holy water for blessing scrolls?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Is it possible to change a scroll of identify into a blessed scroll of
identify? Is this by chance what holy water is for? I've read a few YAAPs
that include the number of holy waters collected for the Kit... but I'm not
sure why you'd collect them.

Thanks!
Ben
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Ben Kimball wrote:
>
> Is it possible to change a scroll of identify into a blessed scroll of
> identify? Is this by chance what holy water is for? I've read a few YAAPs
> that include the number of holy waters collected for the Kit... but I'm not
> sure why you'd collect them.

That's why. It is also possible to change a stack of 50
scrolls of identify with one holy water just in case you
were wondering.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Ben Kimball wrote:
> >
> > Is it possible to change a scroll of identify into a blessed scroll of
> > identify? Is this by chance what holy water is for? I've read a few YAAPs
> > that include the number of holy waters collected for the Kit... but I'm not
> > sure why you'd collect them.
>
> That's why. It is also possible to change a stack of 50
> scrolls of identify with one holy water just in case you
> were wondering.

And, of course, you can turn a stack of 50 waters into holy water this
way.

So as long as you know how to get water and don't use up your last holy
water, you should have no problems generating as much holy water as you
need (once you have some--your deity can help you here if you find an
altar).
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Ben Kimball wrote:

> Is it possible to change a scroll of identify into a blessed scroll of
> identify? Is this by chance what holy water is for?

Yes and yes. Holy water (or unholy water for that matter) isn't
particularly wet, so it won't blank your scrolls or spellbooks.

> I've read a few
> YAAPs that include the number of holy waters collected for the Kit...
> but I'm not sure why you'd collect them.

It will also uncurse cursed objects; and some things work much better
blessed than merely uncursed (bag of holding, unicorn horn, luckstone).

Raisse, killed by a potion of holy water

--
irina@valdyas.org LegoHack: http://www.valdyas.org/irina/nethack/
Status of Raisse (piously neutral): Level 8 HP 63(67) AC -3, fast.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Raisse the Thaumaturge wrote:
> Ben Kimball wrote:

>> Is it possible to change a scroll of identify into a blessed scroll
>> of identify? Is this by chance what holy water is for?

> Yes and yes. Holy water (or unholy water for that matter) isn't
> particularly wet, so it won't blank your scrolls or spellbooks.

Note that you may also bless water by dipping it into holy water, and
that you may bless more than one item at the same time, if they stack.

> It will also uncurse cursed objects; and some things work much better
> blessed than merely uncursed (bag of holding, unicorn horn,
> luckstone).

I find the difference between a blessed and an uncursed luckstone
negligable.

--
Boudewijn.

--
"I have hundreds of other quotes, just waiting to replace this one
as my signature..." - Me
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"Boudewijn Waijers" <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote:
>I find the difference between a blessed and an uncursed luckstone
>negligable.

A blessed luckstone is extremely unlikely to suddenly become a cursed
luckstone.
--
Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
\_\/_/ meteorites are outta sight but this one's place is in outer space
\ / if you wanna know i'll tell you why it's cause radiation makes you die
\/ -- Zombina and the Skeletones, "Meteorite"
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Boudewijn Waijers <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote:
> Raisse the Thaumaturge wrote:
>> Ben Kimball wrote:
>
>> It will also uncurse cursed objects; and some things work much better
>> blessed than merely uncursed (bag of holding, unicorn horn,
>> luckstone).
>
> I find the difference between a blessed and an uncursed luckstone
> negligable.

With a blessed luckstone, bad luck will time out but good luck won't.
With an uncursed, neither times out. This probably only relevant if you
ever have bad luck, of course.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> Boudewijn Waijers <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote:
>
>>Raisse the Thaumaturge wrote:
>>
>>>Ben Kimball wrote:
>>
>>>It will also uncurse cursed objects; and some things work much better
>>>blessed than merely uncursed (bag of holding, unicorn horn,
>>>luckstone).
>>
>>I find the difference between a blessed and an uncursed luckstone
>>negligable.
>
>
> With a blessed luckstone, bad luck will time out but good luck won't.
> With an uncursed, neither times out. This probably only relevant if you
> ever have bad luck, of course.
>
>
> Keith

He's Boudewijn; there's no way he doesn't know. What he probably means
that you don't have a very large chance of ever having bad luck, which
makes the difference negligible.

--
____ (__)
/ \ (oo) -Zarel
|Moo. > \/
\____/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Zarel wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> Boudewijn Waijers <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote:

>>> I find the difference between a blessed and an uncursed luckstone
>>> negligable.

