reverse Pascal's wager?
538616
Well, that would be betting now wouldn't it, sorry, but the Bible says not to gamble, besides that would be like making a deal with the devil so.... no.
293931
This problem was fun and took me a few minutes to realise the solution.  First I will restate the problem just for clarification.\n\nWe have 12 coins, one of which is fake (lighter or heavier).  We can only make 3 weight comparisons to discover which of the coins is the fake one.  My solution will tell you which coin is fake and if it is heavy or light in exactly 3 comparisons.\n\nI number the coins 1 - 12 and make the following 3 comparisons on a scale\n\nleft    vs   right\n-------------------\n1 2 3 10  vs  4 5 6 11\n1 2 3 11  vs  7 8 9 10\n1 4 7 10  vs  2 5 8 12\n\nnow I know which coin is false.  How do I do this? well I created a table which has 12 unique outcomes of 3 weighing comparisons on which side of the scale went down. for example left left left indicates that all 3 comparisons had the left side dropped.  Here is my table:\n\nfake coin  | correspondin weight comparisons\n--------------------------------------------\n1          |  left left left (heavy) or right right right (light)\n2          |  left left right (heavy) or right right left (light)\n3          |  left left balanced (heavy) or right right balanced (light)\n4          |  right balanced left (heavy) or left balanced right (light)\n5          |  right balanced right (heavy) or left balanced left (light)\n6          |  right balanced balanced (heavy) or left balanced balanced (light)\n7          |  balanced right left (heavy) or balanced left right (light)\n8          |  balanced right right (heavy) or balanced left left (light)\n9          |  balanced right balanced (heavy) or balanced left balanced (light)\n10         |  left right left (heavy) or right left right (light)\n11         |  right left balanced (heavy) or left right balanced (light)\n12         |  balanced balanced right (heavy) or balanced balanced left (light)\n\nnow I can find exactly which coin was the fake one by comparing the results of my 3 wieghs against my table. For example if I get two balances and then a right, I know the 12 coin is the fake and is heavy. Note that if I get balanced balanced left the the 12 coin is light.\n\nNotice that I first created this table of possible outcomes and then generated from it which coins would be compared against which. \n\nHeavy or Light:  I created this table in which no result on any row is the reverse of any result on any other row (as the reverse indicates whether it is light or heavy)\n\nThis is the simplest solution to this problem.  I hope this made sense.  Was really fun.
112461
Aha! The liar paradox rears its ugly head again....\n\nThe asnwer is - neither true nor false. The propositional content and the semantic content of the statement contradict each other.\n\nTo unpick this paradox, you have to separate the statement from the proposition it contains. \nNote that the proposition has a positive truth value - it claims that "[yadda yadda] IS [bladiblah]"\n\nNow...\n\nIf the statment is true, the proposition that it contains is rendered false, leading to a self-contradiction.\nSo [This statement is false.] is false.\nBut if it is false that the statement is false then the proposition it contains is rendered true, and again the statement is rendered self-contradictory.\n\n(Repeat ad nauseum)\n\nIf you got that, ponder this one. It's a doozy:\n\n"This staitmennt contaynes three mistakes"
311381
Is this for betting?  Cuz I think it is illegal.
49676
I think in a way u are using the same argument as Pascal. He said the same thing - there are better consequences for believing in a God. But u know what, there are other factors that have to be taken into account. For instance, how do u know WHICH God to believe in? U just believe in Christianity, u don't know if it's true. So what happens when u kick the bucket and u find out that u've been praying to the wrong God? There are many more questions like these that need careful consideration before u just enter the bandwagon of praying to a God.\n\nTo Giggly:\nWell, that's a totally screwed up way of looking at it, but i would say yes. (And I love South Park, lol). This website should give u some of the problems of the Pascal Wager, whioch the asker is talking about:\nhttp://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/pascalswager.htm
288377
PASCAL!!!its out dated, i think it is possible to get it on C/C++
108416
none if they are false
155770
Pascal seems to think so.  He set up this argument that it is better to live as a Christian than not to, just in case Christianity is true.  Well, to choose to live according to Christianity on that basis clearly indicates that one is an agnostic in reality.  But Pascal said that actions create belief, so that if you act like a Christian, before you know it, voila, you will believe in it!\n\nOf course, the major difficulty with Pascal's wager as I see it, is that he failed to factor in other religions.  What if Islam is right?  Then you've gambled on the wrong religion.\n\nBut anyhow, I DO believe that you can be an Agnostic Christian, an Agnostic Hindu, an Agnostic almost anything.  Because you are being very honest.  You are admitting that ultimately, no one knows.  And yet you still have your inclinations.  You are justified to follow the religion that you are inclined to most believe in, whether or not you are able to believe 100% in it or not.\n\nMost Christians have doubts, and some admit this.  There is not so much difference between a Christian with doubts and an "agnostic-Christian" perhaps.
