Author Topic: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.  (Read 45273 times)

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #225 on: October 19, 2011, 07:29:20 AM »
Before we proceed on discussing bing bang theory... What is your profession tdongs, what and where do you study or graduate?

I always get frustrated when I see people who would fail on most simple math problem... Let alone more sophisticated physics who discuss things they simply CANNOT comprehend.

I'm getting the ole "you can discuss any topic but can't understand it unless you have a PhD in it" vibe here.

Lemme guess, you're almost finished with your master's in some discipline of science and already had a minor in math from your undergrad?  Or possibly a PhD candidate?

deceiver

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2666
  • onetimehard appreciation team
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #226 on: October 19, 2011, 12:21:23 PM »
I'm getting the ole "you can discuss any topic but can't understand it unless you have a PhD in it" vibe here.

Lemme guess, you're almost finished with your master's in some discipline of science and already had a minor in math from your undergrad?  Or possibly a PhD candidate?

No, it's "you cannot discuss scientific topic unless you have deep understanding of it". It's sophisticated math dude, you think you understand it, but in reality you just don't.

solve in real numbers

(x+y)^3 = 8z
(y+z)^3 = 8x
(z+x)^3 = 8y

Until someone proves it here I call bullshit on your discussion. Oh and it's most simple shit you can imagine, takes 15 minutes to solve max.

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19350
  • Psalms 150
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #227 on: October 19, 2011, 02:53:46 PM »
Before we proceed on discussing bing bang theory... What is your profession tdongs, what and where do you study or graduate?

I always get frustrated when I see people who would fail on most simple math problem... Let alone more sophisticated physics who discuss things they simply CANNOT comprehend.
do you like apples ?

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #228 on: October 19, 2011, 02:55:03 PM »
WHOA!!!



this thread went 10 pages


big shock huh

lovemonkey

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7750
  • Two kinds of people; Those that can extrapolate
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #229 on: October 19, 2011, 03:02:22 PM »
WHOA!!!



this thread went 10 pages


big shock huh

Just stfu already. Your whole passive-aggressive "these debates are dumb" schtick is getting really old.

What do you suggest? Not debating at all? Do you think some of the most important philosophical questions there is can be settled within two pages on getbig.com forums? People have a genuine interest in these discussions. If you're gonna go around trolling, at least be funny.
from incomplete data

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #230 on: October 19, 2011, 03:07:16 PM »
No, it's "you cannot discuss scientific topic unless you have deep understanding of it". It's sophisticated math dude, you think you understand it, but in reality you just don't.

solve in real numbers

(x+y)^3 = 8z
(y+z)^3 = 8x
(z+x)^3 = 8y

Until someone proves it here I call bullshit on your discussion. Oh and it's most simple shit you can imagine, takes 15 minutes to solve max.

My discussion?  LOL, haven't said anything.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #231 on: October 19, 2011, 03:08:54 PM »


What do you suggest? Not debating at all? Do you think some of the most important philosophical questions there is can be settled within two pages on getbig.com forums? People have a genuine interest in these discussions. If you're gonna go around trolling, at least be funny.


No....I'm just saying that a thread that gives all the pseudo-intellectuals on here a excuse to copy and paste there way to try and impress some other stranger is always predictable


and, it's always the same guys and I always do the same "this thing will go 10" pages thing

it's called "Schtick"- if you weren't to busy trying to impress some guy on the internet with a screenname of "BigBoneRamon" you would have recognized that

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #232 on: October 19, 2011, 03:11:53 PM »
btw, I was right

this thing did go 10 pages


NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 78907
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #233 on: October 19, 2011, 03:17:52 PM »
btw, I was right

this thing did go 10 pages



Any thread will be 10+ pages with tbombz and his circular reasoning and semantics

99 Bananas

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1320
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #234 on: October 19, 2011, 03:19:18 PM »
Nice makeup on that dude. I'd fancy getting my dick sucked by those rosy cheeks.

dr.chimps

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28635
  • Chimpus ergo sum
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #235 on: October 19, 2011, 03:20:53 PM »
Any thread will be 10+ pages with tbombz and his circular reasoning and semantics
Says the guy who's half of a Biblical-length thread.    ;D


/dives into bomb shelter

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 78907
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #236 on: October 19, 2011, 03:30:31 PM »
Says the guy who's half of a Biblical-length thread.    ;D


/dives into bomb shelter

touché  ;D


Radical Plato

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12879
  • Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #237 on: October 19, 2011, 05:30:19 PM »
Before we proceed on discussing bing bang theory... What is your profession tdongs, what and where do you study or graduate?

I always get frustrated when I see people who would fail on most simple math problem... Let alone more sophisticated physics who discuss things they simply CANNOT comprehend.
A father received yet another letter from his son asking for money. The father
was tired of doling out the cash. So, instead of money, the father sent the following
addition problem for his son to solve.

        S E N D
    +  M O R E
      -----------
     M O N E Y

He said that if his son could figure out which digit each of the letters stood for, he would send his son another installment of cash.

What does each letter represent to make this addition problem correct?

aNSWER THIS THEN WE CAN tALK!
V

CigaretteMan

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 678
  • Yum, yum, give me some!
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #238 on: October 19, 2011, 05:38:46 PM »
  "sukmuscle" completely monopolized the debate and destroyed everyone...,,,I would delete my account in the place of tbombz and go away. dude has not half the intelligence of sukmuscle....

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #239 on: October 19, 2011, 08:26:12 PM »
No, it's "you cannot discuss scientific topic unless you have deep understanding of it". It's sophisticated math dude, you think you understand it, but in reality you just don't.

solve in real numbers

(x+y)^3 = 8z
(y+z)^3 = 8x
(z+x)^3 = 8y

Until someone proves it here I call bullshit on your discussion. Oh and it's most simple shit you can imagine, takes 15 minutes to solve max.

That's trivial in the reals. The only solutions in ℝ (also in ℤ) are { x = 0, y = 0, z = 0 }, { x = 1, y = 1, z = 1 } and { x = -1, y = -1, z = -1 }. Yawn.

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19350
  • Psalms 150
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #240 on: October 19, 2011, 10:05:00 PM »
Any thread will be 10+ pages with tbombz and his circular reasoning and semantics
no circular reasoning and no semantics, just me showing arrogant atheists how misguided they are with basic logic

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #241 on: October 19, 2011, 11:05:41 PM »
no circular reasoning and no semantics, just me showing arrogant atheists how misguided they are with basic logic

  lololololololooloolololo looloollolollol

SUCKMYMUSCLE

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19350
  • Psalms 150
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #242 on: October 19, 2011, 11:54:25 PM »
 lololololololooloolololo looloollolollol

SUCKMYMUSCLE
the funny thing about most of your ideas on this subject is that they are arguments in support of a diety and you apparently dont know it.  like the thing you have said numerous times, that the universe is built on concepts at its most fundamental level. what are concepts? mental constructs..   :D  ;)  and you asserting there must be a first, uncaused cause... not true, but if there was a first cause it would obviously be god.  

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #243 on: October 20, 2011, 12:47:24 AM »
the funny thing about most of your ideas on this subject is that they are arguments in support of a diety and you apparently dont know it.  like the thing you have said numerous times, that the universe is built on concepts at its most fundamental level. what are concepts? mental constructs..   :D  ;)  and you asserting there must be a first, uncaused cause... not true, but if there was a first cause it would obviously be god.  

  Ok, I had promised that I wouldn't address your ramblings full of semantic mistatements, logical fallacies and ex nihilo(actually, from the depth of your imagination) (mis)evidence to support your retarded arguments, but since you now have decided to make a straw man of one of my arguments and use it to attack me, I will explain this shit to you one last time and show my argument is nothing of what you claim and in no way is an argument for the support of God. Here it goes:

  There are only two possibilities here: either there is a first cause or there isn't. Saying that the first cause must be caused by God is a logical fallacy, since the first cause, as it is defined, can not have any cause that precedes it. This is an a priori conditione sine qua non for it to be the first cause. So, the argument boils down to whether something can spring from nothing or not. It doesen't matter if the first cause was the Big Bang or something else like quantum fluctuations. In the latter case if would be an occurence simultaneous to the appearance of matter since time cannot exist without it. I am digressing. The point is that the first cause can spring from nothingness, because the first cause is not only the first cause, but it also creates the very process of causality. This is a axiomatic, semantic and tautological condition of any logical(axiomatic) derived system, which includes our Universe. Let me give you an analogy that may help you understand. In mathematics, you have the number 1(quantity) and the number zero(nothingness) from which all mathematics derive. If you accept that there is something, then you also accept that there is nothing, and all more complex logical derivations arrive from that(calculus, algebra, etc). Likewise, since there was a first cause, you can say that it is something that stands in polar opposition to nothingness. Hence, the first cause can come forth from nothingness simply by being the logical antagonist of it. Hence, no God needed. Now, is it possible that God was the first cause? Sure. Maybe there was this super-magic being at the beggining which created everything. I find it hard because this would be a very complex thing and the general rule in the Universe is that complexity comes from simplicity. But do I rule out God? No, I just find it extremely unlikely. The thing is that no God is needed as the first cause, no supernatural capacity that cannot be logically defined and thus understood. If the first cause turns out to be the most basic quantum fluctuation standing in opposition to absolute nothingness(which can only exist as a concept), you can choose to call that God, but it wouldn't have any of the attributes of God, such as being self-aware and having a purpose in creation.

  Now, the other possibility is for there to never have been a first cause, which is a real possibility. Since quantum fluctuations do not occure in linear time - because linear time only exists where there is matter - if quantum fluctuations turn out to be responsible for all of reality you could say that there was no first cause, since the word "first" implies time, which doesen't exist in the quantum field. So an Universe without a first cause. In this case, there certainly is no God since there is no first cause, because the most important attribute of God is being the first cause. Hence an infinite time loop means that there is no God. There could be a being more powerful than any conception we might have of God, but this being wouldn't be God since it wouldn't be the first cause.

  Finally, what I said about the building blocks of reality being close to thoughts. You completely miscontrued what I said. You created a straw man and attacked it. What I meant is that, when you dig deeper and deeper into the meaning of the ultimate substrate of reality, it comes closer and closer to being a pure abstraction, and thus more similar and similar to our thoughts. This doesen't mean that there is an intelligence behind everything. What I meant is that our minds are incapable of elucidating what the ultimate substrate of reality is because we base our thoughts having as the base our physical and sensorial Universe, and a pure abstraction is difficult for us to define within the confines of our thinking and vocabulary which is used to describe a tangible Universe to our senses. Kant said in his "Critique Of Pure Reason" how impossible it is to define the "thing in itself". It had nothing to do with saying that the ultimate substrate of reality are the thoughts of God, which is what you probably read. This is more an issue of philosophy and semantics than physics.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

CigaretteMan

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 678
  • Yum, yum, give me some!
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #244 on: October 20, 2011, 12:52:39 AM »
 Ok, I had promised that I wouldn't address your ramblings full of semantic mistatements, logical fallacies and ex nihilo(actually, from the depth of your imagination) (mis)evidence to support your retarded arguments, but since you now have decided to make a straw man of one of my arguments and use it to attack me, I will explain this shit to you one last time and show my argument is nothing of what you claim and in no way is an argument for the support of God. Here is goes:

  There are only two possibilities here: either there is a first cause or there isn't. Saying that the first cause must be caused by God is a logical fallcy, since the first cause, as it is defined, can not have any cause that precedes it. This is an a priori conditione sine qua non for it to be the first cause. So, the argument boils down to whether something can spring from nothing or not. It doesen't matter if the first cause was the Big Bang or something that else like quantum fluctuations. In the latter case if would be an occurence simultaneous to the appearance of matter since time cannot exist without it. I am digressing. The point is that the first cause can spring from nothingness, because the first cause is not only the first cause, but it also creates the very process of causality. This is a axiomatic, semantic and tautological condition of any logical(axiomatic) derived system, which includes our Universe. Let me give you an analogy that may help you understand. In mathematics, you have the number 1(quantity) and the number zero(nothingness) from which all mathematics derive. If you accept that there is something, then you also accept that there is nothing, and all more complex logical derivations arrive from that(calculus, algebra, etc). Likewise, since there was a first cause, you can say that it is something that stands in polar opposition to nothingness. Hence, the first cause can come forth from nothingness simply by being the logical antagonist of it. Hence, no God needed. Now, is it possible that God was the first cause? Sure. Maybe there was this super-magic being at the beggining which created everything. I find it hard because this would be very complex thing and the general rule in the Universe is that complexity comes from simplicity. But do I rule out God? No, I just find it extremely unlikely. The thing is that no God is needed as the first cause, no supernatural capacity that cannot be logically defined and thus understood. If the first cause turns out to be the most basic quantum fluctuation standing in opposition to absolute nothingness(which can only exist as a concept), you can choose to call that God, but it wouldn't have any of the attributes of God, such as being self-aware and having a purpose in creation.

  Now, the other possibility is for there to never have been a first cause, which is a real possibility. Since quantum fluctuations do not occure in linear time - because linear time only exists where there is matter - if quantum fluctuations turn out to be responsible for all of reality you could say that there was no first cause, since the word "first" implies time, which doesen't exist in the quantum field. So an Universe without a first cause. In this case, there certainly is no God since there is no first cause, because the most important attribute of God is being the first cause. Hence an infinite time loop means that there is no God. There could be a being more powerful than any conception we might have of God, but this being wouldn't be God since it wouldn't be the first cause.

  Finally, what I said about the building blocks of reality being close to thoughts. You completely iscontrued what I said. You created a straw man and attacked it. What I meant is that, when you dig deeper and deeper into the meaning of the ultimate substrate of reality, it comes closer and closer to being a pure abstraction, and thus more similar and similar to our thoughts. This doesen't mean that there is an intelligence behind everything. What I meant is that our minds are incapable of elucidating what the ultimate substrate of reality is because we base our thoughts having as the base our physical and sensorial Universe, and a pure abstraction is difficult for us to define within the confines of our thinking and vocabulary which is used to describe a tangible Universe to our senses. Kant said in his "Critique Of Pure Reason" how impossible it is to define the "thing in itself". It had nothing to do with saying that the ultimate substrate of reality are the thoughts of God, which is what you probably read. This is more an issue of philosophy and semantics than physics.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

  Holy fuck.....run "tbombz", run...run while you can...run, run, run!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

deceiver

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2666
  • onetimehard appreciation team
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #245 on: October 20, 2011, 01:22:19 AM »
That's trivial in the reals. The only solutions in ℝ (also in ℤ) are { x = 0, y = 0, z = 0 }, { x = 1, y = 1, z = 1 } and { x = -1, y = -1, z = -1 }. Yawn.

You haven't solved it. You don't even know that you have to prove that those are only solutions? Jesus, where did you learn math?

deceiver

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2666
  • onetimehard appreciation team
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #246 on: October 20, 2011, 01:48:02 AM »
A father received yet another letter from his son asking for money. The father
was tired of doling out the cash. So, instead of money, the father sent the following
addition problem for his son to solve.

        S E N D
    +  M O R E
      -----------
     M O N E Y

He said that if his son could figure out which digit each of the letters stood for, he would send his son another installment of cash.

What does each letter represent to make this addition problem correct?

aNSWER THIS THEN WE CAN tALK!

9000 + 1000 = 10000
9001 + 1000 = 10001
9002 + 1000 = 10002
9003 + 1000 = 10003
9004 + 1000 = 10004
9005 + 1000 = 10005
9006 + 1000 = 10006
9007 + 1000 = 10007
9008 + 1000 = 10008
9009 + 1000 = 10009
9010 + 1090 = 10100
9011 + 1090 = 10101
9012 + 1090 = 10102
9013 + 1090 = 10103
9014 + 1090 = 10104
9015 + 1090 = 10105
9016 + 1090 = 10106
9017 + 1090 = 10107
9018 + 1090 = 10108
9019 + 1090 = 10109
9110 + 1001 = 10111
9111 + 1001 = 10112
9112 + 1001 = 10113
9113 + 1001 = 10114
9114 + 1001 = 10115
9115 + 1001 = 10116
9116 + 1001 = 10117
9117 + 1001 = 10118
9118 + 1001 = 10119
9120 + 1091 = 10211
9121 + 1091 = 10212
9122 + 1091 = 10213
9123 + 1091 = 10214
9124 + 1091 = 10215
9125 + 1091 = 10216
9126 + 1091 = 10217
9127 + 1091 = 10218
9128 + 1091 = 10219
9129 + 1081 = 10210
9220 + 1002 = 10222
9221 + 1002 = 10223
9222 + 1002 = 10224
9223 + 1002 = 10225
9224 + 1002 = 10226
9225 + 1002 = 10227
9226 + 1002 = 10228
9227 + 1002 = 10229
9230 + 1092 = 10322
9231 + 1092 = 10323
9232 + 1092 = 10324
9233 + 1092 = 10325
9234 + 1092 = 10326
9235 + 1092 = 10327
9236 + 1092 = 10328
9237 + 1092 = 10329
9238 + 1082 = 10320
9239 + 1082 = 10321
9330 + 1003 = 10333
9331 + 1003 = 10334
9332 + 1003 = 10335
9333 + 1003 = 10336
9334 + 1003 = 10337
9335 + 1003 = 10338
9336 + 1003 = 10339
9340 + 1093 = 10433
9341 + 1093 = 10434
9342 + 1093 = 10435
9343 + 1093 = 10436
9344 + 1093 = 10437
9345 + 1093 = 10438
9346 + 1093 = 10439
9347 + 1083 = 10430
9348 + 1083 = 10431
9349 + 1083 = 10432
9440 + 1004 = 10444
9441 + 1004 = 10445
9442 + 1004 = 10446
9443 + 1004 = 10447
9444 + 1004 = 10448
9445 + 1004 = 10449
9450 + 1094 = 10544
9451 + 1094 = 10545
9452 + 1094 = 10546
9453 + 1094 = 10547
9454 + 1094 = 10548
9455 + 1094 = 10549
9456 + 1084 = 10540
9457 + 1084 = 10541
9458 + 1084 = 10542
9459 + 1084 = 10543
9550 + 1005 = 10555
9551 + 1005 = 10556
9552 + 1005 = 10557
9553 + 1005 = 10558
9554 + 1005 = 10559
9560 + 1095 = 10655
9561 + 1095 = 10656
9562 + 1095 = 10657
9563 + 1095 = 10658
9564 + 1095 = 10659
9565 + 1085 = 10650
9566 + 1085 = 10651
9567 + 1085 = 10652
9568 + 1085 = 10653
9569 + 1085 = 10654
9660 + 1006 = 10666
9661 + 1006 = 10667
9662 + 1006 = 10668
9663 + 1006 = 10669
9670 + 1096 = 10766
9671 + 1096 = 10767
9672 + 1096 = 10768
9673 + 1096 = 10769
9674 + 1086 = 10760
9675 + 1086 = 10761
9676 + 1086 = 10762
9677 + 1086 = 10763
9678 + 1086 = 10764
9679 + 1086 = 10765
9770 + 1007 = 10777
9771 + 1007 = 10778
9772 + 1007 = 10779
9780 + 1097 = 10877
9781 + 1097 = 10878
9782 + 1097 = 10879
9783 + 1087 = 10870
9784 + 1087 = 10871
9785 + 1087 = 10872
9786 + 1087 = 10873
9787 + 1087 = 10874
9788 + 1087 = 10875
9789 + 1087 = 10876
9880 + 1008 = 10888
9881 + 1008 = 10889
9890 + 1098 = 10988
9891 + 1098 = 10989
9892 + 1088 = 10980
9893 + 1088 = 10981
9894 + 1088 = 10982
9895 + 1088 = 10983
9896 + 1088 = 10984
9897 + 1088 = 10985
9898 + 1088 = 10986
9899 + 1088 = 10987
9900 + 1199 = 11099
9901 + 1189 = 11090
9902 + 1189 = 11091
9903 + 1189 = 11092
9904 + 1189 = 11093
9905 + 1189 = 11094
9906 + 1189 = 11095
9907 + 1189 = 11096
9908 + 1189 = 11097
9909 + 1189 = 11098
9990 + 1009 = 10999

Radical Plato

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12879
  • Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #247 on: October 20, 2011, 02:49:34 AM »
A father received yet another letter from his son asking for money. The father
was tired of doling out the cash. So, instead of money, the father sent the following
addition problem for his son to solve.

        S E N D
    +  M O R E
      -----------
     M O N E Y

He said that if his son could figure out which digit each of the letters stood for, he would send his son another installment of cash.

What does each letter represent to make this addition problem correct?

Answer: S = 9, E = 5, N = 6, D = 7, M = 1, O = 0, R = 8, Y = 2
V

deceiver

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2666
  • onetimehard appreciation team
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #248 on: October 20, 2011, 03:04:18 AM »
Answer: S = 9, E = 5, N = 6, D = 7, M = 1, O = 0, R = 8, Y = 2

Actually although I made simple mistake this is not the only solution...

9000 + 1000 = 10000
9001 + 1000 = 10001
9002 + 1000 = 10002
9003 + 1000 = 10003
9004 + 1000 = 10004
9005 + 1000 = 10005
9006 + 1000 = 10006
9007 + 1000 = 10007
9008 + 1000 = 10008
9009 + 1000 = 10009
9010 + 1090 = 10100
9011 + 1090 = 10101
9012 + 1090 = 10102
9013 + 1090 = 10103
9014 + 1090 = 10104
9015 + 1090 = 10105
9016 + 1090 = 10106
9017 + 1090 = 10107
9018 + 1090 = 10108
9019 + 1090 = 10109
9110 + 1001 = 10111
9111 + 1001 = 10112
9112 + 1001 = 10113
9113 + 1001 = 10114
9114 + 1001 = 10115
9115 + 1001 = 10116
9116 + 1001 = 10117
9117 + 1001 = 10118
9118 + 1001 = 10119
9120 + 1091 = 10211
9121 + 1091 = 10212
9122 + 1091 = 10213
9123 + 1091 = 10214
9124 + 1091 = 10215
9125 + 1091 = 10216
9126 + 1091 = 10217
9127 + 1091 = 10218
9128 + 1091 = 10219
9129 + 1081 = 10210
9220 + 1002 = 10222
9221 + 1002 = 10223
9222 + 1002 = 10224
9223 + 1002 = 10225
9224 + 1002 = 10226
9225 + 1002 = 10227
9226 + 1002 = 10228
9227 + 1002 = 10229
9230 + 1092 = 10322
9231 + 1092 = 10323
9232 + 1092 = 10324
9233 + 1092 = 10325
9234 + 1092 = 10326
9235 + 1092 = 10327
9236 + 1092 = 10328
9237 + 1092 = 10329
9238 + 1082 = 10320
9239 + 1082 = 10321
9330 + 1003 = 10333
9331 + 1003 = 10334
9332 + 1003 = 10335
9333 + 1003 = 10336
9334 + 1003 = 10337
9335 + 1003 = 10338
9336 + 1003 = 10339
9340 + 1093 = 10433
9341 + 1093 = 10434
9342 + 1093 = 10435
9343 + 1093 = 10436
9344 + 1093 = 10437
9345 + 1093 = 10438
9346 + 1093 = 10439
9347 + 1083 = 10430
9348 + 1083 = 10431
9349 + 1083 = 10432
9440 + 1004 = 10444
9441 + 1004 = 10445
9442 + 1004 = 10446
9443 + 1004 = 10447
9444 + 1004 = 10448
9445 + 1004 = 10449
9450 + 1094 = 10544
9451 + 1094 = 10545
9452 + 1094 = 10546
9453 + 1094 = 10547
9454 + 1094 = 10548
9455 + 1094 = 10549
9456 + 1084 = 10540
9457 + 1084 = 10541
9458 + 1084 = 10542
9459 + 1084 = 10543
9550 + 1005 = 10555
9551 + 1005 = 10556
9552 + 1005 = 10557
9553 + 1005 = 10558
9554 + 1005 = 10559
9560 + 1095 = 10655
9561 + 1095 = 10656
9562 + 1095 = 10657
9563 + 1095 = 10658
9564 + 1095 = 10659
9565 + 1085 = 10650
9566 + 1085 = 10651
9567 + 1085 = 10652
9568 + 1085 = 10653
9569 + 1085 = 10654
9660 + 1006 = 10666
9661 + 1006 = 10667
9662 + 1006 = 10668
9663 + 1006 = 10669
9670 + 1096 = 10766
9671 + 1096 = 10767
9672 + 1096 = 10768
9673 + 1096 = 10769
9674 + 1086 = 10760
9675 + 1086 = 10761
9676 + 1086 = 10762
9677 + 1086 = 10763
9678 + 1086 = 10764
9679 + 1086 = 10765
9770 + 1007 = 10777
9771 + 1007 = 10778
9772 + 1007 = 10779
9780 + 1097 = 10877
9781 + 1097 = 10878
9782 + 1097 = 10879
9783 + 1087 = 10870
9784 + 1087 = 10871
9785 + 1087 = 10872
9786 + 1087 = 10873
9787 + 1087 = 10874
9788 + 1087 = 10875
9789 + 1087 = 10876
9880 + 1008 = 10888
9881 + 1008 = 10889
9890 + 1098 = 10988
9891 + 1098 = 10989
9892 + 1088 = 10980
9893 + 1088 = 10981
9894 + 1088 = 10982
9895 + 1088 = 10983
9896 + 1088 = 10984
9897 + 1088 = 10985
9898 + 1088 = 10986
9899 + 1088 = 10987
9900 + 1199 = 11099
9901 + 1189 = 11090
9902 + 1189 = 11091
9903 + 1189 = 11092
9904 + 1189 = 11093
9905 + 1189 = 11094
9906 + 1189 = 11095
9907 + 1189 = 11096
9908 + 1189 = 11097
9909 + 1189 = 11098
9990 + 1009 = 10999

You never said anywhere that those letters represent distinct digits.

Simple shit and everything it takes is checking every possible solution. 19 lines of code.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
« Reply #249 on: October 20, 2011, 05:38:14 AM »
I got flamed on this thread about how I'm a asshole for pointing out that these threads always turn into a "intellectual dick measuring, copy/paste fest"





so, how am i a asshole again?