Lomax » December 18th, 2016, 8:35 am wrote:NoShips » December 18th, 2016, 12:31 am wrote:Erm, I've been a little preoccupied, L. Almost went mad over these dang triangles. LOL.

Haha. Well I'll let you in on another reason why the quiz is cruel: Q2 is underdetermined too, as far as I can tell. It's not possible to just simplify the equations given what you (reasonably) know, and then solve them together. I had to try a few ex hypothesi possible values for the shapes in equation five, and plug them into equation 1 to see if they worked. Which meant making assumptions about what the big triangle might mean, too. So there's guesswork at all steps. But the answer - when you get it - kind of seems simple and beautiful enough that you figure it must be the one they were after.

Ah, you raise a wonderful point, one that I considered posting on earlier. Was your solution due to following a "Method"" -- i.e., did you derive a solution from the data? -- or inspiration -- i.e., did you bring a hypothesis to the data?

If there was a "method", I'd be wallowing in Nobel prizes too.

P.S. Just got another book on Quine from the library. We must run a thread on him. Or has that been done?

Are you aware of Searle's putative refutation of his "indeterminacy of translation" thesis? Quine can be a bit scary, I think, insofar as he celebrates an apparently absurd result as a "discovery". Searle sees it as an absurd result simplicter. Tee hee.