Does the hunter go around the squirrel? Vote and then move on already.
The problem is
here.
Does the hunter go around the squirrel?
No need to comment. Just vote and let's put this thing behind us.
yes, the hunter goes around the squirrel.
glatt you're fooling yourself if you think this will ever be behind us. we can't even get the flippin hunter behind the squirrel. What makes you think dwellars are easier to corner? I fear you're up a tree without a paddle on this one, though there are some among us who are completely around the bend.
The answer is YES and NO!
It all depends upon the definition of "go around"
The answer is YES and NO!
It all depends upon the definition of "go around"
Did you vote?
Book 1
A hunter is standing near a large tree, and a squirrel is hanging onto the opposite side of the tree. The hunter now moves in a circle completely around the tree until he regains his starting position, but at the same time the squirrel also moves around the tree in the same direction and in such a manner as it always faces the man, and as the tree is always between it and him. Now, the problem is this: Does the hunter go around the squirrel? The correct answer is not `yes,' and it is not `no.' The correct reply requires an exact definition of the verb, `go around.' If we define `go around' as meaning that the hunter is first south, then west, then north, then east, and finally south of the squirrel, he very obviously does go around it. But if we agree that `go around' shall mean first opposite the squirrel's belly, then it's right side, then it's back, then it's left side, the answer is just as definitely `no.' Here, again, we see the necessity for exact definition. It is inimical to the integrity of our thinking to use words loosely. Lack of careful definition sires more illegitimate offspring, widely varying sports that take the form of controversies, debates, arguments, than a whole countryside of rabbit farms. Many problems outside science would vanish into thin air if definition were exact.
Book 2
[ATTACH]36486[/ATTACH]
book 3
[ATTACH]36487[/ATTACH]
Book 4
Does the hunter go around the squirrel? The answer is, "yes" if by "around" one means that the hunter at various times occupies the circumference of the circle with the squirrel near the center. However, if "around" means that the hunter is at various times to the front, sides, and back of the squirrel, the answer is "no." If "around" is not defined, there is no answer, and the argument can continue indefinitely
Squirrel is the new shark, apparently.
And yes, the hunter goes around the damn squirrel. The squirrel is not a stinkin' planet. It's a squirrel. A rodent with a busy tail and a short attention span. Actually this is even dumber of a squirrel than usual, because the damn thing stays on the tree at the hunter's level and doesn't have there werewithal to climb up, run out on a limb, and dash to freedom, like any self respecting squirrel should do. Actually, this is a fine opportunity for the hunter to pull out his RPG, shoot it through the tree, and turn the squirrel into a fine mist.
Now, math fans .... what volume would the squirrel mist occupy at initial impact, at 1 second, 5 seconds, 10 seconds, and at 20 seconds, assuming no wind effects?
very nice find glatt!!!
shame you can't alter the poll.
"What does it mean to "go around" something?
What is the definition of 'definition?' I would like to argue about it.
I thought 'hunter around a tree' was the new 'plane on a treadmill.'
Wolf, I will say 4. :)
Well, plane on a treadmill had a clear and correct answer. The squirrel thing (at least I know how to spell squirrel without looking now) doesn't have a correct answer. It's all semantics.
What is the definition of 'definition?' I would like to argue about it.
Definition (n) - to go around something, as when a hunter goes around a sckwurl on a tree.;)
It seems like we've gone round and round on this. It makes my head spin. We're just talking in circles, and I can't get my arms around it.
I've got to go, but I'll circle back later.
All of a sudden I'm experiencing Vertigo.
Actually, I'm watching the movie.
But no, I'm really not.
I voted in the wrong box.
I shouldn't be trusted to vote on things I don't really understand.
Oh wait, that's the basis of democracy :)
*taps fingers*
Well missy miss? Which wrong box did you check?
You gotta pick a side in this one. Liberty and freedom and something are on the line. No fence sitting. :lol:
The answer is YES and NO!
It all depends upon the definition of "go around"
The squirrel thing (at least I know how to spell squirrel without looking now) doesn't have a correct answer.
It's all semantics.
lulzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :3_eyes:
Does this mean we are off probation?
No, it means that glatt is ON probation.
Fuck the squirrel. Fuck the tree.
The scene: An empty parking lot. In the middle of the parking lot, a car is slowly driving in a circle, inside a yellow circle painted on the asphalt of the parking lot. A man is walking along the yellow circle painted on the asphalt of the parking lot. The man walks a complete 360 degree circle around the car driving in a circle.
Did he circle the car?
Well fuck yeah he circled the car.
Anything else implies you can't circle something that's facing you.
I can't believe there is debate over the issue. This is amazing.
I can't believe there is debate over the issue. This is amazing.
there's no debate, regular.joe. there's just a couple innumerate/geometrically challenged dwellars. it's 'posed to be a argument maker, but it is in no way ambiguous to me.
And yes, the hunter goes around the damn squirrel. The squirrel is not a stinkin' planet. It's a squirrel.
This made me laugh, really loud, at work. Inappropriately.
That's all.
I said he went around the squirl.
I don't believe he did.
MOD IN AISLE THREE.
Change her poll answer. I know, you can't. WAS KIDDING.
I wouldn't have asked had you gone the other way. :lol:
there's no debate, regular.joe. there's just a couple innumerate/geometrically challenged dwellars. it's 'posed to be a argument maker, but it is in no way ambiguous to me.
Really? That's what you're going with? That you're right and us couple innumerate/geometrically challenged dwellars are wrong?
You're geometrically challenged. You're challenging simple geometry, for the sake of some lofty magic trick (i.e. sci fi) explanation. If faeries are near the tree, then the hunter and squirrel rise above the simple rules of geometry. :lol:
Fuck the squirrel. Fuck the tree.
The scene: An empty parking lot. In the middle of the parking lot, a car is slowly driving in a circle, inside a yellow circle painted on the asphalt of the parking lot. A man is walking along the yellow circle painted on the asphalt of the parking lot. The man walks a complete 360 degree circle around the car driving in a circle.
Did he circle the car?
Well fuck yeah he circled the car.
Anything else implies you can't circle something that's facing you.
What if the car is driving around a circle clockwise.
There's a driver in the left seat; there's a passenger in the right seat (the normal arrangement).
Does the driver circle the passenger?
Here's what I'm going with:
If you want to talk about this puzzle in terms of geometry, I'll do that with you.
If you want to talk about this puzzle in terms of semantics, specifically what it means to "go around", the original text of the puzzle, I'll do that with you.
In fact, I've tried a number of times to engage in normal conversational tones to do both of these things. I've stated my position on both of them. Summarized: geometry perspective, hunter goes around squirrel; "go around" perspective, depends on what the definition of goes around is (as an aside, I asked this and you dismissed it with a joke about the definition of definition. Fine, I'm ok with a joke. But you didn't answer so I can't proceed with a conversation, I can only proceed with my position).
I used innumerate as a poor analog to illiterate for spatial reasoning. I find the discussion stimulating, as long as it doesn't decay into hostility and stays mostly on topic. I replied to some of your posts respectfully, disagreeing with your usage of some terms, like circumference. Not as a personal attack, but correcting your misuse of the terms. Some terms are less strictly defined, like "go around". I've invited conversation about those terms too, but with less success.
For me, to go around in this kind of situation means to trace a path that is a closed circuit, that the path crosses itself at some point. The shape is not very important but it represents an area, it has an interior. The path can be approximated by a regular
polygon (Definition: A number of coplanar line segments, each connected end to end to form a closed shape.) Such a path would create an area that has an inside and an outside. For me, all points, and all objects inside that area have been "gone around". The facing or movement of any object inside is irrelevant, such as the squirrel's motion.
I see this problem as a geometry problem, and as such, it has a simple, single correct answer: Yes.
For those who view this as a different problem, and NOT as a geometry problem, I'd be happy to hear the justifications. But I have rejected the geometrical justifications for a "no" answer, if that's your argument, you'd better be able to show me how.
Maybe you're not innumerate, a poor choice of words as I said. Fine. Maybe you're fluent with geometry, I am pretty fluent in geometry too. I can communicate on those terms. I pretty good with non mathematical english terms too. The point at this point is what is the question. And I see the question as "what does it mean to go around?" What is your answer to that question?
What if the car is driving around a circle clockwise.
There's a driver in the left seat; there's a passenger in the right seat (the normal arrangement).
Does the driver circle the passenger?
Yes.
Oh come on!
All sense of logic has left your head.
but the driver does complete a circle that entirely encompasses the passenger's path/position at all times
he has him surrounded!
how about this:
I'm standing in your way on a narrow foot path, facing you.
you need to pass.
I refuse to step aside.
you go around me.
you go to your left, my right. off the path for a few steps, and then back on and continue on your way.
you never see the left side of my body.
did you, or did you not.... go ...around... me?
how about this:
I'm standing in your way on a narrow foot path, facing you.
you need to pass.
I refuse to step aside.
you go around me.
you go to your left, my right. off the path for a few steps, and then back on and continue on your way.
you never see the left side of my body.
did you, or did you not.... go ...around... me?
And I'll be thinking unkind thoughts about you as I do go around you.
how about this:
I'm standing in your way on a narrow foot path, facing you.
you need to pass.
I refuse to step aside.
you go around me.
you go to your left, my right. off the path for a few steps, and then back on and continue on your way.
you never see the left side of my body.
did you, or did you not.... go ...around... me?
Yes.
Consider:
I'm driving in a crowded parking lot, looking for a spot to park my car. I see someone ahead of me getting into there car. I stop and wait for the person to vacate the space I want to take. There's room to pass and I wave to the person in the car behind me to drive past, and they do so. Have they "gone around" me?
***
My son comes home from kindergarten and tells me his friend has the chicken pox. Over the next couple weeks several kids in the same class also get chicken pox. Has the chicken pox "gone around" the class?
***
I host a party where I serve pulled pork and baked beans. Everyone helps themselves to the pork and the beans, but as the cook, I am too busy cooking and entertaining to make a plate. By the time I do so, all the beans are gone. Did the beans go around? What there had been enough for everyone? Would the beans have "gone around"?
***
At the end of the party, the last guest finally leaves. I watch them drive away down my long driveway and disappear from sight as the driveway curves gently to the left. Has my guest "gone around" the bend in the road?
***
"Gone around" has lots of contexts, and consequently lots of meanings.
Oh come on!
All sense of logic has left your head.
I don't understand why you'd say this, unless you're just kidding around. jim gives a fine explanation of my reasoning following your post.
Care to explain?
lol... I have the guys here at work arguing about this.
win.
I agree with IM on the driver/passenger example. The frame of reference for a driver and passenger is the car. The driver is stationary next to the passenger for the entire time. He does not go around the passenger. It isn't until you leave the car and make the frame of reference a flag pole in the middle of the circle, and the car is a convertible, that you can see the circular motions of each.
Everything is moving, and the observed motions depend on where you are standing. The earth spins. The earth orbits the sun. The sun orbits the center of the galaxy. The galaxy is careening through the universe. Am I sitting stationary at my desk or am I traveling at thousands of miles an hour on a rock shooting through space?
When we talk about drivers and passengers, they are sitting still in a car. It's the car that is moving.
I don't understand why you'd say this, unless you're just kidding around. jim gives a fine explanation of my reasoning following your post.
Care to explain?
You know what? No.
You talk 'around' me, which is talking down to me. "Maybe you're as great as geometry as I am..." paraphrase crap.
If I said I could sort of understand how you would think otherwise, would you stop telling me I'm completely and utterly wrong?
Semantics. ffs. Overthink it and you'll have magic pigs flying out of your ass and to the moon, if you want.
see, to me, the paths are what matters. we do know, in fact, that the driver's circle contains the passengers. that's enough for me to feel that he does go around.
Oh yeah, but yesterday or the day before there was to be NO entertaining of thoughts of straight lines. Why, that was ludicrous for me to even bring it up. (Insert a bunch of smartypants questions to make me look stupid...which I've already admitted to...including the phrase 'care to elaborate?' for good measure.)
No. Lines are an entirely different matter. Today.
see, to me, the paths are what matters. we do know, in fact, that the driver's circle contains the passengers. that's enough for me to feel that he does go around.
But you are only saying that because of the conversations we've been having up until this point. That's the context now.
If you cleansed your palate by going back in time to a year ago, and you were driving in your car around a traffic circle, would you really say that you circled your kid in the back seat passenger side? You would think the questioner is nuts, because of course your kid had been sitting back there the whole time. You didn't move in relation to each other.
You know what? No.
You talk 'around' me, which is talking down to me. "Maybe you're as great as geometry as I am..." paraphrase crap.
If I said I could sort of understand how you would think otherwise, would you stop telling me I'm completely and utterly wrong?
Semantics. ffs. Overthink it and you'll have magic pigs flying out of your ass and to the moon, if you want.
Fine. fucking "no". no problem. *I* am
not talking down to you, I am as respectful of you as I ever am. I'm not telling you you're completely and utterly wrong. That is not paraphrasing me, that is putting words in my mouth, wholesale.
For the record, I am not trying to persuade you to agree with my position. I am doing the opposite, I am asking you to persuade me. To show me the "truth" of your position. To explain to me why you're "right".
I agree with IM on the driver/passenger example. The frame of reference for a driver and passenger is the car. The driver is stationary next to the passenger for the entire time. He does not go around the passenger. It isn't until you leave the car and make the frame of reference a flag pole in the middle of the circle, and the car is a convertible, that you can see the circular motions of each.
Everything is moving, and the observed motions depend on where you are standing. The earth spins. The earth orbits the sun. The sun orbits the center of the galaxy. The galaxy is careening through the universe. Am I sitting stationary at my desk or am I traveling at thousands of miles an hour on a rock shooting through space?
When we talk about drivers and passengers, they are sitting still in a car. It's the car that is moving.
Maybe all your examples, even the crazy hunter one too, is missing an important and necessary qualifier "relative to ______". Absent that qualifier, each of us can use some relative center, some relative frame of reference, RELATIVE TO WHICH each of these objects are doing or not doing something or other. Precision in language is the only way to resolve questions like this.
Well, I can't do that. Everything had been been gone round and round, as far as I can see, and I can't add anything.
I'm no debate person. I cannot persuade you.
I'd agree with that, BigV.
once more, with feeling:
[YOUTUBE]ZUatnbaNfEo[/YOUTUBE]
That should be the Cellar's new rick roll.
This is something I think about whenever I'm at the airport (and I think I've brought it up before):
Does the moving walkway increase your speed or decrease the distance you need to travel?
Edit: This is currently the quote beneath the tip mug:
"More than six people cannot agree on anything, three is better."
- Professor Bernardo de la Paz, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_
This is something I think about whenever I'm at the airport (and I think I've brought it up before):
Does the moving walkway increase your speed or decrease the distance you need to travel?
Edit: This is currently the quote beneath the tip mug:
"More than six people cannot agree on anything, three is better."
- Professor Bernardo de la Paz, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_
Relative to what?
increase speed relative to what?
decrease distance relative to what?
it increases your speed. distance is immutable.
Does the moving walkway increase your speed
maybe - depends on how fast you walk off it and whether you just stand while on it.
or decrease the distance you need to travel?
don't see it altering distance.
Re
You Spin Me Right Round
Have you seen Pete Burns' teabagging shot?
I have posted it here before but it's always good for a laugh
[SIZE="5"][COLOR="Red"]
N.S.F.W.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
Pete Burns (singer of You Spin Me Right Round)
on runway
And facially.
SFW but after botched plastic surgery (much) and aging disgracefully (much) , pretty grim.
Relative to what?
You could just replace your signature line with this and save some typing.:)
Didn't you say "vote, and move on"?
Imagine you have a pedometer and a GPS. The pedometer will indicate that you've walked a shorter distance; the GPS will indicate that your speed was increased on the moving walkway.
"Gone around" has lots of contexts, and consequently lots of meanings.
But irrelevant, because in this case, the correct context is understood by all.
People aren't confused that maybe "gone around" means the hunter has taken a few pisses in the vicinity of the squirrel.
Like when people say "I went in the house."
You did? Did you at least go in the bathroom part of the house? And why are you telling me? ;)
But actually, Biggie is basically right, but it's a micro-level thing, rather than a macro-level thing!
But irrelevant, because in this case, the correct context is understood by all.
People aren't confused that maybe "gone around" means the hunter has taken a few pisses in the vicinity of the squirrel.
I checked, and this post by you is the first one in either of these two threads, the poll about the kerfuffle, and the nutso thread with the kerfuffle puzzle. I have to say I don't agree that the "correct context is understood by all" at all.
I get your joke about "going/peeing". hahaha, clever, sure. And it's true that no one has made that mistake about the hunter and the squirrel. But as for the context of that mental nut being understood by all, that has definitely not been the case.
I'm interested in your answer to the original Mental Nut.
What happens when you put food in a macrowave?
Does it get really cold? Or really big?
What happens when you put food in a macrowave?
Does it get really cold? Or really big?
Relative to what?
:D
she sets, she smashes, she scores!
Maybe all your examples, even the crazy hunter one too, is missing an important and necessary qualifier "relative to ______". Absent that qualifier, each of us can use some relative center, some relative frame of reference, RELATIVE TO WHICH each of these objects are doing or not doing something or other. Precision in language is the only way to resolve questions like this.
In physics they have this thingy called transformations to link the relativity in different frames of reference. The position of the observer is very important to these types of problems. It is the same for someone inside of an elevator and someone outside of an elevator witnessing events inside and outside of the elevator, when these events occur at the same time from different perspectives. Because the speed of light is constant, Einstein realized that the actual size of objects must not be constant and that time cannot be constant for different observes and objects in different locations. The precision in language that you make reference to is mathematics.
I checked, and this post by you is the first one in either of these two threads, the poll about the kerfuffle, and the nutso thread with the kerfuffle puzzle.
I don't warrant such detail, but --
I'm interested in your answer to the original Mental Nut.
It's in the post above yours, professor.
Is anybody else catching the very clear Monty Python Dead Parrot vibe about this topic? Every time I see it I hear John Cleese apoplectically shrieking, "He circumnavigates the bleeding Squirrel!" in my mind's ear ...
You will too, now, won't you?
Or the argument room....No he isn't.
LOL!!!!
Yes. In at least one sense of "go around" the hunter has gone around the squirrel.
I hear that squirrel is a slut and and has been around half the creatures in the woods.
once more, with feeling:
[YOUTUBE]ZUatnbaNfEo[/YOUTUBE]
When you spin, the only thing you go around is the axis within your body and maybe some tiny motes on the floor...
When you spin, the only two things you go around is the axis within your body and maybe some tiny motes on the floor and a fanatical devotion to the pope
When you spin, among the things you go around are...
Yes. In at least one sense of "go around" the hunter has gone around the squirrel.
I hear that squirrel is a slut and and has been around half the creatures in the woods.
Yeah, but it's a fairly small woods.
so the squirrel must also go around the hunter then.
Oi' vey ... not if his circle is INSIDE the hunters.
It really is a semantics thing. Does the hunter encircle/circumnavigate the squirrel? Of course he does.
I've tried to come up with a word or phrase that explicitly means what the nay-sayers are talking about. I haven't found one. In particular, M-W online does not contain a definition for "go around" that has the alternate meaning.
I think I understand what the "no" people are thinking. The hunter doesn't get to see the backside of the squirrel, because the squirrel is constantly adjusting to make sure it faces the hunter.
But I don't see that as a valid definition for "go around". Perhaps we need a new word for this. Since we already have "haggis" as the new word for LOL, I searched for other disgusting foods and found this page:
http://www.toptenz.net/top-ten-grossest-foods.php
I suggest in the future when we mean that the hunter never gets to see the backside of the squirrel, we use the term "maggot cheese". I.E. The hunter definitely did not maggot cheese the squirrel.
No. Refer to the mental nuts thread for foot's geometrical explanation as to why the hunter does not go around the squirrel.
It's geometry. Not fairies and semantics. Geometry. And it has nothing to do with the squirrel's ass. :lol:
ha ha ha... It IS semantics and its MEANT to be. Not geometry, not fairies.
What if the car is driving around a circle clockwise.
There's a driver in the left seat; there's a passenger in the right seat (the normal arrangement).
Does the driver circle the passenger?
Do both people make a circle? Then one of those circles is inside the other circle. So...
Yes.
Wait...
Are they on a treadmill?
Ladies and gentlemen: Mr. Billy Preston.
[YOUTUBE]yGQZXA54gjU[/YOUTUBE]
yesterday, I did this with a co worker:
He was of the opinion that the hunter does not go around...
the floor in the show room is 12" tiles. I had him stay inside the outer perimeter of 4 of the tiles... a 2' square. i told him to stay facing me as I walked around him. once I had gone all the way around, I asked if I had gone around him.
he said no.
so, i gave up and called him a faggot.
[YOUTUBE]1IFloXOuLgA[/YOUTUBE]
he said no.
so, i gave up and called him a faggot.
FTW!
No. Refer to the mental nuts thread for foot's geometrical explanation as to why the hunter does not go around the squirrel.
It's geometry. Not fairies and semantics. Geometry. And it has nothing to do with the squirrel's ass. :lol:
I've got to disagree. It really does depend on what you mean by go around. The hunter makes a circle. The squirrel never leaves the circle. Whether they're facing each other is irrelevant. The fact that the squirrel is on the tree is irrelevant.
Forget the tree for the moment. Assume that the squirrel is sitting at the center of the circle. He rotates as the hunter makes his circle, so he's always facing the hunter. Did the hunter go around the squirrel in this case?
I've got to disagree. It really does depend on what you mean by go around. The hunter makes a circle. The squirrel never leaves the circle. Whether they're facing each other is irrelevant. The fact that the squirrel is on the tree is irrelevant.
Forget the tree for the moment. Assume that the squirrel is sitting at the center of the circle. He rotates as the hunter makes his circle, so he's always facing the hunter. Did the hunter go around the squirrel in this case?
I tried this already, I hope your luck is better than mine.
Scenario 1: Glue squirrel to ground. Hunter walks in circle around squirrel.
Hunter has gone around squirrel. Lesson: going around the squirrel is achieved by circumnavigating it.
Scenario 2: Glue squirrel to record player turn-table. Hunter stands still, squirrel rotates, hunter sees every side of squirrel.
Hunter has not gone around squirrel. Lesson: whether the hunter sees every side of the squirrel or not is not relevant to whether the hunter has gone around the squirrel.
Scenario 3: Glue squirrel to record player on super slow speed. Hunter walks a circle around the squirrel/player combo, as the squirrel rotates at the same rate.
Apply lessons from scenarios 1 and 2, hunter has circumnavigated the squirrel, seeing all sides is irrelevant, hunter has gone around the squirrel.
Scenario 4: the nut. Replace the turn-table with the tree. Conclusion the same as for scenario 3.
Scenario 5. The squirrel puts the lotion on its skin. The hunter gives it a beating with the hose anyway, then shoves it up his ass. Now the hunter has really gone AROUND the squirrel!
It really does depend on what you mean by go around. The hunter makes a circle. The squirrel never leaves the circle. Whether they're facing each other is irrelevant. The fact that the squirrel is on the tree is irrelevant.
I agree.
This might explain why Waltham is no longer in business. (apart from military clocks)
If a clock's second hand (a floor planted clock!) is pointing opposite you, and you run around the clock in intervals of 60 seconds per minute (meaning you come back to your starting point at the same time the second hand arrives at its starting point, 180 degrees away), does the second hand ever point at you?
:lol:
dunno, but you go around it!
:lol:
If a clock's second hand (a floor planted clock!) is pointing opposite you, and you run around the clock in intervals of 60 seconds per minute (meaning you come back to your starting point at the same time the second hand arrives at its starting point, 180 degrees away), does the second hand ever point at you?
:lol:
Which way are you running... clockwise or counter-clockwise ?
Which way is the second hand turning... clockwise or counter-clockwise ?
Doesn't matter, neither can go half-way without first going... Oh, never mind.
Train A leaves the station at 8:00 am going south at 40 mph
Train B leaves the station at 8:00 am going north at 60 mph
Stations are 360 miles apart.
Are trains A and B ever at the same place at the same time ?
Why or why not ?
Different tracks, too, I hope. Otherwise they will be in very nearly exactly the same place, which would be bad.
I don't think you should go around shooting squirrels.
Which way are you running... clockwise or counter-clockwise ?
Which way is the second hand turning... clockwise or counter-clockwise ?
Doesn't matter, neither can go half-way without first going... Oh, never mind.
Train A leaves the station at 8:00 am going south at 40 mph
Train B leaves the station at 8:00 am going north at 60 mph
Stations are 360 miles apart.
Are trains A and B ever at the same place at the same time ?
Why or why not ?
Both going clockwise. The second hand will always be pointing the opposite direction, but I'm sure there is some genius who thinks that since the second hand is pointing somewhere you were, or will be, it does point at you.
It is the new math.
what if the squirrel were on the same side of the tree as the hunter with his back to the hunter..... and as the hunter circles, the squirrel maintains his relative position... just the opposite of the mental nut?
if he ONLY sees the back of the squirrel, has he gone around?
I ask the group, does the minute hand go around itself? [/gasoline]
[ATTACH]36539[/ATTACH]
what if the squirrel were on the same side of the tree as the hunter with his back to the hunter..... and as the hunter circles, the squirrel maintains his relative position... just the opposite of the mental nut?
if he ONLY sees the back of the squirrel, has he gone around?
If the "hunter" doesn't take the shot, he'll be called
Dances with Squirrels.
@ glatt's clock: NO, because that's impossible...but point A goes around point B.
@ glatt's clock: NO, because that's impossible...but point A goes around point B.
Only if point A is moving and point B is stationary.
Why is that a requirement?
Only if point A is moving and point B is stationary.
shuddep, faggot
Sir, I clocked you doing 180.
It's OK, officer, I was just driving around.
Ba DUM dum.
I just wrote that joke. :lol:
Why is that a requirement?
why is a going around b but b is not going around a?
Only if point A is moving and point B is stationary.
Why is that a requirement?
This is Squirrel Island, Maine
If a boater goes all the way around the island, does it become a green chocolate rabbit ?
.
The longest day of the year is time to resurrect this poll.
I came across Aristotle's Wheel and realized it is like thehunter/squirrel/tree:
There are two wheels, one within the other,
whose rims take the shape of two circles with different diameters.
The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution.
[ATTACH]39162[/ATTACH]
The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines,
which are apparently the wheels' circumferences.
But the two lines have the same length,
so the wheels must have the same circumference... <snip>
If you don't believe this paradox,
Wikipedia has a full explanation. ;)
yeah, no.
not a paradox. a lie. if the blue line is, in FACT the circumference of the blue circle, then the red wheel has gone farther than IT'S circumference.
"The wheels roll without slipping" is impossible. One or the other can roll without slipping, but both can't. Either the blue wheel is in contact with the ground, and the red wheel "slips," or the red wheel is in contact with some sort of raised rail or other surface it can ride on, and the blue wheel "drags."
If you ever played with one of these, you know what I'm talking about.
[ATTACH]39164[/ATTACH]
Hmm, I missed the original argument.
In my opinion, the hunter has gone around the tree.
Not the squirrel.
The squirrel has ALSO gone around the tree.
But it doesn't mean one went around the other just because they both went around the same object.
If I'm walking around the perimeter of a museum and so are you, I cannot reasonably claim to have walked around YOU. I might not even see you during my trip. Unless you stop and I walk past your back, in which case I have now walked around you as well as the museum.
what if you walked past and I was facing you?
you're substituting the concept of behind for around.
If your path traced is entirely contained within mine, I HAVE gone around you. maybe not gotten behind you... but, yes.. around.
Seems as though you are substituting my path for me.
for me go around perhaps. but then, if you take your path away, you can't go around anything.
yesterday, I did this with a co worker:
He was of the opinion that the hunter does not go around...
the floor in the show room is 12" tiles. I had him stay inside the outer perimeter of 4 of the tiles... a 2' square. i told him to stay facing me as I walked around him. once I had gone all the way around, I asked if I had gone around him.
he said no.
so, i gave up and called him a faggot.
yebbut I bet that nigger sold that shit out of some car
Here's my take on it.
If you stood still in the center of my wide circle, i definitely went around you.
Then, it stands to reason, if you stood off-center, i still did.
Therefore, if you stood anywhere in the circle I made, I went around you.
I then posit that, if you milled about slowly and aimlessly, just sort of wandering more-or-less in-place, within my circle, I still did go around you.
Then, finally, my conclusion is, if you moved with purpose in a circular path, instead of aimlessly and more-or-less in place, as long as your circle was smaller than mine and entirely contained within the path I took, i walked around you.
That doesn't mean I was using you as the center point or the subject of my circle, but i still went around you.
Oh fer chrissake. This again?
Look, all motion is relative. All of it. In the case of, say, Earth and Mars orbiting the sun, we prefer to think of the sun as being stationary, but you could just as easily create a legitimate frame of reference in which Mars stands still, such that the Earth and sun would fly around at erratic speeds and appear to actually encircle Mars.
Imagine that the squirrel does not go around the tree, but rather the tree and the entire Earth are spinning under the squirell's feet, like those dudes who roll logs on water*, or the circus clown who runs backwards on top of a big ball in order to roll it forward on the ground. In this 'squirrel is stationary' frame of reference, the hunter is a pawn to the Earth, and appears to move around the squirrel. But now imagine instead that the hunter is stuck in one place, moving his legs but it's like he's on a treadmill (yes, I said it)--a giant Earth-sized treadmill... and now, think hard to imagine it... in that frame of reference the squirrel is moving around the hunter.
*There are competitions, even! Behold:
[YOUTUBE]OjUQTdtzRdc[/YOUTUBE]
...well, sure, i guess I'm going way out on a limb and assuming our frame of reference is the one we use every day in speech to describe motion on Earth. I don't really think assuming that calling the Earth stationary and just dealing with the practical applications of relative movement of creatures fixed by gravity on a relatively "flat" plane moving, when not by their own actions, otherwise identically, is going against the spirit of the question. In fact, in constructing my argument, i used stormie's museum construction in my head... and then re-constructed it using a tree instead of a museum and came up with exactly the same explanation.
I mean, if he never saw the squirrel while it was behind the tree, maybe it was dead, or neither alive nor dead, or some other sort of cat-in-a-box theoretical argument. I think the question is not remotely about astrophysics or the implications of relative motion. it's face-value and in colloquial terms, and merely a question about the definition of the word "around". in this case, stormie disagrees with my definition because, if i understand her correctly, to her it's about intent. to me, the question of whether something went "around" something is no more complex than, did the circle/ellipse/shape of A's path completely contain the shape of B's path.
...and, of course, the Earth doesn't really go around the sun - they both orbit a common point.
Voting is closed.
This is where we get to the moving on part.
im, you spoilsport! STOP DISCUSSING THIS DONT WANNA HEAR IT LALALALA :p:
come on, Ibram. we can't go around the squirrel without moving, now can we?
I mean, if he never saw the squirrel while it was behind the tree, maybe it was dead, or neither alive nor dead, or some other sort of cat-in-a-box theoretical argument.
Exactly. This is why it is a dumb argument. The only thing that ever matters is the practicality of the situation. The hunter will not be able to shoot the squirrel while it moves away from him, so he will starve. But if the hunter is installing 8-foot electrified fencing as he goes, he will have eventually trapped the squirrel within a circle, and can kill it at his leisure, and live another day.
of course it's not a "practical" question - it's a semantic question, on what it means to "go around" something. If you don't find semantic discussions fun then you won't like the discussion, but that doesn't make it a "dumb argument". I happen to enjoy discussing semantics because I think that a HUGE percentage of disagreements happen because people just aren't talking about the same thing, or are using the same word to mean different things. thinking seriously about what we mean when we say things is important to me. that doesn't make me dumb for "arguing" about it, or make it a dumb thing to talk about.
Fine, then. The hunter does not go around the squirrel and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous, at best. Magic tricks again. ;)
I've just re-read the entire thread again and i still don't understand the "no" argument. in what way does he not go around it? anyone?
No, Ibram, you're not dumb. But you may note that the thread, which was itself already 100+ posts long, is titled "vote and then move on already," because the debate had already gone on for quite some time somewhere else, back in January. It was one of those things that no one ever changed their minds about.
But the world would be a better place if people did attempt to come to a common understanding. If that's what's actually happening here, then far be it from me to step on it.
And as I said on the first page of this thread:
*taps fingers*
Well missy miss? Which wrong box did you check?
You gotta pick a side in this one. Liberty and freedom and something are on the line. No fence sitting. :lol:
Still have the giggles:
The sqwirllll is not part of the tree. Here be my picture of the man walking around the squirrel. If the squirrel was advancing in circles opposite the man, in his bigger concentric circles, the man is not walking AROUND the squirrel because the squirrel isn't PART OF THE TREE. If the squirrel stayed there like an idiot, I'd change my answer. But that wasn't the question.
(Tree be round part in brown. Sqweeereeeel ees star. Man is explanatory. The Squirrel Not Part of Tree is before I found the text box.)
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?p=783789#post783789
Thanks!
I'm still a little confused though. The issue for me is, I think me and V and jim have prettymuch explained that we define "go around" as "move in a path that completely contains the subject, regardless of how the subject moves inside the shape described by that path". in other words, "you go around something if the thing stays inside the shape you walked"... but i don't understand what the people who say "no"
define "going around" as. I think glatt puts it best:
If the squirrel made a circle that was so small, the center point was inside the body of the squirrel, would the hunter be circling the squirrel then? For example, say the squirrel had its paw resting on the top of the tree as it was running around the other side. Is the hunter going around the squirrel then?
What about if the squirrel is standing on the top of the tree and rotating so it was always facing the hunter? Is the hunter going around the squirrel then?
At some point, the hunter has to be going around the squirrel. When is that point?
am i only "going around" something if that thing is at the center of my path? what if my path is oblong or otherwise non-circular and doesn't have a center?
The scenario illustrated, but substitute 'hunter' for 'dogs'. Or don't... cuz dogs are hunting animals...
[YOUTUBE]4agPXkrx2_k[/YOUTUBE]
Meh. I tried shooting a thieving, motley (no hair at all on its tail,
eww) squirrel the other day as it climbed up a tree next to the chicken coop. It had been raiding the chicken feed bin for a few weeks, and that particular day it actually came into the coop four times while I was in there cleaning up. WTF?
I shooed the fucker out once again, then went for my gun. By the time I got back, the squirrel had gone up the tree.
Trying to shoot a squirrel while it is in a tree is a completely worthless exercise, as I quickly learned.
So I went back into the coop with my gun, because I knew that bastardly fucker would eventually climb down the tree and come back for more feed. Held the muzzle about 12 inches from the chicken entry/exit door and waited (note: Mossberg 12-gauge).
Took all of two minutes for him to show his face again, which, when I was done, wasn't much of a face at all anymore.
[CENTER]
[/CENTER]
Moral of the story: squirrels in trees
can't be shot, whether you circle the tree (and/or the squirrel) or not.
Forget the fucking tree. Choose a non-tree spot wisely and wait. Yeah. That's the ticket. ;)
LOL
Where've you been Glinda? :)
LOL
Where've you been Glinda? :)
Foolishly, I've been hanging out in all the wrong places with all the wrong people. I finally had enough and came back to the place where everything is normal and people aren't weird.
Heh. ;)
Bwaahaaa...speak for yourself, madam!
Meh. I tried shooting a thieving, motley (no hair at all on its tail, eww) squirrel the other day as it climbed up a tree next to the chicken coop. It had been raiding the chicken feed bin for a few weeks, and that particular day it actually came into the coop four times while I was in there cleaning up. WTF?
I shooed the fucker out once again, then went for my gun. By the time I got back, the squirrel had gone up the tree. Trying to shoot a squirrel while it is in a tree is a completely worthless exercise, as I quickly learned.
So I went back into the coop with my gun, because I knew that bastardly fucker would eventually climb down the tree and come back for more feed. Held the muzzle about 12 inches from the chicken entry/exit door and waited (note: Mossberg 12-gauge).
Took all of two minutes for him to show his face again, which, when I was done, wasn't much of a face at all anymore.
[CENTER][/CENTER]
Moral of the story: squirrels in trees can't be shot, whether you circle the tree (and/or the squirrel) or not. Forget the fucking tree. Choose a non-tree spot wisely and wait. Yeah. That's the ticket. ;)
I like the cut of your jib, Glinda.
... 12 gauge shotgun from 12 inches ... :eek: you don't mess around!
Now, watch this and tell me, does the dancer go around the chair?
http://pictureisunrelated.memebase.com/2012/06/24/wtf-photos-videos-twisted/
Or does the head go around the universe?
"The wheels roll without slipping" is impossible. One or the other can roll without slipping, but both can't. Either the blue wheel is in contact with the ground, and the red wheel "slips," or the red wheel is in contact with some sort of raised rail or other surface it can ride on, and the blue wheel "drags."
I would guess that the "not slipping" is justified in the brain teaser as - the blue wheel doesn't slip relative to the ground, and the red wheel doesn't slip relative to the blue wheel. But the red wheel is being carried forward by the blue wheel.
I like the cut of your jib, Glinda.
*
grin* Why, thank you! This week I'm hunting mole, a much more elusive critter. (Be vewwy, vewwy quiet.)
... 12 gauge shotgun from 12 inches ... :eek: you don't mess around!
Heh! Well, the chicken door is only slightly bigger than a chicken - any further away and I would have hit the squirrel AND the inside walls of the coop. Incidentally, when shooting a shotgun from inside a chicken coop, the sound is
distinctly muffled (just in case anyone needs that information for a future hunting event). :cool:
![on runway]("http://www.popbitch.com/pictures/burns.jpg"){kind=link}