>>107483702/3
>>10748378Imprisoning animals is wrong. If you're not vegan then fuck you.
>>10748383Depends on various factors such as density of the block, velocity of the moving portal, air resistance, etc. The answer it's looking for is B, but it could theoretically be closer to A depending on such factors.
>>10748399Look up that hanging rope formula.
>>10748897Enslaving animals is wrong. If you're not vegan then fuck you.
>>10748904This is ambiguous. For example, it could be a matter of
>someone asks the casino dealer 'did at least one of the dice roll 1?' and he says yes>someone asks the casino dealer 'what is a number that one of the dice rolled?' and he says '1'>the dealer only looks at one of the dice and says that it rolled 1, without checking the otherThese would not all produce the same probability.
If it's the first scenario, it would be 1/11 because 11/36 possible combinations (taking 1,2 as different than 2,1) include at least one 1.
If it's the second scenario, let's assume bias is not a factor, so he is said to choose one of the two dice at random and tell us what it rolled. He says 1. Then it's 1/6 that both are 1. (however if he is biased and his favorite number is 1, and he is said 'what did one of them roll?' and he's gonna say 1 no matter what if at least one rolled 1, then we're back to 1/11)
The last scenario is again 1/6.
I didn't really check my work/logic on this problem, but I think I got it right.
>>10748907I don't play cards, not sure what this terminology implies.
>>10748970>People say 2/3, but why even consider the 2silver box,Your argument would be valid if you chose a box, then told an omniscient observer 'if this box contains at least one gold ball, remove one gold ball, otherwise do nothing' and the omniscient observer (someone who can look into the box) then removed a gold ball. However, this is not what happened; you removed a ball at random, not knowing if it would be gold until after you removed it.