>> With a blessed luckstone, bad luck will time out but good luck won't.
>> With an uncursed, neither times out. This probably only relevant if
>> you ever have bad luck, of course.

> He's Boudewijn; there's no way he doesn't know.

Believe it or not, there are probably some things I don't know. Although
I currently cannot think of one. Well, I guess that's the one, then: I
don't know what things I don't know...

> What he probably means that you don't have a very large chance of
> ever having bad luck, which makes the difference negligible.

And once you do have bad luck, it suffices to put the luckstone away for
a while, and your luck will automagically go back to zero.

--
Boudewijn.

--
"I have hundreds of other quotes, just waiting to replace this one
as my signature..." - Me
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

On 8/25/05 6:40 PM, Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
> Zarel wrote:

>>What he probably means that you don't have a very large chance of
>>ever having bad luck, which makes the difference negligible.
>
> And once you do have bad luck, it suffices to put the luckstone away for
> a while, and your luck will automagically go back to zero.

I think I had a misconception about luck for a long time. I didn't think
of good/bad luck as having an overall luck score of above or below zero.
I just thought in terms of individual actions that gained or lost
luckpoints. So for example, let's say your luck is maxed out at +13 with
the luckstone. Then you break a boulder in Sokoban, and lose a point. I
had the vague conception that with a blessed luckstone, that particular
unlucky action would "time out," and I'd be back at +13 again, but with
an uncursed luckstone, it wouldn't time out and I'd be stuck at +12
until I did something to raise it again.

Of course, the latter situation is actually true with both blessed and
uncursed luckstones, since in both cases, your luck is already positive,
and the luckstone (besides adding three points) is merely preventing it
from declining back to zero.

--
Kevin Wayne

"You stay here, and make sure he doesn't leave."
--Lord of Swamp Castle
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"Boudewijn Waijers" <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> writes:

> Believe it or not, there are probably some things I don't know. Although
> I currently cannot think of one. Well, I guess that's the one, then: I

Of course you can't: If you COULD, it wouldn't BE a thing you don't know.

--
Jukka Lahtinen
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Boudewijn Waijers wrote:

> Zarel wrote:
>
>>Keith Davies wrote:
>>
>>>Boudewijn Waijers <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote:
>
>>>>I find the difference between a blessed and an uncursed luckstone
>>>>negligable.
>
>>>With a blessed luckstone, bad luck will time out but good luck won't.
>>>With an uncursed, neither times out. This probably only relevant if
>>>you ever have bad luck, of course.
>
>>He's Boudewijn; there's no way he doesn't know.
>
> Believe it or not, there are probably some things I don't know. Although
> I currently cannot think of one. Well, I guess that's the one, then: I
> don't know what things I don't know...

The last thing I've found is that there is a #wipe command. I must have
known that way back when it was introduced into the game but after that
towels were in I've forgot it. So when people were writing about wiping
I assumed that they meant applying a towel.

Topi
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
"How come he didn't put 'I think' at the end of it?" - Anonymous
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Jukka Lahtinen wrote:

> "Boudewijn Waijers" <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> writes:
>
>>Believe it or not, there are probably some things I don't know. Although
>>I currently cannot think of one. Well, I guess that's the one, then: I
>
> Of course you can't: If you COULD, it wouldn't BE a thing you don't know.

It's the basic tenet of knowledge. One cannot know what one don't know.

Topi
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
"How come he didn't put 'I think' at the end of it?" - Anonymous
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Topi Linkala <nes@iki.fi> wrote:
> Jukka Lahtinen wrote:
>
>> "Boudewijn Waijers" <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> writes:
>>
>>>Believe it or not, there are probably some things I don't know. Although
>>>I currently cannot think of one. Well, I guess that's the one, then: I
>>
>> Of course you can't: If you COULD, it wouldn't BE a thing you don't know.
>
> It's the basic tenet of knowledge. One cannot know what one don't know.

Not true. I don't know exactly where you live, I don't know whether
you're male or female, I don't know if you're married (or old enough to
be married, even)... but I know I don't know these things.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:

> Topi Linkala <nes@iki.fi> wrote:
>
>>Jukka Lahtinen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Boudewijn Waijers" <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Believe it or not, there are probably some things I don't know. Although
>>>>I currently cannot think of one. Well, I guess that's the one, then: I
>>>
>>>Of course you can't: If you COULD, it wouldn't BE a thing you don't know.
>>
>>It's the basic tenet of knowledge. One cannot know what one don't know.
>
>
> Not true. I don't know exactly where you live, I don't know whether
> you're male or female, I don't know if you're married (or old enough to
> be married, even)... but I know I don't know these things.

