Remember me
▼ Content

Deep Climate Change Lesson in Prisoner Puzzle



Page 1 of 212>
Deep Climate Change Lesson in Prisoner Puzzle19-07-2017 17:21
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Bear with me while I explain.

I put this Prisoner Puzzle in the Fun thread, where almost nobody reads anything. It has had only 12 hits, and no responses. So to make a point on the Climate Debate more powerfully, I am adding the post here, on this Forum that gets orders of magnitude more attention. You will see why after about 100 hits and 10 responses. Now the puzzle:

A prison was overcrowded. Rather than simply release a prisoner, or perhaps more than one, the warden created a challenge. He brought three prisoners into a room and gave them the rules of the challenge. Each prisoner would have a hat put onto his head from behind him. The bag contained three black hats and two red hats. One hat would be drawn randomly by a prison guard and put on each prisoner's head in turn. If a prisoner could tell the warden the color of the hat on his own head, he would immediately be freed. If he guessed, and guessed wrong, he would be executed immediately. (So nobody guesses, preferring not to be executed.)

1st Prisoner: Looks at #2 and #3 and then declares, "I don't know."
2nd Prisoner: Looks at #1 and #3 and then declares, "I don't know."
3rd Prisoner is blind: He declares "I know!"

Does he?
Explain.

The deeper lesson will follow the solution, whether or not anyone can solve it.
19-07-2017 17:47
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1448)
Seems pretty simple. #3 saw red on #1 and #2 knowing his had to be black. What the deeper lesson here?
19-07-2017 18:35
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Seems pretty simple. #3 saw red on #1 and #2 knowing his had to be black. What the deeper lesson here?


#3 is blind. The deeper lesson FOR YOU is to read the puzzle before popping off.

There is a much deeper lesson for others who read.
19-07-2017 22:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Yes, #3 knows that his own hat is black.

If #3's hat were red, then the only way that #1 wouldn't know the colour of his own hat would be if #2's hat were black. #2 would have realised this and hence declared that his own hat is black. He didn't though, so #3 correctly deduces that his own hat cannot be red.

I'm not sure what the deeper lesson for climate change is though
20-07-2017 00:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
StarMan wrote:
Bear with me while I explain.

I put this Prisoner Puzzle in the Fun thread, where almost nobody reads anything. It has had only 12 hits, and no responses. So to make a point on the Climate Debate more powerfully, I am adding the post here, on this Forum that gets orders of magnitude more attention. You will see why after about 100 hits and 10 responses. Now the puzzle:

A prison was overcrowded. Rather than simply release a prisoner, or perhaps more than one, the warden created a challenge. He brought three prisoners into a room and gave them the rules of the challenge. Each prisoner would have a hat put onto his head from behind him. The bag contained three black hats and two red hats. One hat would be drawn randomly by a prison guard and put on each prisoner's head in turn. If a prisoner could tell the warden the color of the hat on his own head, he would immediately be freed. If he guessed, and guessed wrong, he would be executed immediately. (So nobody guesses, preferring not to be executed.)

1st Prisoner: Looks at #2 and #3 and then declares, "I don't know."
2nd Prisoner: Looks at #1 and #3 and then declares, "I don't know."
3rd Prisoner is blind: He declares "I know!"

Does he?
Explain.

The deeper lesson will follow the solution, whether or not anyone can solve it.


Prisoner #1 looks. It he saw that both other hats were red he would know that his hat was black. If he saw a black and a red then he would know that it is impossible to tell. If he saw two blacks he would only have two chances in three of picking the right color.

This would be the same for prisoner #2.

Prisoner #3 being blind doesn't even know what color is. So he simply asks the other prisoners.

The greater truth is that having no knowledge at all can give you a better foothold on the truth by merely asking the correct question.
20-07-2017 00:40
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
StarMan wrote:
Bear with me while I explain.

I put this Prisoner Puzzle in the Fun thread, where almost nobody reads anything. It has had only 12 hits, and no responses. So to make a point on the Climate Debate more powerfully, I am adding the post here, on this Forum that gets orders of magnitude more attention. You will see why after about 100 hits and 10 responses. Now the puzzle:

A prison was overcrowded. Rather than simply release a prisoner, or perhaps more than one, the warden created a challenge. He brought three prisoners into a room and gave them the rules of the challenge. Each prisoner would have a hat put onto his head from behind him. The bag contained three black hats and two red hats. One hat would be drawn randomly by a prison guard and put on each prisoner's head in turn. If a prisoner could tell the warden the color of the hat on his own head, he would immediately be freed. If he guessed, and guessed wrong, he would be executed immediately. (So nobody guesses, preferring not to be executed.)

1st Prisoner: Looks at #2 and #3 and then declares, "I don't know."
2nd Prisoner: Looks at #1 and #3 and then declares, "I don't know."
3rd Prisoner is blind: He declares "I know!"

