A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Um...the notion that "trillions and trillions" of human babies have been born, perhaps?

The worst case scenario is that his estimate was off, but this does not mean that his knowledge was inaccurate. No one knows exactly how many babies have been born since human beings came into existence, do they?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

It doesn't matter what definition of "time immemorial" you adopt, there have not been anywhere near "trillions and trillions" of humans on the earth. The Great Astute Observer's observation on this matter was wrong by many orders of magnitude.

He probably calculated all the babies who may have been born but didn't survive. I don't think it's possible to know exactly how many babies have been born since time immemorial. And this really had nothing to do with the reason for why he even brought this up.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know he included all those embryos who never made it to full consciousness. I know what he was talking about, trust me. So you are all wrong in your interpretation. I hate that you think you are right, without understanding his book. It makes me feel like vomiting.

He wrote: "trillions and trillions of babies coming into the world."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I gave you an entire essay. What else do you want?

More to the point, you could go visit a research library and read up on some of the literally thousands of experiments that have been done in order to determine how the eyes detect and transduce light, and how the impulses are then relayed to the brain. [Not to mention how neurons actually work, and why they're capable of transmission in only one direction. And the careful studies of the composition of the optic nerve, and the directionality of its neural fibers.]


There is a simply enormous number of careful studies that have been done in this field.

There have been, but there is still a possibility that their conclusions based on what they know about the eye and brain is incomplete.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Training a dog to do what he is capable of doing depending on his breed is one thing. I don't think that this test to determine if a dog recognizes his handler was accurate. The test itself was flawed, in my humble opinion. To train a dog to associate hitting a lever when he recognizes a face is something I don't believe dogs can do. Okay, you need to test more dogs than just mine or yours, that's fair. But if they are training a dog without any cues, just sight, and pressing a lever to indicate that recognition was taking place, there is no absolute proof of this. To say that it was skewed in the direction of proof, is also skewed because it is not statistically significant even if the dog, out of sheer chance (come on, you can get 85% more heads than tails in a throw of dice), got 85% correct. I am not a statistician, but it doesn't take a statistician to see that these results stack up to nada.

Once again

In the experiment the dogs chose the picture of their handler 88% of the time rather than the 50% that would be predicted if the dog was responding randomly. That is statistically very significant.

Additionally, the dogs chose familiar dogs 85% of the time, and a familiar landscape 89% of the time. Again, random choices would predict 50/50. And since the dogs were rewarded regardless of which photo they chose, there would be no incentive for them to choose a specific picture.

The dogs significantly preferring the familiar over the unfamiliar is compelling evidential support that they have purely visual recognition skills

As a control when shown two unfamiliar landscapes the dogs' choices were around 50%

This is one study, out of several, that indicates dogs can recognize things based on sight alone. I chose it because the abstract was clearly written and easy to understand for laypeople. TLR has posted links to others, and there are many more available for review. Does this all constitute absolute proof? No. Nobody said it does.

Statistically 30+% above chance over 50 trials is very significant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Once again

This is one study, out of several, that indicates dogs can recognize things based on sight alone. I chose it because the abstract was clearly written and easy to understand for laypeople. TLR has posted links to others, and there are many more available for review. Does this all constitute absolute proof? No. Nobody said it does.

Statistically 30+% above chance over 50 trials is very significant.

I'm sorry LadyShea, it proves nothing. It proves NADA; NOTHING AT ALL. It is a flawed test, period.

[erimir]

There are 455 unique combinations of 3 letters between A-O, and we don't care about order.

That would be (15*14*13)/(2*3)

You have 15 choices for the first letter, 14 for the second, etc. Each three letter combination has 6 orderings, so that's why you divide by 6.

__________________

ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO

When you have ABC, besides obviously taking ABC out of contention, you've taken out any combination of AB, AC or BC with a third letter. There are 12 combinations for each of those pairs (aside from ABC, of course), which means you've you've taken out 36 possible combinations. The same is true for DEF, GHI, JKL and MNO. Which means aside from the 5 I just used, a further 180 can't be used now.

That leaves 270 combinations for the remaining lines - one line in and we've reduced the number of combinations available by 40%. We still need 30.

___________________

ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO
ADG EHK ILO JMB NCF

Now, for each of these combinations, we've taken even more out of consideration. For ADG, we've taken all combinations of AD, AG and DG with a third letter. This would be a further 36, however, some of these have already been taken out by the previous line. Namely ADB, ADC, ADE, ADF, AGB, AGC, AGH, AGI, DGE, DGF, DGH, DGI. That's 4 letters for each pair, 3 pairs, 12 triplets to subtract from that 36. That means it's 24 for each of those five triplets in the second line.

So, in addition to the five in second line, we've removed 120 more triplets from consideration. That leaves us with 145 combinations for the remaining five lines, which require 25 further combinations.

For those of you keeping score, for the first line we had 13 times as many combinations as we needed (455/35). For the second line, we had 9 times (270/30). For the third line, we now have only 5.8 times (145/25).

Ok, so let's add another line!

__________________

ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO
ADG EHK ILO JMB NCF
AEI HLM OBF JND CGK

Each of these, again, would remove 36 combinations, except that some of them have already been removed. So, let's look again at AEI. That means AE, AI and EI can't appear with another letter. A, E and I have each appeared with four letters before, and so the combinations with those have already been removed. But some of those four letters now overlap, making this more difficult. (That is, AED violates twice, because D has already appeared with both A and E)

A or E have already appeared with BCDFGHK before, meaning that there are 5 combinations invalidated by AE (since you can't form a triplet with AE and any of ILMNO). A or I have already appeared with BCDGHLO, so same thing. For EI, you find the same thing. So that's 15 for AEI.

For HLM, you get HL appearing with EGIJKO, so that's 6. HM, it's BEGIJKNO, that's 4. LM, it's BIJKNO, 6. That's 16 removed for HLM.

For OBF, you get OB appearing with ACIJLMN, so that's 5. OF, it's CDEILMN, another 5. BF, it's ACDEJMN, another 5. So that's 15.

For JND, you get JN appearing with BCFKLMO, that's 5. For JD, it's ABEFGKLM, that's 4. For ND, it's ACEFGMO, that's 5. So that's 15 again.

For CGK, you get CG appearing with ABDFHIN, that's 5. For CK, it's ABEFHJLN, that's 4. For GK, it's ADEHIJL, that's 5. So that's 14.

That means in addition to the 5 appearing IN the third line, a further 75 combinations from consideration.

This leaves 65 unique combinations. We still need 20. You see now we barely have over 3 times as many combinations as we need now. It seems that our supply is shrinking too fast.

Ok, so let's add another line!

__________________

ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO
ADG EHK ILO JMB NCF
AEI HLM OBF JND CGK
AHO LBN FIK JCE

Ok, this time I was having trouble coming up with five whole triplets, so I figured I would just evaluate things here...

A or H have appeared with BCDEGIKLM, so AH removes 3 more. A or O have appeared with BCDEFGILMN, so AO removes 2 more. For HO, it's BEFGIKLMN, that's 3 more. So that's 8 from AHO.

L or B have appeared with ACFHIJKMO, that's 3. For LN, it's CDFHIJKMO, that's 3 again. For BN, it's ACDFJMO, so that's 5. So LBN takes out 11.

F or I have appeared with ABCDEFGHLO, that's 2. FK, it's BCDEFGHJLO, another 2. For IK, it's ACEGHJLO, that's 4. So for FIK, it's 8.

J or C have appeared with ABDFGKLMN, that's 3. JE, it's ABDFHIKLMN, so another 2. CE, it's ABDFGHIKN, that's 3 again. So that's another 8.

So, this last line, of only 4 triplets, removes an additional 35 triplets from consideration.

This leaves 26 unique combinations, and we still need 16. Getting quite close now.

Let's try to add some more...

__________________

ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO
ADG EHK ILO JMB NCF
AEI HLM OBF JND CGK
AHO LBN FIK JCE
AFJ CDL ENG
AKM BDI GJO
CIM DKO FGM


At this point, there are no more triplets I can make without repeating a letter. You'll notice that I'm still short 7 triplets to make 35. I'm willing to believe that maybe I haven't used letter optimally, but...

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry LadyShea, it proves nothing. Use this against me, I don't care. It proves NADA; NOTHING AT ALL. It is a flawed test, period.

I never said it proved anything. Your thinking is what is flawed. Your dad was a crackpot and you're impervious to reason or rationality, period.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by erimir

If you have a solution, send it to me, or post it here. Otherwise I don't believe you that you have one, because it appears that you can't form 35 unique triplets without repeating any pairs.

This is why I think I'm misunderstanding the problem. You absolutely can make 35 triplets without repeating any unique pairs. Is that really the only requirement?

[LadyShea]

Adam, can you send me your solution?

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Adam

This is why I think I'm misunderstanding the problem. You absolutely can make 35 triplets without repeating any unique pairs. Is that really the only requirement?

Order isn't supposed to matter... that is, ABC would disallow you from using ADC.

[Adam]

I just PM'd you two. I think maybe I see what I'm missing.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you see Lone how biased a test can be, especially when we're talking about light and sight? We're not talking about the typical observations we see in everyday life that can be easily replicated. I know you will argue with me about this, but I hope you really think about this. There is wiggle room here, whether you see it or not.

Are you truly as ignorant as this? It's difficult to believe.

We're not talking about a few observations; we're talking about literally thousands of carefully-conducted and frequently-replicated studies. We're talking careful and detailed examinations down to the level of single cells, to examine in great detail the configuration of the retina and of the visual pathways. We're talking about hundreds and hundreds of studies of neural function alone, establishing how neurons conduct impulse and which directions they can -- and can't -- conduct impulses.

For goodness' sake make some effort to educate yourself on the matter! There are thousands and thousands of carefully-conducted studies which have tested the notion that the brain relays impulses to the retina, rather than vice versa. If there were any evidence to support the notion that the eyes are not sense organs, it wouldn't be kept hidden. Far from it -- any scientist who discovered such evidence would be guaranteed a Nobel Prize.

You have no idea at all how utterly absurd is your position that the eye is not a sense organ: that the eye is indeed a sense organ is at least as well-established as is the notion that the Earth is a planet in orbit around the Sun. It is not a hypothesis or even a theory; it's a fact. And you can easily confirm this for yourself if you'll make the effort.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

. . . . is at least as well-established as is the notion that the Earth is a planet in orbit around the Sun. It is not a hypothesis or even a theory; it's a fact. And you can easily confirm this for yourself if you'll make the effort.

I will pray for you.

--J.D.

[LadyShea]

Adam has solved the puzzle, BTW.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

We're not talking about a few observations; we're talking about literally thousands of carefully-conducted and frequently-replicated studies. We're talking careful and detailed examinations down to the level of single cells, to examine in great detail the configuration of the retina and of the visual pathways. We're talking about hundreds and hundreds of studies of neural function alone, establishing how neurons conduct impulse and which directions they can -- and can't -- conduct impulses.

That proves NADA; NOTHING AT ALL!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's correct. He did not make up the rules.

Peacegirl, these are actually the only requirements for this puzzle?

35 triplets composed of the letters A-O, none of which contains any pair of letters that also appears in another triplet?

[LadyShea]

Here is the exact quote

Originally Posted by Lessans

I asked this person if it was possible to arrange 105 alphabetical squares divided equally between A and O into groups of 3 so that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I gave you an entire essay. What else do you want?

More to the point, you could go visit a research library and read up on some of the literally thousands of experiments that have been done in order to determine how the eyes detect and transduce light, and how the impulses are then relayed to the brain. [Not to mention how neurons actually work, and why they're capable of transmission in only one direction. And the careful studies of the composition of the optic nerve, and the directionality of its neural fibers.]


There is a simply enormous number of careful studies that have been done in this field.

Lone Ranger, I have no doubt that the impulses are relayed to the brain through the optic nerve. Do you think I'm going to refute that? No I'm not. But I don't know if that translates to what the brain does with the light that is received. That's the question. Is it a leap to say that the brain interprets the light signals, or is it possible the the brain uses the light signals to see, with light being a condition. It's still not clear to me.

[Doctor X]

And yet the eye is a sense organ.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't know why I am bothering but I will lay it out peacegirl because you are obtuse

In the experiment the dogs chose the picture of their handler 88% of the time rather than the 50% that would be predicted if the dog was responding randomly. That is statistically very significant.

Additionally, the dogs chose familiar dogs 85% of the time, and a familiar landscape 89% of the time. Again, random choices would predict 50/50. And since the dogs were rewarded regardless of which photo they chose, there would be no incentive for them to choose a specific picture.

The dogs significantly preferring the familiar over the unfamiliar is compelling evidential support that they have purely visual recognition skills

As a control when shown two unfamiliar landscapes the dogs' choices were around 50%

I still don't understand why it would only be 50% that dogs would pick unfamiliar landscapes over familiar, and I don't think that 80 or even 88% would necessarily be significant unless it's replicated many times over.

[LadyShea]

Apparently what you are unable or unwilling to understand could fill many, many, many volumes.

Start with a basic understanding of statistics and probabilities and statistical significance as related to scientifically collected data.

[Kael]

Reading comprehension: not your strong suit.

The 50% is what the average figure would be if the dogs were picking at random.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Humans haven't been around since time immemorial. Hell, life hasn't even been around all that long compared to the age of the Earth. It's not a math mistake to say "trillions upon trillions" it's a grandiose and incorrect assertion.

That's not true. If the Earth is billions of years old, it isn't at all surprising that trillions of babies could have been born since that time. People had big families. Many children died at birth so we can't even calcuate specifically how many babies were actually born since humans have been in existence. I believe he was estimating but I don't think his calculations were as off as you may think. Of course, you hope he is off, so you can discredit everything he's written.

[The Editor]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the Earth is billions of years old, it isn't at all surprising. . . .

Humans have not been around for "billions of years."

. . . that trillions of babies could have been born since that time.

We will add "does not understand like really really big numbers" to your and Lessans' extraordinary caldron of willful ignorance.

People had big families.

Thousands? Quite the litter. . . .

Your stupidity approaches that of Killick who could not master the concept of "north."

--Ed.