Knowledge and trivia are two different things. You should have said that
you don't know if I'm human or not. Because if you know that I'm human
you know that I have to live somewhere that I'm from a species with two
diffrent genders that havea social structure called marriage. The
details is trivia not knowledge.

Topi

P.S. I know that you know that I'm human but to prove that is totally
different thing.

Same
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
"How come he didn't put 'I think' at the end of it?" - Anonymous
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> Boudewijn Waijers <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote:
>
> > I find the difference between a blessed and an uncursed luckstone
> > negligable.
>
> With a blessed luckstone, bad luck will time out but good luck won't.
> With an uncursed, neither times out. This probably only relevant if you
> ever have bad luck, of course.

If you are subject to getting items cursed, it matters a lot.
Face strong spell casters, have the Amulet or whatever, and
your blessed luckstone could become an uncursed luckstone.
Assuming you started out this woul dhave no effect and give
you plenty of time to bless it again. Start with an uncursed
luckstone, it could end up cursed, and you have a few hundred
turns to notice and react before your luck score starts to
fall.

To me this means that in the early game there's no important
difference between uncursed and blessed - Altar camping moves
luck score up to max, either will keep it there and
spellcasters powerfull enough to succeed in cursing your
stuff are rare. By the time you've found the vibrating
square the difference becomes potentially large.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Topi Linkala wrote:
> Jukka Lahtinen wrote:
> > Boudewijn Waijers writes:
>
> >>Believe it or not, there are probably some things I don't know. Although
> >>I currently cannot think of one. Well, I guess that's the one, then: I
>
> > Of course you can't: If you COULD, it wouldn't BE a thing you don't know.
>
> It's the basic tenet of knowledge. One cannot know what one don't know.

Worse than that:

There are things we know we know (current knowledge realm).
There are things we know we do not know (current mysteries).
There are things we do not know that we do not know (stuff
no one has ever thought of yet).

Even more fun, all three have mistakes factored in so there
are 6 possibilities.

Things that we think we know but we're actually wrong.
Things that we think we know that we're actually right ...

The process of the scientific method gradually pushes stuff
into the set of things we know to be wrong (disproving old
theories), pushes stuff from the know-we-don't-know to the
know-we-know classes (showing new theories to work), pushes
stuff from no-one-ever-thought-of-it to know-we-dont-know
(experiments where the result is folks going "Hey! Look
at *this*").
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Topi Linkala wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
> > Topi Linkala wrote:
> >>Jukka Lahtinen wrote:
> >>>Boudewijn Waijers writes:
>
> >>>>Believe it or not, there are probably some things I don't know. Although
> >>>>I currently cannot think of one. Well, I guess that's the one, then: I
>
> >>>Of course you can't: If you COULD, it wouldn't BE a thing you don't know.
>
> >>It's the basic tenet of knowledge. One cannot know what one don't know.
>
> > Worse than that:
> >
> > There are things we know we know (current knowledge realm).
> > There are things we know we do not know (current mysteries).
>
> Tell me what do you know that you don't know?

Simple case - I get a homework assignment problem at university
and I cann ot solve it. I know in advance there are is a
solution so I know it is solvable. What I know is that I do
not know the solution.

The trend of encountering situations where you don't know the
answer happens frequently in life. The trend of encountering
situations were you also know in advance as in my example,
that's less common but it makes for good illustration.

Moving into current science, the simple definition of evolution
as genetic drift across generations is known knowledge. How
that extends to divergence to the point of new species is
unknown knowledge. Whether it even has an answer isn't known
for certain at this point.

Giving examples of the unknown unknown is harder because that
realm is what folks have never thought of before. I could
make something up and as soon as I did it would move into
the realm of known unknowns.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Topi Linkala wrote:
>
>>Jukka Lahtinen wrote:
>>
>>>Boudewijn Waijers writes:
>>
>>>>Believe it or not, there are probably some things I don't know. Although
>>>>I currently cannot think of one. Well, I guess that's the one, then: I
>>
>>>Of course you can't: If you COULD, it wouldn't BE a thing you don't know.
>>
>>It's the basic tenet of knowledge. One cannot know what one don't know.
>
>
> Worse than that:
>
> There are things we know we know (current knowledge realm).
> There are things we know we do not know (current mysteries).

Tell me what do you know that you don't know?