Does he?
Explain.

The deeper lesson will follow the solution, whether or not anyone can solve it.


Prisoner #1 looks. It he saw that both other hats were red he would know that his hat was black. If he saw a black and a red then he would know that it is impossible to tell. If he saw two blacks he would only have two chances in three of picking the right color.

This would be the same for prisoner #2.

Prisoner #3 being blind doesn't even know what color is. So he simply asks the other prisoners.

The greater truth is that having no knowledge at all can give you a better foothold on the truth by merely asking the correct question.

I've already given the answer.

It's an interesting puzzle, and it took me a bit of time to work it out. I certainly wouldn't fault anyone for not being able to figure it out from scratch, but it takes a special kind of stupid to fail to work it out after being given the answer!
20-07-2017 01:01
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
StarMan wrote:
Bear with me while I explain.

I put this Prisoner Puzzle in the Fun thread, where almost nobody reads anything. It has had only 12 hits, and no responses. So to make a point on the Climate Debate more powerfully, I am adding the post here, on this Forum that gets orders of magnitude more attention. You will see why after about 100 hits and 10 responses. Now the puzzle:

A prison was overcrowded. Rather than simply release a prisoner, or perhaps more than one, the warden created a challenge. He brought three prisoners into a room and gave them the rules of the challenge. Each prisoner would have a hat put onto his head from behind him. The bag contained three black hats and two red hats. One hat would be drawn randomly by a prison guard and put on each prisoner's head in turn. If a prisoner could tell the warden the color of the hat on his own head, he would immediately be freed. If he guessed, and guessed wrong, he would be executed immediately. (So nobody guesses, preferring not to be executed.)

1st Prisoner: Looks at #2 and #3 and then declares, "I don't know."
2nd Prisoner: Looks at #1 and #3 and then declares, "I don't know."
3rd Prisoner is blind: He declares "I know!"

Does he?
Explain.

The deeper lesson will follow the solution, whether or not anyone can solve it.


Prisoner #1 looks. It he saw that both other hats were red he would know that his hat was black. If he saw a black and a red then he would know that it is impossible to tell. If he saw two blacks he would only have two chances in three of picking the right color.

This would be the same for prisoner #2.

Prisoner #3 being blind doesn't even know what color is. So he simply asks the other prisoners.

The greater truth is that having no knowledge at all can give you a better foothold on the truth by merely asking the correct question.

I've already given the answer.

It's an interesting puzzle, and it took me a bit of time to work it out. I certainly wouldn't fault anyone for not being able to figure it out from scratch, but it takes a special kind of stupid to fail to work it out after being given the answer!


Did you also work out how Prisoner #2 would have the intelligence to realize anything other than he sees a black hat and a red hat?

While being a prisoner possibly about to be executed doesn't preclude intelligence, being one usually means that you have little to no intelligence. Sort of like you.
20-07-2017 01:16
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Surface Detail wrote:
Yes, #3 knows that his own hat is black.

If #3's hat were red, then the only way that #1 wouldn't know the colour of his own hat would be if #2's hat were black. #2 would have realised this and hence declared that his own hat is black. He didn't though, so #3 correctly deduces that his own hat cannot be red.

I'm not sure what the deeper lesson for climate change is though


More simply and sequentially put, the 1st prisoner does NOT see 2 red hats on #2 and #3, and says "I don't know."

Then the 2nd prisoner looks and does NOT see 2 red hats on #1 and #3. But IN ADDITION, he realizes that IF #3's hat is red, his must be black. Therefore #2 says "I don't know."

Prisoner #3 recognized from the first two answers that his hat is black and he is set free.

The greater lesson is quite simple. Everybody reading the problem has exactly the same information. Most people cannot solve it despite its beguiling simplicity. This is the lesson for the climate change hoax. Beguiling simplicity staring people in the face, and they refuse to acknowledge that politics and greed and peer pressure trump facts and common sense. Most of us do not feed at the trough of government climate change grants, and so are not moved by such a consideration. Likewise, most of us do not feel the peer pressure of "consensus," almost universal in *academia* - and I use that term loosely, as in a bowel movement.

"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman


Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong, spot, Into The Night
20-07-2017 01:20
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
My bad in replying to Surface Detail.

I regret my error.


Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong, spot, Into The Night

Edited on 20-07-2017 01:22
20-07-2017 01:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
StarMan wrote:
Bear with me while I explain.

