The movie theater

[Diane CBPFC]

You would've thought someone would have heard that poor bugger go "Ahhhhhh" as he fell from the balcony wouldn't you?

[The Peepmaster]

You would've thought someone would have heard that poor bugger go "Ahhhhhh" as he fell from the balcony wouldn't you?

But if no-one else was there, would he have made a sound?

[Mince]

Of course he made a sound. Someone else was there because it was he (or she) who pushed him off. The clues are in the joke.

[Mince]

Earlier in the topic the replies went as follows:


Mince: Who am I?

Roger: Well, obviously, you're a white heron who sits on a tree and goes "splat" when nobody's listening.

Mince: That's actually very close. You chould be a psychologist or something.

Roger: I certainly chould.

Mince: Spelling things incorrectly on this board is one of my rebellious outlets.

Roger: Me to.

Mince: But I do it with grater flair.


I would like to point out that I actually thought the phrase "grater flair" contained two misspellings and that therefore (my two mistakes being greater than Roger's one mistake) the statement was true. Ironically, since "flair" is the correct spelling and that therefore I spelt it wrong, the statement is still correct.

[Roger Kettle]

What?

[Mince]

I am trying to say that my intended failed misspelling of the second word actually failed and the resulting word, though spelt correctly, failed to mean that I spell incorrectly to be rebellious. However, the irony is that in failing to misspell my intended misspelling I actually succeeded in proving that my rebellious misspelling was a reality despite the failure of the intended failed spelling.

I hope that clears things up.

[Roger Kettle]

What?

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

Eat yer heart out, Sir Humphrey!

[Mince]

Okay, Roger, let's try it this way.

Let X be the failed misspelling.

Let Y be the set of all spellings that failed.

Let Z be all the subsets of misspellings of words from set Y.

Since the X ? Y and all the subsets of X + ?Y must be inherently contained within ?X + ?Y, obviously X ? ?X ? ?.

Okay, that bit's obvious. But now (and this is the clever bit), if we compare all the possible subsets of XZ against those of YZ (remembering that the latter represents failed misspellings) we clearly get two equations:

X(Z) ? X ? Y . . . (1)

and

Y(Z) ? X + ? . . . (2)

where ? is the extent of the irony.

Combining these two (and noting that X ? Y and XZ ? ?) we arrive at ?X ? Y? (Z?).

From this it's easy to see that the only solutions are X = ? and Y = either ? or ?.

I can't make it clearer than that.

[Tom]

Those equations got me thinking...

Why is it that long is shorter than short,
And short is longer than long?
Why is long not longer than short
And short not shorter than long?

Why is not shorter shorter than short,
As longer is longer than long?
And why is longer shorter than shorter
And shorter not shorter than long?

If shorter was short and short was shorter,
Then shorter'd be shorter than short.
But if long were longer and longer were long
Then longer'd be shorter than long.

I hereby suggest that shorter be long
And longer be shorter instead.
Then long would be longer
'Thus longer than short
And short could be just as it was.

But if longer is shorter, is shorter longer,
And shorter not long as I said?
And if long is now longer and shorter now long,
Is short still as short as it was?

Can longer be shorter, whilst shorter is long,
Or is shorter now longer not long?
And if long is now longer and shorter is long,
Is long not shorter as well?

 

[Malc]

Tom, "shot" is shorter than "short", and whereas I don't think anyone deserves to be short, some people deserve to be shot.

[Diane CBPFC]

Okay, Roger, let's try it this way.

Let X be the failed misspelling.

Let Y be the set of all spellings that failed.

Let Z be all the subsets of misspellings of words from set Y.

Since the X ? Y and all the subsets of X + ?Y must be inherently contained within ?X + ?Y, obviously X ? ?X ? ?.

Okay, that bit's obvious. But now (and this is the clever bit), if we compare all the possible subsets of XZ against those of YZ (remembering that the latter represents failed misspellings) we clearly get two equations:

X(Z) ? X ? Y . . . (1)

and

Y(Z) ? X + ? . . . (2)

where ? is the extent of the irony.

Combining these two (and noting that X ? Y and XZ ? ?) we arrive at ?X ? Y? (Z?).

From this it's easy to see that the only solutions are X = ? and Y = either ? or ?.

I can't make it clearer than that.

How much do you normaly charge for figuring out something like this?

I wonder because I have a son going into High School next fall.

[Malc]

Since the X ? Y and all the subsets of X + ?Y must be inherently contained within ?X + ?Y, obviously X ? ?X ? ?.

There's no such symbol as ? on my keyboard, therefore the whole thing is bogus, a lot of hooey thought up by pantywaist intellectuals with communist computers.

[Fyodor]

 X ? Y ?

[Mince]

Of course not.

X is the failed misspelling, which is one element of a set.

Y is the set of all spellings that failed, which is a set of elements.

How can they be equal?

Okay, you could argue that Y is a one element set (in which case the cardinal value of each element Y? ? X) but you would first have to assume that sets and elements can both be arguments in reciprocal functions. This is clearly not possible in this case:

Taking your assumption, we quickly get:

 X ? Y ? ?X? + ?Y?

and rearranging this gives:

 X ? Y ? X + X???Y??

(I am here using ?? in its classical sense - let's not get into all that indeterminate positive correlation crap.)

Clearly there is a contradiction between the X?Y and the X?Y, and so our initial assumption that X = Y must be wrong, and so X ? Y.