if half of all blobs are bleeps and all bleeps are blips but only half of blips are blobs how many blobs cant be blips? its pretty simple. ...
did you word that wrong? And aren't there supposed to be numbers involved? The version I always here is: Every Blip is a Blop. Half of all Blops are Blips. Half of all Bleeps are Blops. There are 30 Bleeps and 20 Blops. All Blips are Bleeps. How many Blops are neither Blips nor Bleeps? The answer to that is 5. Holly
Please, someone get this right....for the good of all mankind.....It's a 4th grade level problem! Holly
everyone, id like to apoligize for this post i started. i do not know if what the answer is, i think it is half though. i was stoned and i was writing whatever sounded funny, i think i did get the idea from that riddle someone posted with numbers in it.
NO 3/4 are not blips, that is correct i'm pretty sure, i have been thinking about it for an hour now, btw thanks man it kept me from being bored for like a whole hour that was more entertaining than any of the lame internet computer games ever are.
Well you were definitely stoned, because this is an impossible question. You're contradicting yourself with the bleeps being blips and only half of the blips being blobs... It's impossible. If you look at it less strictly the answer would be 3/4... but you'd ignore the bleeps being blips part which is essential...
it's not contradictory. 1/2 blobs = y bleeps. bleeps = x blips 1/2 blips = blobs. so half of all blobs are bleeps half of blips are blobs all bleeps are blips blips(which include bleeps)/2 = blobs/2 = bleeps say there are 100 blips half of blips are blobs so: 100/2 = 50 so 50 blobs (50/2 = 25 25 blobs are bleeps) this seems to be irrelevant. so this leads me to believe that half of blobs can't be blips, because all bleeps being blips and half of blips being blobs, the other half can't be blips. the whole bleep part is irrelevant. half of blips are blobs how many blobs can't be blips? half. it's that simple. That's the conclusion I've come to anyway, you can see my reasoning above.
nar soulless, your logic is wrong. youve assumed something wrong, or forgotten to type somehting becuse youve got bleeps = x bvlips which would mean 1 bleep = x blibs in tshi context. blips(which include bleeps)/2 = blobs/2 = bleeps that line seems to be pulled out of nowhere. half blobs = 1/x bleeps, not all bleeps. (hoever in my example below, that is the case) x is not defined, and so can be any real number. all bleeps are blips, but it doesnt say anywhere waht portion of the blips they are, and so you cannot put them in a relation except that there are more or equal amounts of bleeps ad blobs. te question is how many 'cant' be , not how many 'arent', because we cannot find that. its actually.. 0 cant be... it is possible to fit it in so that all blobs are blips. ___________ |------------- | | -------------| |__________| |------ | ------| | ------| bleep| |_____|_____| imagine the hyphens are invisible! and that the line on teh side is straight! there is a big rectangle. the whole thing is blips. the lower half is blobs, and that bottom corner is bleeps. as you can see, all the blobs fit into the big section of bleeps. that fits the statement correct.
alright, no blobs can't be blips. I have two alternate reasonings for this: 1. half of blobs are bleeps all bleeps are blips half of blips are blobs. without knowing the number of blips or blobs, it's impossible to answer because half of blips could = all blobs. say there are 100 blobs, 50 of them are bleeps, which are blips, there could be 200 blips therefore half of blips = all blobs. or something like that. 2. Even if only half of blobs are blips, theoreticaly it could be either half therefore no blobs can't be blips. maybe this is better?
nar man you still havnt got it. or at least shown uve got it. you really need to mkae a diagram. make a moving diagram that clearly shows portions, particularly, perfect halves. as long as the halves are correct in your diagram, and you only put in the information given, then you should see the answer. i used rectangled because theyre the easiest to half. when youmake simple language equasions, as you have done, your making assumptions, because the human language is subjective, not objective. however, diagrams let you see from a more objective view. of course, your interpretation of the pcitures are subjkective, but teh picutres themselves are objective. words are subjects (subject of meaning) pictures, concepts, are objects (object of existance) also, aproach the question by remembering that even though half of blips are blobs, that doesnt mean half of blobs are blips. it could mean 1/100000000 blobs are blips.
and my second reason I think works rather well, though from a different viewpoint and for different reasons. it does not specify which of the blobs are blips right? assume half of blobs are blips (it does not matter the proportion this would work regardless) say you have a 4x4 grid representing blobs. so the top 2 could be blips, or the bottom two, or either side or anything so long it is whatever proportion you choose, therefore none of them can't be blips. hope this makes sense, as i am not stoned enough to properly explain myself.
yeh buit thats assuming the blips all fit into the blobs. waht about the blobs that are sitting off the grid? thats where that logic gets the correct answer, but is incorrect in itself. and the second last post there, youve mixed up blips and blobs in readin waht i wrote. ie, "nope, half of blobs are bleeps, and all bleeps are blips, therefore blips = at least 1/2 blobs." nowhere in there have you refuted that "it could mean 1/100000000 blobs are blips"