I put this Prisoner Puzzle in the Fun thread, where almost nobody reads anything. It has had only 12 hits, and no responses. So to make a point on the Climate Debate more powerfully, I am adding the post here, on this Forum that gets orders of magnitude more attention. You will see why after about 100 hits and 10 responses. Now the puzzle:

A prison was overcrowded. Rather than simply release a prisoner, or perhaps more than one, the warden created a challenge. He brought three prisoners into a room and gave them the rules of the challenge. Each prisoner would have a hat put onto his head from behind him. The bag contained three black hats and two red hats. One hat would be drawn randomly by a prison guard and put on each prisoner's head in turn. If a prisoner could tell the warden the color of the hat on his own head, he would immediately be freed. If he guessed, and guessed wrong, he would be executed immediately. (So nobody guesses, preferring not to be executed.)

1st Prisoner: Looks at #2 and #3 and then declares, "I don't know."
2nd Prisoner: Looks at #1 and #3 and then declares, "I don't know."
3rd Prisoner is blind: He declares "I know!"

Does he?
Explain.

The deeper lesson will follow the solution, whether or not anyone can solve it.


If #1 sees two red hats, he knows his own is black.
If #1 sees two black hats, his own may be the remaining black hat or a red hat. He doesn't know.
If #1 sees one black and one red, his own hat is either the remaining red hat or a black hat. He doesn't know.
Therefore #1 would ONLY know if the other two were both wearing red hats.

Prisoner #2 knows who #1 is because #1 spoke first.
If #2 sees a black hat on #1 and a black hat on #3, and knows that #1 doesn't know, he may be wearing a red hat or the remaining black hat. He doesn't know. If so, #1 and #3 would be wearing the same color hats (black).
If #2 sees a red hat on #1 and a black hat on #3, and knows that #1 doesn't know, he may be wearing the remaining red hat or a black hat. He doesn't know. If so, #1 and #3 would be wearing different hats.
If #2 sees a black hat on #1 and a red hat on #3, and knows that #1 doesn't know, he may be wearing the remaining red hat or a black hat. He doesn't know. If so, #1 and #3 would be wearing different hats.
If #2 sees a red hat on #1 and red hat on #3, and knows that #1 doesn't know, he must be wearing a black hat, since #1 would otherwise know. If so, #1 and #3 are wearing the same color hats (red).
Therefore #2 would ONLY know if the other two were both wearing red hats.

#3 now has the following information:
He knows that both red hats are not being worn, since in either case, either #1 or #2 would know.
He does not know which one is #1 or #2.
He knows that since neither #1 nor #2 saw two red hats, at least two of the prisoners are wearing black hats.
He knows that neither #1 nor #2 would know in the case of all three prisoners were wearing black hats.
He knows that neither #1 nor #2 would know in the case of one either #1 or #2 were wearing different hats.
If #1 and #2 are wearing different hats, than his must be a black hat.
If #1 and #2 are wearing black hats, then #3 may be wearing the remaining black hat, or the only allowable red hat among the three, since at least two prisoners are wearing black hats.
If #1 and #2 are wearing red hats, then #3 must be wearing a black hat.

Therefore #3 does NOT know if his own hat is red or black.

The following truth table illustrates this (prisoners 1, 2, and 3). Each cell is hat color with a yes/no indication of knowledge of their own hat.

1 2 3
bn bn bn
bn bn rn
bn rn bn
by ry ry <--- the only case where everyone knows their own hat.
rn bn bn
rn by ry <--- this case #1 does NOT know because he answered first with less info. Despite this, #3 knows his hat color.
rn rn bn <--- this case #3 does NOT know because he can't see two red hats, being blind.
r r r The bag contains too many red hats. Not possible. The guard lied?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-07-2017 01:55
20-07-2017 02:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
StarMan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Yes, #3 knows that his own hat is black.

If #3's hat were red, then the only way that #1 wouldn't know the colour of his own hat would be if #2's hat were black. #2 would have realised this and hence declared that his own hat is black. He didn't though, so #3 correctly deduces that his own hat cannot be red.

I'm not sure what the deeper lesson for climate change is though


More simply and sequentially put, the 1st prisoner does NOT see 2 red hats on #2 and #3, and says "I don't know."

Then the 2nd prisoner looks and does NOT see 2 red hats on #1 and #3. But IN ADDITION, he realizes that IF #3's hat is red, his must be black. Therefore #2 says "I don't know."

Prisoner #3 recognized from the first two answers that his hat is black and he is set free.

The greater lesson is quite simple. Everybody reading the problem has exactly the same information. Most people cannot solve it despite its beguiling simplicity. This is the lesson for the climate change hoax. Beguiling simplicity staring people in the face, and they refuse to acknowledge that politics and greed and peer pressure trump facts and common sense. Most of us do not feed at the trough of government climate change grants, and so are not moved by such a consideration. Likewise, most of us do not feel the peer pressure of "consensus," almost universal in *academia* - and I use that term loosely, as in a bowel movement.

"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman

Well, that's disappointing. No deeper lesson at all, just a bizarre effort to use a cute logic puzzle to justify an insane belief in some sort of massive, worldwide scientific conspiracy.
Edited on 20-07-2017 02:51
20-07-2017 02:33
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
If #1 sees two red hats, he knows his own is black.
If #1 sees two black hats, his own may be the remaining black hat or a red hat. He doesn't know.
If #1 sees one black and one red, his own hat is either the remaining red hat or a black hat. He doesn't know.
Therefore #1 would ONLY know if the other two were both wearing red hats.

Prisoner #2 knows who #1 is because #1 spoke first.
If #2 sees a black hat on #1 and a black hat on #3, and knows that #1 doesn't know, he may be wearing a red hat or the remaining black hat. He doesn't know. If so, #1 and #3 would be wearing the same color hats (black).
If #2 sees a red hat on #1 and a black hat on #3, and knows that #1 doesn't know, he may be wearing the remaining red hat or a black hat. He doesn't know. If so, #1 and #3 would be wearing different hats.

OK up to here.

If #2 sees a black hat on #1 and a red hat on #3, and knows that #1 doesn't know, he may be wearing the remaining red hat or a black hat. He doesn't know. If so, #1 and #3 would be wearing different hats.

No! If #2 sees a black hat on #1 and a red hat on #3, and knows that #1 doesn't know, then he cannot be wearing a red hat himself, otherwise #1 would have seen that both #2 and #3 were wearing red hats and declared his own hat to be black. #2 would then know that his own hat must be black and declare it.

It is the fact that #2 does not declare his own hat to be black that allows #3 to determine that he cannot be wearing a red hat himself.
Edited on 20-07-2017 02:52
20-07-2017 03:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
If #1 sees two red hats, he knows his own is black.
If #1 sees two black hats, his own may be the remaining black hat or a red hat. He doesn't know.
If #1 sees one black and one red, his own hat is either the remaining red hat or a black hat. He doesn't know.
Therefore #1 would ONLY know if the other two were both wearing red hats.

Prisoner #2 knows who #1 is because #1 spoke first.
If #2 sees a black hat on #1 and a black hat on #3, and knows that #1 doesn't know, he may be wearing a red hat or the remaining black hat. He doesn't know. If so, #1 and #3 would be wearing the same color hats (black).
If #2 sees a red hat on #1 and a black hat on #3, and knows that #1 doesn't know, he may be wearing the remaining red hat or a black hat. He doesn't know. If so, #1 and #3 would be wearing different hats.

OK up to here.

If #2 sees a black hat on #1 and a red hat on #3, and knows that #1 doesn't know, he may be wearing the remaining red hat or a black hat. He doesn't know. If so, #1 and #3 would be wearing different hats.

No! If #2 sees a black hat on #1 and a red hat on #3, and knows that #1 doesn't know, then he cannot be wearing a red hat himself, otherwise #1 would have seen that both #2 and #3 were wearing red hats and declared his own hat to be black. #2 would then know that his own hat must be black and declare it.

It is the fact that #2 does not declare his own hat to be black that allows #3 to determine that he cannot be wearing a red hat himself.


Good catch. Thank you.

The corrected table:

1 2 3
bn bn bn
bn by rn <--- #2 knows because he knows #1 doesn't know.
bn rn bn
by ry ry <--- the only case where everyone knows their own hat.
rn bn bn
rn by ry <--- this case #1 does NOT know because he answered first with less info. Despite this, #3 knows his hat color.
rn rn bn
r r r The bag contains too many red hats. Not possible. The guard lied?

The only case where both #1 and #2 do not know result in a black hat for #3.

Therefore #3 must be wearing a black hat.


The Parrot Killer
20-07-2017 03:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Surface Detail wrote:
StarMan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Yes, #3 knows that his own hat is black.

If #3's hat were red, then the only way that #1 wouldn't know the colour of his own hat would be if #2's hat were black. #2 would have realised this and hence declared that his own hat is black. He didn't though, so #3 correctly deduces that his own hat cannot be red.

I'm not sure what the deeper lesson for climate change is though


More simply and sequentially put, the 1st prisoner does NOT see 2 red hats on #2 and #3, and says "I don't know."

Then the 2nd prisoner looks and does NOT see 2 red hats on #1 and #3. But IN ADDITION, he realizes that IF #3's hat is red, his must be black. Therefore #2 says "I don't know."

Prisoner #3 recognized from the first two answers that his hat is black and he is set free.

The greater lesson is quite simple. Everybody reading the problem has exactly the same information. Most people cannot solve it despite its beguiling simplicity. This is the lesson for the climate change hoax. Beguiling simplicity staring people in the face, and they refuse to acknowledge that politics and greed and peer pressure trump facts and common sense. Most of us do not feed at the trough of government climate change grants, and so are not moved by such a consideration. Likewise, most of us do not feel the peer pressure of "consensus," almost universal in *academia* - and I use that term loosely, as in a bowel movement.

"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman

Well, that's disappointing. No deeper lesson at all, just a bizarre effort to use a cute logic puzzle to justify an insane belief in some sort of massive, worldwide scientific conspiracy.


Agreed. It is making a false equivalence fallacy. The puzzle itself was entertaining though.

There are certainly better ways to show the massive worldwide conspiracy known as 'global warming'.


The Parrot Killer
20-07-2017 04:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
StarMan wrote:
My bad in replying to Surface Detail.

I regret my error.


Well, when my anti-convulsive medication kicks in I'm lucky to know my name.

The easiest way to explain it would be:

#1 doesn't see two red hats.

# 2 doesn't see a red hat on #3.

#3 knows he must have a black hat.
20-07-2017 05:03
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1448)
I still say #3 saw 2 reds.
20-07-2017 18:21
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
I have previously posted this interesting riddle and found that few people can solve it on their own.
Everyone starts with the same information. Many arrive at false conclusions, and make assumptions they should not. Then when discussing the climate change hoax, elsewhere, I posted this riddle and discerned the connection between the riddle and climate change believers, insofar as different conclusions being drawn from the same identical information.

To that I now add another observation, viz., the propensity for a small group to find fault where there is none. In other words anything you can say or observe, some cynical ignoramus can criticize, even if he has to spin and fabricate. Here, things were made up. In my question of does water freeze in a container at 0 C and 1.000 atmosphere, one wag continues to insist (fabricate) that you can "add heat" or "take away heat" through the container WHILE IT REMAINS AT 0 C.
Sorry. That's creative lying. Happens all the time in climate change promotion.
20-07-2017 19:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
StarMan wrote:
I have previously posted this interesting riddle and found that few people can solve it on their own.
Everyone starts with the same information. Many arrive at false conclusions, and make assumptions they should not. Then when discussing the climate change hoax, elsewhere, I posted this riddle and discerned the connection between the riddle and climate change believers, insofar as different conclusions being drawn from the same identical information.

To that I now add another observation, viz., the propensity for a small group to find fault where there is none. In other words anything you can say or observe, some cynical ignoramus can criticize, even if he has to spin and fabricate. Here, things were made up. In my question of does water freeze in a container at 0 C and 1.000 atmosphere, one wag continues to insist (fabricate) that you can "add heat" or "take away heat" through the container WHILE IT REMAINS AT 0 C.
Sorry. That's creative lying. Happens all the time in climate change promotion.


You're lucky that's all he does. He is perfectly unaware that state changes do not require additional energy changes.
20-07-2017 21:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
StarMan wrote:
I have previously posted this interesting riddle and found that few people can solve it on their own.
Everyone starts with the same information. Many arrive at false conclusions, and make assumptions they should not. Then when discussing the climate change hoax, elsewhere, I posted this riddle and discerned the connection between the riddle and climate change believers, insofar as different conclusions being drawn from the same identical information.

To that I now add another observation, viz., the propensity for a small group to find fault where there is none. In other words anything you can say or observe, some cynical ignoramus can criticize, even if he has to spin and fabricate. Here, things were made up. In my question of does water freeze in a container at 0 C and 1.000 atmosphere, one wag continues to insist (fabricate) that you can "add heat" or "take away heat" through the container WHILE IT REMAINS AT 0 C.
Sorry. That's creative lying. Happens all the time in climate change promotion.


That is not creative lying. It is two other things:

1) It is somewhat the misuse of the word 'heat' (again).
2) Correct to say that removing more thermal energy from a container at zero degrees takes place without any change in temperature. Since removing thermal energy is heat, it is correct to say that heat loss from such a container will not change the temperature until the contents change to ice (once initial nucleation has begun).

You really should go study 'latent heat'. The effect is much more pronounced when going from water to steam or back again. It takes place during any change in the state of matter.

Adding thermal energy to a container of liquid water WILL cause the temperature to change. The container already contains liquid water so no change in the state of matter takes place.


The Parrot Killer
20-07-2017 21:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Wake wrote:
StarMan wrote:
I have previously posted this interesting riddle and found that few people can solve it on their own.
Everyone starts with the same information. Many arrive at false conclusions, and make assumptions they should not. Then when discussing the climate change hoax, elsewhere, I posted this riddle and discerned the connection between the riddle and climate change believers, insofar as different conclusions being drawn from the same identical information.

To that I now add another observation, viz., the propensity for a small group to find fault where there is none. In other words anything you can say or observe, some cynical ignoramus can criticize, even if he has to spin and fabricate. Here, things were made up. In my question of does water freeze in a container at 0 C and 1.000 atmosphere, one wag continues to insist (fabricate) that you can "add heat" or "take away heat" through the container WHILE IT REMAINS AT 0 C.
Sorry. That's creative lying. Happens all the time in climate change promotion.


You're lucky that's all he does. He is perfectly unaware that state changes do not require additional energy changes.

But they do.


The Parrot Killer
30-07-2017 06:13
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Into the Night wrote:
2) Correct to say that removing more thermal energy from a container at zero degrees takes place without any change in temperature.



To anyone other than Into the Night: You do NOT "remove more thermal energy from a container" without reducing its temperature. The water is 0 C. The container is 0 C. There is stasis. Equilibrium. Look up Triple Point.


Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong, spot, Into The Night
30-07-2017 08:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
StarMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
2) Correct to say that removing more thermal energy from a container at zero degrees takes place without any change in temperature.



To anyone other than Into the Night: You do NOT "remove more thermal energy from a container" without reducing its temperature. The water is 0 C. The container is 0 C. There is stasis. Equilibrium. Look up Triple Point.


If you remove the energy to cause a state change but because of the of the pressure there hasn't been a conversion of state, that state change can occur without the addition or subtraction of any energy. Merely the change in pressure without any change in temperature (addition or subtraction of energy in the water itself) can elicit a state change. But of course Nightmare believes that a change in energy in the surroundings equals a change in energy in the water. It does nothing of the sort.
30-07-2017 22:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
StarMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
2) Correct to say that removing more thermal energy from a container at zero degrees takes place without any change in temperature.



To anyone other than Into the Night: You do NOT "remove more thermal energy from a container" without reducing its temperature. The water is 0 C. The container is 0 C. There is stasis. Equilibrium. Look up Triple Point.


It is quite possible to remove thermal energy from the container without changing its temperature. The water within will use its thermal energy to continue heating it. It doesn't change its temperature either.

The triple point makes no difference.

Look up 'latent heat'.


The Parrot Killer
31-07-2017 07:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote: It is quite possible to remove thermal energy from the container without changing its temperature. The water within will use its thermal energy to continue heating it. It doesn't change its temperature either.


All I can say is "wow".
31-07-2017 21:40
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
To return to the subject of this thread:

Dozens of people read the original Prisoner Riddle and virtually NOBODY could solve it. Many errors were made while everyone had exactly the same information.

Why does this happen so often?
1. People don't think through all of the implications and possibilities.
2. When they do, they often try to weasel out of their own errors or ignorance.

Everyone is guilty to some extent, however the Left preponderates when it comes to playing word games, dodging responsibility, and claiming that they are right because they're SO SMART, so shut up. That is the lesson.


Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong, spot, Into The Night
31-07-2017 22:10
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
StarMan wrote:
To return to the subject of this thread:

Dozens of people read the original Prisoner Riddle and virtually NOBODY could solve it. Many errors were made while everyone had exactly the same information.

Why does this happen so often?
1. People don't think through all of the implications and possibilities.
2. When they do, they often try to weasel out of their own errors or ignorance.

Everyone is guilty to some extent, however the Left preponderates when it comes to playing word games, dodging responsibility, and claiming that they are right because they're SO SMART, so shut up. That is the lesson.


I thought that you provided a clear concept. Yet not one of the four seemed either able to answer it or to keep from changing the terms of the problem to prove they are correct.
02-08-2017 15:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
StarMan wrote:
To return to the subject of this thread:

Dozens of people read the original Prisoner Riddle and virtually NOBODY could solve it. Many errors were made while everyone had exactly the same information.

Why does this happen so often?
1. People don't think through all of the implications and possibilities.
2. When they do, they often try to weasel out of their own errors or ignorance.

Everyone is guilty to some extent, however the Left preponderates when it comes to playing word games, dodging responsibility, and claiming that they are right because they're SO SMART, so shut up. That is the lesson.


I thought that you provided a clear concept. Yet not one of the four seemed either able to answer it or to keep from changing the terms of the problem to prove they are correct.

Stop lying, Wake. I gave the correct solution in the fourth post of this thread.
02-08-2017 17:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
StarMan wrote:
To return to the subject of this thread:

Dozens of people read the original Prisoner Riddle and virtually NOBODY could solve it. Many errors were made while everyone had exactly the same information.

Why does this happen so often?
1. People don't think through all of the implications and possibilities.
2. When they do, they often try to weasel out of their own errors or ignorance.

Everyone is guilty to some extent, however the Left preponderates when it comes to playing word games, dodging responsibility, and claiming that they are right because they're SO SMART, so shut up. That is the lesson.


I thought that you provided a clear concept. Yet not one of the four seemed either able to answer it or to keep from changing the terms of the problem to prove they are correct.

Stop lying, Wake. I gave the correct solution in the fourth post of this thread.


Too bad you can't write an understandable English sentence.
02-08-2017 22:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
StarMan wrote:
To return to the subject of this thread:

Dozens of people read the original Prisoner Riddle and virtually NOBODY could solve it. Many errors were made while everyone had exactly the same information.

Why does this happen so often?
1. People don't think through all of the implications and possibilities.
2. When they do, they often try to weasel out of their own errors or ignorance.

Everyone is guilty to some extent, however the Left preponderates when it comes to playing word games, dodging responsibility, and claiming that they are right because they're SO SMART, so shut up. That is the lesson.


I thought that you provided a clear concept. Yet not one of the four seemed either able to answer it or to keep from changing the terms of the problem to prove they are correct.

Stop lying, Wake. I gave the correct solution in the fourth post of this thread.


Too bad you can't write an understandable English sentence.


Compounding a lie with another lie???


The Parrot Killer
02-08-2017 22:53
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Wake, my Friend, this is why some people simply must be ignored. They are a waste of time.

"Wisdom exceedeth folly as far as light exceedeth darkness."

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."
02-08-2017 23:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
StarMan wrote:
Wake, my Friend, this is why some people simply must be ignored. They are a waste of time.

"Wisdom exceedeth folly as far as light exceedeth darkness."

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."


It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled. Mark Twain
02-08-2017 23:41
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
StarMan wrote:
To return to the subject of this thread:

Dozens of people read the original Prisoner Riddle and virtually NOBODY could solve it. Many errors were made while everyone had exactly the same information.

Why does this happen so often?
1. People don't think through all of the implications and possibilities.
2. When they do, they often try to weasel out of their own errors or ignorance.

Everyone is guilty to some extent, however the Left preponderates when it comes to playing word games, dodging responsibility, and claiming that they are right because they're SO SMART, so shut up. That is the lesson.


I thought that you provided a clear concept. Yet not one of the four seemed either able to answer it or to keep from changing the terms of the problem to prove they are correct.

Stop lying, Wake. I gave the correct solution in the fourth post of this thread.


Too bad you can't write an understandable English sentence.

I'm starting to see the parallels with AGW.

The scientist explains the answer to the puzzle. The denier fails to understand the explanation of the scientist but, rather than acknowledging his own cognitive limits, simply claims that the scientist's explanation must be false. Thanks for demonstrating, Wake!
02-08-2017 23:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
StarMan wrote:
Wake, my Friend, this is why some people simply must be ignored. They are a waste of time.

"Wisdom exceedeth folly as far as light exceedeth darkness."

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."


It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled. Mark Twain

Wise words indeed. It's remarkable how the deniers are happy to swallow hook, line and sinker the unevidenced ramblings they find on the internet that support their delusions while refusing to give credence to peer-reviewed science and the statements of scientific organisations. Denial really is akin to religion.
03-08-2017 02:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
StarMan wrote:
Wake, my Friend, this is why some people simply must be ignored. They are a waste of time.

"Wisdom exceedeth folly as far as light exceedeth darkness."

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."


It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled. Mark Twain

Wise words indeed. It's remarkable how the deniers are happy to swallow hook, line and sinker the unevidenced ramblings they find on the internet that support their delusions while refusing to give credence to peer-reviewed science and the statements of scientific organisations. Denial really is akin to religion.


Science isn't peer review. Science isn't an organization. Science doesn't use consensus.

Science denial is by the Church of Global Warming. They are the ones denying the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
03-08-2017 18:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
StarMan wrote:
Wake, my Friend, this is why some people simply must be ignored. They are a waste of time.

"Wisdom exceedeth folly as far as light exceedeth darkness."

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."


It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled. Mark Twain

Wise words indeed. It's remarkable how the deniers are happy to swallow hook, line and sinker the unevidenced ramblings they find on the internet that support their delusions while refusing to give credence to peer-reviewed science and the statements of scientific organisations. Denial really is akin to religion.


Science isn't peer review. Science isn't an organization. Science doesn't use consensus.

Science denial is by the Church of Global Warming. They are the ones denying the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

No paper that has been subject to peer review is likely to be denying the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This would be very obvious to the reviewers and the paper would be justifiably rejected as pseudo-scientific waffle. If you think that greenhouse theory violates any scientific laws, that you simply haven't understood greenhouse theory. It doesn't.
03-08-2017 21:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
StarMan wrote:
Wake, my Friend, this is why some people simply must be ignored. They are a waste of time.

"Wisdom exceedeth folly as far as light exceedeth darkness."

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."


It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled. Mark Twain

Wise words indeed. It's remarkable how the deniers are happy to swallow hook, line and sinker the unevidenced ramblings they find on the internet that support their delusions while refusing to give credence to peer-reviewed science and the statements of scientific organisations. Denial really is akin to religion.


Science isn't peer review. Science isn't an organization. Science doesn't use consensus.

Science denial is by the Church of Global Warming. They are the ones denying the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

No paper that has been subject to peer review is likely to be denying the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Peer review doesn't change the status of a theory. If a theory is not externally consistent, that will be true regardless of whether peer review declares it so or not. Peer review is not required for science.
Surface Detail wrote:
This would be very obvious to the reviewers and the paper would be justifiably rejected as pseudo-scientific waffle.