577397
People are funny with their replies. I've done many accurate readings for my family and friends. I never ask for anything in return or do it to get lottery numbers. That would be wrong and a misuse of everything. So there you go. Do what you believe.
619947
$1\n\ntell them its for spiritual enlightment.
415746
conditional statement and its inverse
552113
Ask: "What would the other angel tell me if I asked him which is the right way to heaven?"\n\nThen take the other way since one lies and and tells the truth [negative(-) x positive (+) = Negative(-)], therefore, the opposite from what they say.\n\nHope you'll make it now, since you know the answer ;) jk.
408681
This is known as the Monty Hall problem.\n\nIn September 1990, Marilyn vos Savant, puzzle columnist for the U.S. magazine Parade, was sent a probability teaser by a reader. \n\nIts publication in her "Ask Marilyn" column together with her solution has produced much debate amongst mathematicians and laymen alike ever since. \n\nApart from its challenge to common intuition, one reason it has attracted so much interest is that Ms von Savant is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as having the highest recorded score in an IQ test (228) and so proving her wrong would have a certain satisfaction to it.\n\nTo date, Ms vos Savant has received over 10,000 letters on the puzzle, mostly disagreeable, and articles are still being written claiming new insights that show where Ms vos Savant got it wrong.\n\nMonty Hall was a game show host. There was a luxury car  behind one of 3 doors. The other two doors had goats behind them. Contestants on the show were asked by Monty to choose a door. \n\nHe then opened one of the other doors to reveal a goat and said you could stick with your original choice or switch to the other remaining dooir, if you wanted to. \n\nThat is where this puzzle comes from. The advice is correct. Switching increases the odds from 1/3 rd to 2/3 rds of getting the car. Surprising as that seems. \n\nThink of it this way. Whichever door you choose initially, your chance of success was 1/3 rd. \n\nThen the number of doors is reduced to two. So the chance that the other remaining door is the right one must be 2/3 rds. Because it cannot be the door that has been revealed to have a goat behind it. \n\nWhen you were choosing between three doors, the chance that it was behind one or other of the two doors you didn't choose was 2/3 rds. And it still is, except there is now only one such door left, it having been demonstrated that the other not-chosen door concealed a goat.\n\nIntuition suggests that once one door is eliminated, the chances are 1/2 for each of the two remaining doors, but intuition can be wrong. You can see why the Monty Hall problem generated such controversy, can't you? It has been puzzling and infuriating people for over 15 years now. This one will run and run.
1167496
I find interesting the use of probability to explain god. I mean, they use well known (and limited) data to explain how unlikely (even if possible) it is for life to start as a mere accident. Even though, these people seem to forget to apply the same logic and known data to explain god, if the experiment is a fair experiment, that is, using known data in both experiments, the probability that a being like god actually exists is 0. ZERO probability.
942397
another piss weak xian, without the balls to face life alone.\n\nPascals wager is a "cover ur arse" ploy. no courage there.
978758
There's a mathematical riddle that claims to "prove" 1 = 2, but if you examine it closely enough, it turns out to be dividing by 0.  Sorry I csn't remember the riddle.
1001485
#1 No.\n#2 Dumb luck.\n\nQuick, while you are of sound mind, take a good hard look at the idea of god and see it for what it is. I say quick because who knows when the next lucky break will come your way and all will be hunkey dory with god again. Use the time you have wisely and perhaps yiou will break free of the superstition and see that "god helps those that helps themselves"  (meaning you help yourself, and god takes the credit)  Time to roll up the shirtsleeves and do god's work (help yourself that is.)