How Many Germans Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb?
-
A mathematician, a physicist and a chemist have agreed to be tested in a psychological experiment. The psychologist explains the setup. "As you probably only too aware, there is a smoking-hot naked woman in the centre of the room. For the purposes of this test she has agreed to do anything you want when you get to her. The only rule is each step you take towards her, must be half the length of the previous one". The mathematician thinks for a second, then says "I'm out, I can never reach her". The physicist sets off, takes a couple of paces, then leaves saying "the evidence suggests it would take an infinite amount of time to reach her". The Chemist sets off. The pyschologist asks "Why are you going, don't you realise that you can never reach the woman?" The chemist replies "I know, but I can get close enough for experimental purposes".
Dalek Dave: There are many words that some find offensive, Homosexuality, Alcoholism, Religion, Visual Basic, Manchester United, Butter. Pete o'Hanlon: If it wasn't insulting tools, I'd say you were dumber than a bag of spanners.
-
Q: How many mathematicians does it take to change a lightbulb? A1: Let x be the amount of time it takes one mathematician to change one light bulb and {x} be the domain of all available mathematicians.... A2: One. The proof is left up to the student. --- Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? A: One, but the lightbulb has to really want to change. --- (Ok, this one is obscure. A vote up to the first person to get this.) Q: How many Lojban speakers does it take to change a broken light bulb? A1: How does one change broken light? A2: Two: one to decide what to change it into, and one to figure out what kind of bulb emits broken light.
While not familiar with Lojban, the joke probably plays on the fact that the expressions (probably?) are non-associative, and without parentheses it is understood as ((broken light) bulb) i.e. a bulb that emits "broken light" (as A2 actually states). The A2 also states that the verb "change" requires a second operand defining the "destination" of changing ("to change from what to what"). Or am I just being pathetic at trying to explain the trivial issue?
-
While not familiar with Lojban, the joke probably plays on the fact that the expressions (probably?) are non-associative, and without parentheses it is understood as ((broken light) bulb) i.e. a bulb that emits "broken light" (as A2 actually states). The A2 also states that the verb "change" requires a second operand defining the "destination" of changing ("to change from what to what"). Or am I just being pathetic at trying to explain the trivial issue?