Mental Nuts-- Can You Crack 'em?

[glatt]

If I could borrow a few sheep, I wouldn't need to mow our lawn. It's not such a bad idea.

[footfootfoot]

There are people up here who lend out their goats for that purpose. True.

[classicman]

ok - I went looking for answers elsewhere and found this ...

Clearly, both the hunter and the squirrel went around the tree,
but did the hunter go around the squirrel?

Well, he orbited the tree in a larger orbit, but he never went around the squirrel
and saw his back, his side, his belly, etc.

What’s the answer? Smart guy William James said that the argument is meaningless
because there is no objective difference that can be defined as to
“did go around squirrel” vs “did not”.
That’s the essence of his theory of Pragmatism.

So in a sense, we are all right. He did and yet did not.

Semantics, not geometry - whatev.

[footfootfoot]

The original question says "go around"

Well, he orbited the tree in a larger orbit, but he never went around the squirrel

If the earth "goes around" the moon, then why do we always see the same face of the moon? IF you "go around" the outside of your house you see the front, sides and back, becasue you went around it. If your house were to turn with you similar to the way the moon and earth turn, would you still say you went "around" your house if you didn't see the sides or the back?

Walking up and down the street isn't walking around the block.

Now, about those other answers you've all been avoiding.

[jimhelm]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

The original question says "go around"

If the earth "goes around" the moon, then why do we always see the same face of the moon? IF you "go around" the outside of your house you see the front, sides and back, because you went around it. If your house were to turn with you similar to the way the moon and earth turn, would you still say you went "around" your house if you didn't see the sides or the back?

Walking up and down the street isn't walking around the block.

Now, about those other answers you've all been avoiding.

But, the Earth doesn't go around the moon. The moon goes around the Earth. and if the house was rotating in place as i walked around it, always presenting the front... yes. i would still say i went around it....as long as the ground were stationary...


i know, infi... we're ridiculous.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

The original question says "go around"

If the earth "goes around" the moon, then why do we always see the same face of the moon? IF you "go around" the outside of your house you see the front, sides and back, becasue you went around it. If your house were to turn with you similar to the way the moon and earth turn, would you still say you went "around" your house if you didn't see the sides or the back?

Walking up and down the street isn't walking around the block.

Now, about those other answers you've all been avoiding.

Hey, if we configure the rope and the hunter and the squirrel and the tree like you describe, send the hunter on his path, like you describe, all that. You're saying the answer to the question "did he go around the squirrel?" is No. I ask you this question: at the end of that exercise "did he go around the tree?"

As I see it, there would be no turn of rope around the tree.

*****

If you're saying a concept of "facing" is the geometrical key here, what if the squirrel takes the rope, the hunter stands in one place holding the other end of the rope, the squirrel spins around once wrapping the rope around him, changing the "facing", the squirrel has revealed all his sides to the hunter, there's a rope encircling him, but the hunter hasn't moved. Has the hunter encircled him? Has the hunter gone around the squirrel? If it's the rope test you apply, then the answer would be yes, right?

Different question--you've shown us the booklet's "answer": "no". Is this how you, footfootfoot, would answer this question as well?

[infinite monkey]

omg

[footfootfoot]

There would be no turn of rope around the tree because the rope was attached to the moving squirrel. The object of the question. If you made the tree the object of the question and attached the rope to the stationary tree there would be a turn of rope around it.

THAT is precisely the point. It is about the relative positions of the hunter and squirrel. If the squirrel stayed in one spot then the hunter would have gone around the squirrel.

[classicman]

I claim that the man has most positively gone around the squirrel,
just as the rim of a wheel goes around the hub which turns on the axle;
just as the earth goes around the sun, which has a lesser orbit proportional to their difference in weight.

[footfootfoot]

Classic, in this case the the hub of the wheel is the tree and the squirrel is the opposite side of the rim.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Classic, in this case the the hub of the wheel is the tree and the squirrel is the opposite side of the rim.

I know this is getting tired, but I think a good analogy is a bolo being thrown, where the two balls aren't spinning perfectly around the center of the rope, but instead both are spinning around a point closer to one of the balls.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...f-mass-motion/

[glatt]

#35 is any odd number equal to or greater than three.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Classic, in this case the the hub of the wheel is the tree and the squirrel is the opposite side of the rim.

No, not from my perspective. The axle is the tree, the squirrel is the hub and the hunter is the outside of the rim.

This whole thing is dependent upon the definition of "go around"
This is where the dispute comes in. Depending upon one's definition of that either answer is correct. I'm out.


ETA - again semantics, NOT geometry.

[footfootfoot]

MOVING RIGHT ALONG:
I'm posting two today since the first one is an old, very easy one.

[BigV]

Looks like three ducks.