Coding Challenge
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Wether or not an individual 'believes' the cat is alive and dead at the same time, is irrelevant. The paradox is proof against its logic (thats why it is a paradox). It does not change the pardox or make the actual pardox itself false.
The point I was making was that he put the thought experiment up as a strawman argument, it wasn't supposed to be taken seriously.
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">Collin Jasnoch wrote:</div>Again, that is the paradox. Back to what I said earlier<BR>"The only certainty
is there are no certainties". These are <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio\_ad\_absurdum">Reductio
ad absurdum</A>[<A title="New Window" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio\_ad\_absurdum"
target="_blank">^</A>]<BR> <BR>Wether or not an individual 'believes' the
cat is alive and dead at the same time, is irrelevant. The paradox is proof
against its logic (thats why it is a paradox). It does not change the pardox or
make the actual pardox itself false.<BR></blockquote>It disproves the proposition. "Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.[1]" I doubt he wished to kickstart the multiple universe theory movement.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Its funny that you say
Member 4523790 wrote:
I don't know why so many people don't get it.
when you clearly also don't get it.
Back at you.
You still don't get it. Just because he did not want to kickstart the multiple universe theory movement (note I am not saying he did), is irrelavent. His argument was Reductio ad absurdum (yes you have the definition right). That does NOT change the premise of the thought experiment, which concludes that the cat is both dead AND alive. That is the point. It is not possible and thus disproves itself. HOWEVER, the thought experiment is still concludes that (and thus put larges holes in quantum theory). Just because it poked holes in the existing theories does not change its (the thought experiment) conclusions. Yes it disproves the original proposition, that is what a Reductio ad absurdum is defined as. But you can not state the cat is either dead OR alive when using it as a thought experiment. The thought experiment provides one with the conclusion that both are true, at the same time.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
You still don't get it. Just because he did not want to kickstart the multiple universe theory movement (note I am not saying he did), is irrelavent. His argument was Reductio ad absurdum (yes you have the definition right). That does NOT change the premise of the thought experiment, which concludes that the cat is both dead AND alive. That is the point. It is not possible and thus disproves itself. HOWEVER, the thought experiment is still concludes that (and thus put larges holes in quantum theory). Just because it poked holes in the existing theories does not change its (the thought experiment) conclusions. Yes it disproves the original proposition, that is what a Reductio ad absurdum is defined as. But you can not state the cat is either dead OR alive when using it as a thought experiment. The thought experiment provides one with the conclusion that both are true, at the same time.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The thought experiment provides one with the conclusion that both are true, at the same time.
No, it is given as a the expected result if you used Schrödinger's understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation. Schrödinger expected you to disregard the possibility of the cat being both alive and dead and work on quantum theory. You're not supposed to accept that the cat is both alive and dead.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The thought experiment provides one with the conclusion that both are true, at the same time.
No, it is given as a the expected result if you used Schrödinger's understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation. Schrödinger expected you to disregard the possibility of the cat being both alive and dead and work on quantum theory. You're not supposed to accept that the cat is both alive and dead.
Again, whether you accept or believe it is irrelevant. However that is the conclusion. Yes his intentions were to get scientists to rework quantum theory, becauae they will not accept that it is both dead and alive. But the thought experiment is completed with that conclusion.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Back in the Days of Yore we had a couple of small coding challenges such as the Lean and Mean comp. I was thinking that there are a ton of small, well defined problems that can be tackled a zillion ways in a zillion languages and that it would be cool to see what you guys can come up with. I'd like to start the ball rolling with the following simple task: Problem: Given a string of text, trim from each end of the text each all occurrences of a given set of strings Sample input: Input string: "dog cat monkey dog horse dog" Strings that need to be trimmed from each end: { "dog", "cat" } Final output should be: " monkey dog horse" Final output should be " cat monkey dog horse " [Edit: My final sample output was incorrect, so to be fair I'll accept either answer] It's up to you whether you worry about case sensitivity. Let's see who can provide the smallest, neatest most elegant, most unique and/or fastest code. For those who feel like jumping on the "No Programming questions" bandwagon, please re-read the lounge guidelines. The point of this is to have fun, not to solve each other's programming issues.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
'How about this
SVar = "dog cat monkey dog horse dog"
SVar = """" & Mid(SVar, InStr(SVar, " "), InStrRev(SVar, " ") - InStr(SVar, " ") + 1) & """"MsgBox SVar
'OR<<<<<<<<<<<<<
For Each LVar In Split(SVar, " ")
AVar = AVar & Mid(CStr(LVar), 2, Len(CStr(LVar)) - 2) & " "
Next LineVarMsgBox AVar
-
Back in the Days of Yore we had a couple of small coding challenges such as the Lean and Mean comp. I was thinking that there are a ton of small, well defined problems that can be tackled a zillion ways in a zillion languages and that it would be cool to see what you guys can come up with. I'd like to start the ball rolling with the following simple task: Problem: Given a string of text, trim from each end of the text each all occurrences of a given set of strings Sample input: Input string: "dog cat monkey dog horse dog" Strings that need to be trimmed from each end: { "dog", "cat" } Final output should be: " monkey dog horse" Final output should be " cat monkey dog horse " [Edit: My final sample output was incorrect, so to be fair I'll accept either answer] It's up to you whether you worry about case sensitivity. Let's see who can provide the smallest, neatest most elegant, most unique and/or fastest code. For those who feel like jumping on the "No Programming questions" bandwagon, please re-read the lounge guidelines. The point of this is to have fun, not to solve each other's programming issues.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Procedure.s TrimString(s1$,s2$)
Protected fs
while left(s1$,len(s2$))=s2$ or right(s1$,len(s2$))=s2$
if left(s1$,len(s2$))=s2$
s1$=right(s1$,len(s1$)-len(s2$))
endif
if right(s1$,len(s2$))=s2$
s1$=left(s1$,len(s1$)-len(s2$))
endif
wend
ProcedureReturn s1$
EndProcedure; cw() <- is short for consolewrite()
s1$ ="dog cat monkey dog horse dog" ;<- dog on both ends
s2$ ="dog"
s1$ =TrimString(s1$,s2$)
cw(s1$) ;>" cat monkey dog horse " ;<- 0x20 on both ends
s2$ ="cat"
s1$ =TrimString(s1$,s2$)
cw(s1$) ;>" cat monkey dog horse " ;<- 0x20 on both ends; Input string: "dog cat monkey dog horse dog"
; Strings that need to be trimmed from each end: { "dog", "cat" }; Note: he says: 'Strings that need to be trimmed from each end'
; not that the Input string should be trimmed of 0x20; that's probably obvious... but i thought i read a comment that
; the Input string should be trimmed of 0x20 (whitespaces); language PureBasic...