 kilocalories (enough energy to increase one Liter of water 1C) which is 100,000 calories, for a net gain of over 95,000 calories. Just like in math where there is a difference between x the variable and x the multiplication sign, the metric system says there is a difference between calorie and Calorie
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1372
  • Posts: 22846
Thanks for this post from:
Joeman
November 7th, 2018 at 5:21:46 PM permalink
Thanks, Gordon, I never saw that problem before. I'll see if my older two kids can find the flaw in it.

Speaking of flaws, disprove this logic, if you can.

  1. To find a woman requires an investment of both money and time. In other words women = money * time.
  2. We've all heard that time = money.
  3. So, women = money * time money.
  4. Women = money^2
  5. We know from bible study (Timothy 6:10), that (the love of) money is the root of all evil. In other words, money = evil^0.5.
  6. Squaring both sides, money^2 = evil.
  7. Substituting into equation (4): women = evil


Other than EB, do you agree? If not, where is the flaw?
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Joeman
Joeman
Joined: Feb 21, 2014
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1904
Thanks for this post from:
onenickelmiracle
November 8th, 2018 at 7:35:09 AM permalink
What we commonly refer to a "calorie" in nutrition, is actually a kilocalorie or kcal. I have noticed that UK food labels show total energy of the food in kcal (and sometimes kilojoules as well). Perhaps this is true for all countries outside the US. It wouldn't surprise me.


Wiz, your proof is irrefutable! ;)

If there is a flaw, I think it's in Step 1. I think for most women, the investments of time and money are additive. If you do happen to find one that requires you to multiply the time you spend with her by the money you spend on her, then yes, she is probably evil! ;)
"Dealer has 'rock'... Pay 'paper!'"
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8623
November 8th, 2018 at 7:56:28 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Thanks, Gordon, I never saw that problem before. I'll see if my older two kids can find the flaw in it.

Speaking of flaws, disprove this logic, if you can.

  1. To find a woman requires an investment of both money and time. In other words women = money * time.
  2. We've all heard that time = money.
  3. So, women = money * time money.
  4. Women = money^2
  5. We know from bible study (Timothy 6:10), that (the love of) money is the root of all evil. In other words, money = evil^0.5.
  6. Squaring both sides, money^2 = evil.
  7. Substituting into equation (4): women = evil


Other than EB, do you agree? If not, where is the flaw?



The love of money is the root of all evil.

Then you say money is the root of evil.

That's the problem.




Here's one for you who are oh-so-daring:

A man has a sack of potatoes which total 100 pounds. He's interested in how much water is in the potatoes, so he tests them with a potato-water-testing-machine and discovers they are 99% water and 1% starch (by weight).

He puts them on his porch overnight just to see what will happen. He's a weird, curious feller.

In the morning, he tests them again to see what percentage (by weight) the potatoes are. He discovers they dehydrated a bit and are now 98% water and 2% starch.

How much do the potatoes weigh in whole?
DogHand
DogHand
Joined: Sep 24, 2011
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 427
November 8th, 2018 at 9:02:22 AM permalink
Quote: RS

<snip>Here's one for you who are oh-so-daring:

A man has a sack of potatoes which total 100 pounds. He's interested in how much water is in the potatoes, so he tests them with a potato-water-testing-machine and discovers they are 99% water and 1% starch (by weight).

He puts them on his porch overnight just to see what will happen. He's a weird, curious feller.

In the morning, he tests them again to see what percentage (by weight) the potatoes are. He discovers they dehydrated a bit and are now 98% water and 2% starch.

How much do the potatoes weigh in whole?



If we assume the change in the weight of the sack of potatoes is due solely to evaporation of water, then the answer is straightforward: the sack originally contained 99 lbs of water and 1 lb of starch. The next day, it still contains 1 lb of starch. If that constitutes 2% of the new weight, then the sack of potatoes now weighs 50 lbs.

On the other hand, the weight might have changed because a rat ate some of the potatoes. In this case, the answer is indeterminate.


Dog Hand

  • Jump to: