JAMES RANDI 5 QUESTION TEST
in [Math]
|
From: |-|ercules on 3 May 2010 04:18 "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote ... > On 3/05/2010 10:40 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 27/04/2010 4:49 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>> Here is a test of your debunking powers. >>> >>> 1/ Which of these numbers is prime? >>> 38449548957467356353748457463 >>> 38474646478349487473463636377 >> >> Neither of them. >> >> > > What was the intended point of this question anyway? The others looked > as if they were intended to be unanswerable, but this one? > > Sylvia. NO CALCULATORS NO COMPUTERS I made a video for you "A Question From Sylvia". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw8XQ7lpXxc In that video I refer to these following videos for your critique. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG7E_CrPIA8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkqp5A-FhSo Herc
From: Sylvia Else on 3 May 2010 05:05 On 3/05/2010 6:18 PM, |-|ercules wrote: > "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote ... >> On 3/05/2010 10:40 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 27/04/2010 4:49 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>>> Here is a test of your debunking powers. >>>> >>>> 1/ Which of these numbers is prime? >>>> 38449548957467356353748457463 >>>> 38474646478349487473463636377 >>> >>> Neither of them. >>> >>> >> >> What was the intended point of this question anyway? The others looked >> as if they were intended to be unanswerable, but this one? >> >> Sylvia. > > NO CALCULATORS NO COMPUTERS Bit laborious I suppose, but given that neither is prime, I don't think it would take long to prove by hand. A few hours perhaps, if that, including checking. > > I made a video for you "A Question From Sylvia". > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw8XQ7lpXxc > > > In that video I refer to these following videos for your critique. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG7E_CrPIA8 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkqp5A-FhSo You invite me to comment on these sorts of thing, but you invariably become abusive when you don't like what I say. So I don't think I'll bother. Sylvia.
From: |-|ercules on 3 May 2010 05:28 "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote... > On 3/05/2010 6:18 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote ... >>> On 3/05/2010 10:40 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 27/04/2010 4:49 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>>>> Here is a test of your debunking powers. >>>>> >>>>> 1/ Which of these numbers is prime? >>>>> 38449548957467356353748457463 >>>>> 38474646478349487473463636377 >>>> >>>> Neither of them. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> What was the intended point of this question anyway? The others looked >>> as if they were intended to be unanswerable, but this one? >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> NO CALCULATORS NO COMPUTERS > > Bit laborious I suppose, but given that neither is prime, I don't think it > would take long to prove by hand. A few hours perhaps, if that, including > checking. > >> >> I made a video for you "A Question From Sylvia". >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw8XQ7lpXxc >> >> >> In that video I refer to these following videos for your critique. >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG7E_CrPIA8 >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkqp5A-FhSo > > You invite me to comment on these sorts of thing, but you invariably become > abusive when you don't like what I say. So I don't think I'll bother. > > Sylvia. nice copout Then allow me to reciprocate and suggest that you refrain from asking me questions also. Herc
From: Darrell Stec on 3 May 2010 10:25 |-|ercules wrote: > "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote ... >> On 3/05/2010 10:40 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 27/04/2010 4:49 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>>> Here is a test of your debunking powers. >>>> >>>> 1/ Which of these numbers is prime? >>>> 38449548957467356353748457463 >>>> 38474646478349487473463636377 >>> >>> Neither of them. >>> >>> >> >> What was the intended point of this question anyway? The others looked >> as if they were intended to be unanswerable, but this one? >> >> Sylvia. > > NO CALCULATORS NO COMPUTERS > Pythagoras knew about prime numbers 2500 years ago and worked out a formula for determining them. He didn't need calculators nor computers. Thymaridas and Euclid knew about them too. Why are you so hell bound to demonstrate your ignorance? > I made a video for you "A Question From Sylvia". > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw8XQ7lpXxc > > > In that video I refer to these following videos for your critique. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG7E_CrPIA8 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkqp5A-FhSo > How sad and embarrassing for you. Don't you realize how utterly spaced out you appear to others in those videos? And you have the audacity to try to teach Sylvia something. From everything in her posts, she appears to know and understand infinitely more than you do. > Herc -- Later, Darrell
From: |-|ercules on 3 May 2010 10:27
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote ... > On 3/05/2010 7:30 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote ... >>> On 3/05/2010 6:18 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote ... >>>>> On 3/05/2010 10:40 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 27/04/2010 4:49 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>>>>>> Here is a test of your debunking powers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1/ Which of these numbers is prime? >>>>>>> 38449548957467356353748457463 >>>>>>> 38474646478349487473463636377 >>>>>> >>>>>> Neither of them. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What was the intended point of this question anyway? The others looked >>>>> as if they were intended to be unanswerable, but this one? >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> NO CALCULATORS NO COMPUTERS >>> >>> Bit laborious I suppose, but given that neither is prime, I don't >>> think it would take long to prove by hand. A few hours perhaps, if >>> that, including checking. >>> >>>> >>>> I made a video for you "A Question From Sylvia". >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw8XQ7lpXxc >>>> >>>> >>>> In that video I refer to these following videos for your critique. >>>> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG7E_CrPIA8 >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkqp5A-FhSo >>> >>> You invite me to comment on these sorts of thing, but you invariably >>> become abusive when you don't like what I say. So I don't think I'll >>> bother. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> just to clarify, that's only when you repeatedly say I committed >> extortion and am mentally ill. >> >> Herc > > OK, let's test that. > > Neither 'answer' in the first of the above videos (I haven't watched the > second) bears any relationship to the question, nor allows any inferences to > be made about any intended answer, whether right or wrong. > > You're asking questions that require a "yes" or "no" answer. Synonyms such as > "affirmative", "positive", "negative" would do, as would sentences that > precede those words with the expressions such as "That's a", "I would answer > that with a", and so on. Also acceptable would be sentences that state as an > assertion the thing that you're questioning, or manifestly contradicts that > thing. So there are actually very many possible acceptable channelled answers. > Despite that, you don't get any of them. What you get is random sequences of > words, and you construe them entirely to suit yourself. > > Sylvia. Why did I use Prime numbers is not a yes / no question. And people answer yes no questions with reasons, plans, follow ups more often than yes or no. Landing on yes, no, affirm is like using an 8 ball, it doesn't prove that the channel understood the question, replying in context does., You asked what was the purpose of the primes question, I flicked to a random page and the quote was "Part of making the app easy to use involves allowing users to set their preferences for how the app should work". I substituted app = test here. This is EXACTLY the purpose of my Debunker 5 questions test. To illustrate that the test protocol must be mutually agreed upon so it's easy for my channel to work with suitable questions. It follows 100 times better answering your question, than your YES / NO tangent answered my question. Herc |