Can you think like Einstein?

[Ahmadov]

Hello Jamie,

Then I think I was also correct when I said the right answer was “growth” because it did not contain the letter “e”

[Jamie_K]

@Ahmadov

Hello Jamie,

Then I think I was also correct when I said the right answer was “growth” because it did not contain the letter “e”

Yes. There’s more than one correct answer.

[Ahmadov]

@Jamie (K)

There are two towns, one whose inhabitants always lie, and one whose inhabitants always tell the truth. You meet a person on the road, and you want to know which town he is from. What question do you ask him to find out if he’s from the liars’ town or the truth-tellers’ town?

Casper told the philosopher that he would ask the person if he was a tree frog. If the person said “yes”, then he was obviously from the liar’s town, because he was clearly not a tree frog.

This is a perfectly functional solution to such a problem, but the philosopher was quite upset with it, calling it “completely unacceptable” on philosophical grounds.

I wonder what was the philosopher’s answer…

[Jamie_K]

@Ahmadov

I wonder what was the philosopher’s answer…

He didn’t give an answer. He just said that Caspar Hauser’s answer was unacceptable.

[Ahmadov]

@Jamie (K)

@Ahmadov

I wonder what was the philosopher’s answer…

He didn’t give an answer. He just said that Caspar Hauser’s answer was unacceptable.

I would consider him a true philosopher if he had given his version

[Lost_Soul]

Hi, Ahmadov

I bet it is a question from one of those IQ tests, where you don’t need to know the meaning of words to solve puzzles. But that premise was not stipulated by you, hense “exit” is also an answer

[Jamie_K]

@Ahmadov

@Jamie (K)

@Ahmadov

I wonder what was the philosopher’s answer…

He didn’t give an answer. He just said that Caspar Hauser’s answer was unacceptable.

I would consider him a true philosopher if he had given his version

No, a true philosopher doesn’t give any workable solutions.

Think of Karl Marx and his bad relations with the real workers who were in the communist party in England. The workers would propose serious, practical, real solutions that would improve their lives, and Marx used to criticize them angrily and say that the workers’ plan was “bound to fail” because it had “no underlying philosophical principles”.

[Ahmadov]

Jamie (K), it seems the definition of a true philosopher is another thing that we do not agree on

[Ahmadov]

OK, now the correct solution for the puzzle I posted earlier this week:

The answer is “Center”, which is the only word that does NOT contain the reversed letters of a number.

1. evENINg = (rev) NINE
2. grOWTh = (rev) TWO
3. center = no embedded reversable number!
4. eXISt = (rev) SIX
5. magNET = (rev) TEN
6. vENOm = (rev) ONE

[Ahmadov]

Now, my question about the Einstein quote was that whether the solution offered by me or Amy was simplified or oversimplified?

[Yankee]

.
I’d say the question itself was over-simplified.
.

[Ahmadov]

@Yankee

.
I’d say the question itself was over-simplified.
.

LOL But this reply hardly helps me to understand the separating line between simple and simpler

Anyway, it seems that I have disturbed you much with my silly questions :oops:

[NinaZara]

I think it means it can only be ‘as simple’ if it is possible.

Think of the famous phrase ‘as soon as possible’. If your boss told you to hand in a report as soon as possible, then it can only be ‘as soon’, if it is possible, but it cannot be sooner. I think.

[Yankee]

@Ahmadov

But this reply hardly helps me to understand the separating line between simple and simpler

The original quote did not use only the word ‘simple’. It used ‘as simple as possible’. And that was my point. If something is already ‘as simple as possible’, then it seems logical to me that it is impossible to make it any simpler.

If you want to write an affirmative answer to a closed-ended question, and you want the answer to be ‘as simple as possible’, you might decide that writing “Yes” is ‘as simple as possible’. Is it possible to write a simpler affirmative answer?
.

[Ahmadov]

@Yankee

If you want to write an affirmative answer to a closed-ended question, and you want the answer to be ‘as simple as possible’, you might decide that writing “Yes” is ‘as simple as possible’. Is it possible to write a simpler affirmative answer?
.

I will need to check dictionaries to answer this question… I will post a reply to this when I find a proper dictionary that can help me

[Ahmadov]

Hello Nina, how are you? It is nice to meet you here again.

@NinaZara

Be a good person and good things will come to you.

I think being a good person should not be conditional on anything, including expecting good things coming to you, i.e. one should not become a good person to expect that he/she will have adequate reciprocation. I understand that this is not what you meant in that statement though…

[NinaZara]

Hi Zahir, it has been a while since we changed ideas. I see that you are as your usual self, always thinking and questioning

And I am doing fine, except for now I am very sleepy (almost midnight). As for my signature phrase, one can take it as the way you put it, or as the way I think of it, I expect good things, and only good things will come.

Just as simple as that

[Torsten]

Hi Zahir and Nina,

This is quite an interesting question: do you think positive because you want to attract good things to you or do you attract good things because you think positive?

TOEIC listening, talks: Airport employee is announcing flight delays through loudspeaker system

[Prezbucky]

As Mies van der Rohe said, God is in the details.

So while it’s good to be as simple as possible, one should not be so simple that he leaves out the necessary details. IE, be simple but (still) complete – don’t leave out any pertinent info, necessary steps/processes, etc.

(maybe that’s what Einstein meant, sort of)

[Yankee]

@prezbucky

(maybe that’s what Einstein meant, sort of)

How can we possibly figure out what Einstein meant when the quote isn’t what Einstein actually said? What if the person who paraphrased Einstein over-simplified? 8)
.