Topi
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
"How come he didn't put 'I think' at the end of it?" - Anonymous
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Topi Linkala wrote:
>
>>Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>
>>>Topi Linkala wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jukka Lahtinen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Boudewijn Waijers writes:
>>
>>>>>>Believe it or not, there are probably some things I don't know. Although
>>>>>>I currently cannot think of one. Well, I guess that's the one, then: I
>>
>>>>>Of course you can't: If you COULD, it wouldn't BE a thing you don't know.
>>
>>>>It's the basic tenet of knowledge. One cannot know what one don't know.
>>
>>>Worse than that:
>>>
>>>There are things we know we know (current knowledge realm).
>>>There are things we know we do not know (current mysteries).
>>
>>Tell me what do you know that you don't know?
>
>
> Simple case - I get a homework assignment problem at university
> and I cann ot solve it. I know in advance there are is a
> solution so I know it is solvable. What I know is that I do
> not know the solution.
>
> The trend of encountering situations where you don't know the
> answer happens frequently in life. The trend of encountering
> situations were you also know in advance as in my example,
> that's less common but it makes for good illustration.
>
> Moving into current science, the simple definition of evolution
> as genetic drift across generations is known knowledge. How
> that extends to divergence to the point of new species is
> unknown knowledge. Whether it even has an answer isn't known
> for certain at this point.
>
> Giving examples of the unknown unknown is harder because that
> realm is what folks have never thought of before. I could
> make something up and as soon as I did it would move into
> the realm of known unknowns.
>

I originally wrote that the basic tenet of knowledge is that one cannot
know _what_ one doesn't know. I didn't write that it's: one cannot know
_about_ what one doesn't know.

You don't know the content of the information you don't have. You might
know its structure though but that isn't the same thing.

Topi
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
"How come he didn't put 'I think' at the end of it?" - Anonymous
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Topi Linkala wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> Topi Linkala wrote:
>>
>>> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Topi Linkala wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jukka Lahtinen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Boudewijn Waijers writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Believe it or not, there are probably some things I don't know.
>>>>>>> Although
>>>>>>> I currently cannot think of one. Well, I guess that's the one,
>>>>>>> then: I
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Of course you can't: If you COULD, it wouldn't BE a thing you
>>>>>> don't know.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> It's the basic tenet of knowledge. One cannot know what one don't
>>>>> know.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Worse than that:
>>>>
>>>> There are things we know we know (current knowledge realm).
>>>> There are things we know we do not know (current mysteries).
>>>
>>>
>>> Tell me what do you know that you don't know?
>>
>>
>>
>> Simple case - I get a homework assignment problem at university
>> and I cann ot solve it. I know in advance there are is a
>> solution so I know it is solvable. What I know is that I do
>> not know the solution.
>>
>> The trend of encountering situations where you don't know the
>> answer happens frequently in life. The trend of encountering
>> situations were you also know in advance as in my example,
>> that's less common but it makes for good illustration.
>>
>> Moving into current science, the simple definition of evolution
>> as genetic drift across generations is known knowledge. How
>> that extends to divergence to the point of new species is
>> unknown knowledge. Whether it even has an answer isn't known
>> for certain at this point.
>>
>> Giving examples of the unknown unknown is harder because that
>> realm is what folks have never thought of before. I could
>> make something up and as soon as I did it would move into
>> the realm of known unknowns.
>>
>
> I originally wrote that the basic tenet of knowledge is that one cannot
> know _what_ one doesn't know. I didn't write that it's: one cannot know
> _about_ what one doesn't know.
>
> You don't know the content of the information you don't have. You might
> know its structure though but that isn't the same thing.
>
> Topi

All right, again you are wrong, and here is a simple example.

I know how to win Nethack. I know all the things I need to do to win
Nethack. But somehow, I still have not beat Nethack, meaning that I do
not know how to win Nethack.

This is not a case of I know that Nethack is beatable, but in
actualality I know very well how to beat it. Yet at the same time I do
not know how to beat it.

I know the content, and at the same time I do not know the content.
Thus your Tenet of Knowledge is broken.

--
3.4.3 1975 Val Dwa Fem Law Silent B,killed by a black pudding
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

On 27 Aug 2005 14:01:05 -0700, "Doug Freyburger"
<dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Topi Linkala wrote:
>> Jukka Lahtinen wrote:
>> > Boudewijn Waijers writes:
>>
>> >>Believe it or not, there are probably some things I don't know. Although
>> >>I currently cannot think of one. Well, I guess that's the one, then: I
>>
>> > Of course you can't: If you COULD, it wouldn't BE a thing you don't know.
>>
>> It's the basic tenet of knowledge. One cannot know what one don't know.
>
>Worse than that:
>
>There are things we know we know (current knowledge realm).
>There are things we know we do not know (current mysteries).
>There are things we do not know that we do not know (stuff
>no one has ever thought of yet).
>
>Even more fun, all three have mistakes factored in so there
>are 6 possibilities.
>
>Things that we think we know but we're actually wrong.
>Things that we think we know that we're actually right ...
>
>The process of the scientific method gradually pushes stuff
>into the set of things we know to be wrong (disproving old
>theories), pushes stuff from the know-we-don't-know to the
>know-we-know classes (showing new theories to work), pushes
>stuff from no-one-ever-thought-of-it to know-we-dont-know
>(experiments where the result is folks going "Hey! Look
>at *this*").

Some examples: NP-complete problems, Heisenberg's Uncertainty
principle (we're certain of what we're uncertain about), Godel's
Incompleteness theorem.

Remember, gravity is just a theory.

Will Rogers: "What you don't know won't hurt you, it's what
you do know that ain't so that hurts you."

As the person zapping a wand of cancellation at a floating eye
found out. That person thought there was a 100% chance of
canceling the floating eye and melee attacked it, got frozen,
and killed. What they thought they knew (but wasn't so) got
their character killed.

How many YASD posts contain the phrase "I thought that..."?

(Not really contributing so much as throwing more fuel on the
fire.)


--
All the best,

Jove
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

On 8/28/05 10:45 AM, DJ Delzbin wrote:
> Topi Linkala wrote:
>
>>I originally wrote that the basic tenet of knowledge is that one cannot
>>know _what_ one doesn't know. I didn't write that it's: one cannot know
>>_about_ what one doesn't know.
>>
>>You don't know the content of the information you don't have. You might
>>know its structure though but that isn't the same thing.
>>
>>Topi
>
> All right, again you are wrong, and here is a simple example.

No, none of you are wrong. You're simply defining your terms
differently. When Topi says that you can't know what you don't know, he
means that you can't know the *content* (as he says). It's a tautology:
if A is unknown, then you can't know A. When Doug and DJ say that you
*can* know what you don't know, they mean that you can know the
*identity* (or type; I don't think the word "structure" works here). You
may not know what A *is*, but you know it's a variable; you may even
know (without solving) that it's a real number, or even an integer, or
whether it has a single solution or multiple solutions. You have
identified the type, without actually knowing the content. You might
even be able to determine that the content is incalculable while having
definite knowledge of the type: I know what pi *is* (the ratio of the
circumference of a circle to its diameter) and also know that its
precise value is incalculable.

Trying to prove one another "wrong" is pointless. You're each right from
your own point of view.
>
> I know how to win Nethack. I know all the things I need to do to win
> Nethack. But somehow, I still have not beat Nethack, meaning that I do
> not know how to win Nethack.

Sure you do. You know *how*, which is quite different from having the
actual experience of doing it.

--
Kevin Wayne

"Stark raving sane."
--Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Topi Linkala wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's the basic tenet of knowledge. One cannot know what one don't know.
>
> Worse than that:
>
> There are things we know we know (current knowledge realm).
> There are things we know we do not know (current mysteries).
> There are things we do not know that we do not know (stuff
> no one has ever thought of yet).
>
> Even more fun, all three have mistakes factored in so there
> are 6 possibilities.
>
> Things that we think we know but we're actually wrong.
> Things that we think we know that we're actually right ...

I would be curious to see you develop the mistakes for the two
last cases you have cited, especially the last one. 😉
Would it become :
- Things that we think we don't think we don't know but we're
actually wrong?

Er, my dyxlexia will give me nausea if I continue along this
line of thought. 😉
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Topi Linkala wrote:
> Tell me what do you know that you don't know?

Anything which can be proven nonconstructively.

For instance, the theorem: there are irrational numbers a and b such
that a to the power of b is rational.

Let q = sqrt(2) ^ sqrt(2)
(that is, the square root of 2 raised to the power of the square root
of two).
sqrt(2) is proveably irrational.

Lemma 1: If q is rational, then a=sqrt(2), b=sqrt(2) (both are
irrational).
a^b = q, which is rational, which proves the Theorem.

Lemma 2: If q is irrational, then a=q, b=sqrt(2) (both are irrational)
a^b = (sqrt(2)^sqrt(2))^(sqrt(2)) = 2
which is rational, which proves the Theorem.

Since q must be either rational or irrational, there is some pair of
numbers a,b that prove the theorem. So we know (and it's logically and
mathematically proven) that such numbers exist. However, we don't know
what they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom