Posted on 03/12/2014 9:46:13 AM PDT by The Looking Spoon
Chomsky claims that the reason communism hasn’t been successful is because no one has done it right yet.
I’ll explain 3 to you if you explain 13 to me.
17a. The Monk hands the vendor a $20, and waits, and waits, and waits.
Finally he says, “I’d like change.”
The vendor says, “Change comes from within.”
A thief is crossing the street and is hit by a truck and dies and he finds himself in hell. A devil walks up to him and says:
“You’re just in time, Satan is giving his sermon in the great hall of hell.”
He then leads the thief to the hall and sits him way in back.
The thief then asks the devil why is he sitting in the back, and the devil says:
“We seat people according to how evil they were in life. Since your crime was theft you sit in the back”
The man then asks:
“So what did those people in front of me do?”
The devil says:
“Oh those are all rapists and the ones in front of them are all killers”
The thief then sees people sitting way in the front and Satan is spitting fire and lava all over them as they scream and yell in torture, and the thief wonders what could be worse than killing, so he asks the devil:
“So what did those people in the front row do?”
The devils says;
“Oh those are the people who kept reelecting Nancy Pelosi”
LOL!!
If L-1 did not want a beer, then he could answer the question “No.” That he didn’t say “No” means that he does want a beer. But he can’t answer “Yes” because he does not know about L-2 & L-3.
Similar for L-2.
But L-3 knows that L-1 and L-2 want beers, because they didn’t say “No.” So he can answer “Yes.”
So, the third person knew that the other two were getting drinks, and all he was answering is that he was getting a drink.
The first answers without knowing the answers of the other two, The second one answers without knowing the answer of the third. The third one then answers for all of them.
Once upon a time, there were Western Union telegraph offices in theatre lobbies.
George S. Kauffman was invited to the premiere of “Of Mice and Men”, starring Broderick Crawford.
At intermission, Kauffman went to the Western Union desk in the lobby to send a telegram to Crawford backstage.
It said, “AM OUT FRONT. WISH YOU WERE HERE.”
As Tom Lehrer said, base 8 is just like base 10 — if you’re missing two fingers.
That was fun ‘til I got to Chomsky. That malignant little (&^%^& ruins everything.
Dude, if you don’t post the answers, or a link...that’s the last click you’ll get from me ( pretty please )
12. 31 base 8 (Oct) is the same as 25 base 10 (Dec)
They’re asked if ALL of them want a drink.
If Logician #1 doesn’t want a drink, then he will answer “NO”. If he does want a drink then he will answer “I don’t know”, because he does not know if the other two Logicians want a drink.
Since Logician #1 answers “I don’t know”, Logicians #2 and #3 know that Logician #1 wants a drink.
Now, if Logician #2 doesn’t want a drink, then he will answer “No”. If he does want a drink, then he will answer “I don’t know”, because he doesn’t know if Logician #3 wants a drink.
Since Logician #2 answers “I don’t know”, Logician #3 now knows that both Logicians #1 and #2 want a drink. With this knowledge and the knowledge that he himself wants a drink, he can then answer “Yes” to the question.
I didn’t get a couple of them, but I laughed anyway.
Smarter than the average Chicago Bear.
12 and 13 got me too. Also 16. The rest were pretty good.
Or are a cartoon.
Really? Mine is Harvard Law School.
Heisenberg is the "author" of the uncertainty principle, in which it is impossible to precisely give the state of complementary variables - in this case jokes and funniness. Hence his uncertainty.
Goedel is the "author" of the principle of undecidability - that rules for formal systems cannot contain rules for drafting the rules of formal systems, the way that dividing by zero is indefinable under the rules of basic mathematics. Because the three men are inside the joke, they cannot step outside the joke to decide if the joke is funny or not.
Chomsky is one of the guys responsible for transformational grammar, which says that statements have a surface structure and a deep structure and that the surface structure can be optimized to generate a closer approximation of the deep structure. I.e. you can "tell it right" if you get to that structure.
Not quite.
When each of the first two says “I don’t know,” he is telling the third one that he wants a beer. Because if either one of the first two had not wanted a beer, he would have answered the question, “No.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.