Science has no 'elites' voting on theories and whether they are theories of science or not.

Peer review is used by some magazines before publishing.

Publishing a theory does not have to occur through a magazine. No one owns science.

Surface Detail wrote:
If you think that greenhouse theory violates any scientific laws, that you simply haven't understood greenhouse theory. It doesn't.

As Wikipedia and practically everyone here that believes in it (including you) describes it, It does. It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. These laws can't be ignored.

It doesn't matter what '"most" or "all" scientists say'. That is not only an argument from randU, it is ignoring the effect of the single largest source of funding for scientific research (government). If people have to lie to get paid, they will lie.

Consensus is not used in science. Credentials mean nothing to science. No university, government, magazine, commission, religion, or any individual or group of individuals own science.

CO2 is not an insulator. It doesn't act as a Magick Blanket.

CO2 is not a reflector. It doesn't act as a Magick One Way Mirror.

CO2 does absorb infrared light. The effect of that absorption is to heat the gas slightly. It cannot in turn heat the surface as a result. It is simply another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere, helping to cool it. It's just a 'cool' way to heat the atmosphere without using conduction and convection, like the way all the other gases in the atmosphere are heated.

Like the surface, any thermal energy in the air is radiated to space as infrared light at various frequencies. The bulk of that light comes from the surface, not the atmosphere, even though the atmosphere does act like a 'radiator' of sorts, helping to lose heat to space.


The Parrot Killer
03-08-2017 21:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote: Like the surface, any thermal energy in the air is radiated to space as infrared light at various frequencies.


Let me repeat - do you now agree that the universe is electromagnetic in nature or are you still denying the existence of Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, de Broglie, Compton, Einstein, Schrodinger, Horn, Fermi, Pauli, and the rest of the world's beat and brightest that attended the 1927 Solvay Conference?

ANYTHING that radiates at any frequency is electromagnetic in nature. Light is nothing more that higher frequency than Rush Limbaugh on your AM radio.
03-08-2017 22:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Like the surface, any thermal energy in the air is radiated to space as infrared light at various frequencies.


Let me repeat - do you now agree that the universe is electromagnetic in nature

No. Why do you keep asking this?
Wake wrote:
or are you still denying the existence of Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, de Broglie, Compton, Einstein, Schrodinger, Horn, Fermi, Pauli, and the rest of the world's beat and brightest that attended the 1927 Solvay Conference?
None of these guys say it is either.
Wake wrote:
ANYTHING that radiates at any frequency is electromagnetic in nature.
WRONG.
Sounds radiates at various frequencies, and is NOT electromagnetic in nature. It is kinetic in nature.
Wake wrote:
Light is nothing more that higher frequency than Rush Limbaugh on your AM radio.

WRONG. Light is all frequencies of electromagnetic energy, including the AM radio band.


The Parrot Killer
04-08-2017 00:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Like the surface, any thermal energy in the air is radiated to space as infrared light at various frequencies.


Let me repeat - do you now agree that the universe is electromagnetic in nature

No. Why do you keep asking this?
Wake wrote:
or are you still denying the existence of Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, de Broglie, Compton, Einstein, Schrodinger, Horn, Fermi, Pauli, and the rest of the world's beat and brightest that attended the 1927 Solvay Conference?
None of these guys say it is either.
Wake wrote:
ANYTHING that radiates at any frequency is electromagnetic in nature.
WRONG.
Sounds radiates at various frequencies, and is NOT electromagnetic in nature. It is kinetic in nature.
Wake wrote:
Light is nothing more that higher frequency than Rush Limbaugh on your AM radio.

WRONG. Light is all frequencies of electromagnetic energy, including the AM radio band.


I love it when you demonstrate an understanding of science so poor that you have to stoop to things like "no sound radiates" when sound does not "radiate" but is a vibration in the air.

"Light" is a SPECIFIC set of electromagnetic frequencies from IR to UV.

And since you know nothing of quantum theory (aren't you the one claiming to have a PhD in Physics?) you haven't any idea what the Soval group said let alone meant.
04-08-2017 00:54
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
"Light" is a SPECIFIC set of electromagnetic frequencies from IR to UV."

That it is, Wade. Absolutely no question.


Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong, spot, Into The Night
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Deep Climate Change Lesson in Prisoner Puzzle:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Tim's Piece of the Puzzle911-08-2019 07:01
Denley: One lesson from the floods – Liberals and Tories must work together on climate change101-05-2019 20:45
"We Are in Deep Trouble": Carbon Emissions Break Record in Devastating Global Setback731-03-2019 17:14
Puzzle With A Lesson108-05-2018 04:13
El Nino and Deep Faults5123-06-2017 01:16
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact