# Retorical, logical thinking exercise.

chasparos
Posers and Puzzles 09 Sep '04 09:47
1. 09 Sep '04 09:47
We are all more or less on the same page
as to what a sheep is.
I have, though, been involved in a discussion
with one of my fiends for the longest of times, years,
as to how to define a NOT-sheep. (yes we are both sick)
(It started of as an observation in a C program of his
with a line like: if(!Sheep=false) )

Do anyone here have any fun ideas?

The main paradox we've found is this:
A NOT-sheep is an entity which possesses
all characteristics not possessed by a sheep.
This leads to the question of whether its possible to
exactly define a sheep in such a way that no nonsheep is
contained in the set, and all acctual sheep must be
accounted for. If this can not be done then it must
per definition be possible to define a NOT-sheep.....

Thoughts?
2. 11 Sep '04 23:20
Originally posted by chasparos
We are all more or less on the same page
as to what a sheep is.
I have, though, been involved in a discussion
with one of my fiends for the longest of times, years,
as to how to define a NOT-sheep. (yes we are both sick)
(It started of as an observation in a C program of his
with a line like: if(!Sheep=false) )

Do anyone here have any fun ideas? ...[text shortened]... not be done then it must
per definition be possible to define a NOT-sheep.....

Thoughts?
Sheeps DNA!
3. 12 Sep '04 08:37
Originally posted by chasparos
We are all more or less on the same page
as to what a sheep is.
I have, though, been involved in a discussion
with one of my fiends for the longest of times, years,
as to how to define a NOT-sheep. (yes we are both sick)
(It started of as an observation in a C program of his
with a line like: if(!Sheep=false) )

Do anyone here have any fun ideas? ...[text shortened]... not be done then it must
per definition be possible to define a NOT-sheep.....

Thoughts?
Well, you could use this to 'prove' that 'all ravens are black'. Every non-black thing in nature that is a non-raven supports this argument. Using Bayes' Theorem, you rapidly build posterior insight that your assumption must be true. ðŸ˜²ðŸ˜€ðŸ™„ðŸ˜‰
4. fawcr01
12 Sep '04 09:05
Originally posted by chasparos
The main paradox we've found is this:
A NOT-sheep is an entity which possesses
all characteristics not possessed by a sheep.
So, if I'm following this right, as an example, a non-sheep must have all of the following proerties, and a lot more....

* not be an animal
* have no legs
* not make a noise
* not move
* not consume vegetable matter for fuel

etc. etc.

Am I understanding this right?
5. 12 Sep '04 09:22
Originally posted by fawcr01
So, if I'm following this right, as an example, a non-sheep must have [b]all of the following proerties, and a lot more....

* not be an animal
* have no legs
* not make a noise
* not move
* not consume vegetable matter for fuel

etc. etc.

Am I understanding this right?[/b]
For this to work, then a non-sheep must '* not be an animal', so all animals are sheep?
6. Acolyte
Now With Added BA
12 Sep '04 17:44
Originally posted by chasparos
We are all more or less on the same page
as to what a sheep is.
I have, though, been involved in a discussion
with one of my fiends for the longest of times, years,
as to how to define a NOT-sheep. (yes we are both sick)
(It started of as an observation in a C program of his
with a line like: if(!Sheep=false) )

Do anyone here have any fun ideas? ...[text shortened]... not be done then it must
per definition be possible to define a NOT-sheep.....

Thoughts?
Sheep exist. Therefore not-sheep do not.

Of course, a more usual definition of 'not a sheep' is something which does not possess all of the necessary properties of a sheep, though it may have some of them.
7. 12 Sep '04 17:501 edit
Originally posted by chasparos

Thoughts?
What is the opposite of a sheep?

it would have to be not wooly, not placid and eat the opposite of grass (meat?). It would have to not be quite big (small?), and be a solitary thing. It would have to be inedible. However it would also have to be not alive.... Some kind of zombie black widow spider?
8. 13 Sep '04 02:38
Originally posted by iamatiger
What is the opposite of a sheep?

it would have to be not wooly, not placid and eat the opposite of grass (meat?). It would have to not be quite big (small?), and be a solitary thing. It would have to be inedible. However it would also have to be not alive.... Some kind of zombie black widow spider?
A &quot;NOT&quot; sheep would also be something that refused sexual advances from Aussie men.ðŸ˜€ðŸ˜›
9. 13 Sep '04 07:19
Originally posted by Acolyte
Sheep exist. Therefore not-sheep do not.

Of course, a more usual definition of 'not a sheep' is something which does not possess all of the necessary properties of a sheep, though it may have some of them.
This is true.. And a perfect example of the difficulties in defining it.
10. 13 Sep '04 07:35
Originally posted by fawcr01
So, if I'm following this right, as an example, a non-sheep must have [b]all of the following proerties, and a lot more....

* not be an animal
* have no legs
* not make a noise
* not move
* not consume vegetable matter for fuel

etc. etc.

Am I understanding this right?[/b]
Yes. An entity with a lot of conflicting attributes.
The question is.. how much can you modify your standard sheep
before it ceases to be a sheep?
If you take away all legs on a sheep. Has it ceased to be a sheep?

If we assume no sheep has more than four legs. Then
the NOT-sheep has more than four legs. And exactly five legs.
And exactly six legs.

The not-sheep does not exist (as stated earlier).
It doesn't breath, but can breathe under water.
It has no fur, but it's fur is straight.
aso

It also, as I said earlier, must be possible to define if sheep defy
definition.
Paradoxal again. But since we have established that they don't really exist, it doesnt matter that much.

So.. Can we define a sheep?

ps.
To the real logicians out there. Yes I know the entire concept is a logical fallacy :-)
ds.
11. 13 Sep '04 07:37
Originally posted by Acolyte
Sheep exist. Therefore not-sheep do not.

Of course, a more usual definition of 'not a sheep' is something which does not possess all of the necessary properties of a sheep, though it may have some of them.
Clearification. I'm not talking about a &quot;not a sheep&quot; since that would require only one thing to differ from the sheep.
Its a not-sheep. A total inversion. The complement of a sheep.
12. 13 Sep '04 07:41
Originally posted by Jay Peatea
Sheeps DNA!
this doesnt really cut it...
It's still the same question.
To know if it's really sheep-DNA
You have to have already decided what a sheep is.
Other wise it would be just DNA.
13. 13 Sep '04 07:43
Originally posted by timebombted
A "NOT" sheep would also be something that refused sexual advances from Aussie men.ðŸ˜€ðŸ˜›
I really like this one :-)
Predjudice is fun :-)
14. 13 Sep '04 10:38
I would say that a non-sheep is a 'creature' or object or... which mustn't possess all the properties that a sheep does.

For example:

Definition of a 'white pawn':
-It is white
-It is a pawn

Then everything that is:
-not white
-not a pawn
or
-not white and not a pawn

is a non-'white pawn'

I hope I dont have to write this down for a sheep... ? It would take a bit too long.
15. 13 Sep '04 11:21
Originally posted by sven432
I would say that a non-sheep is a 'creature' or object or... which mustn't possess all the properties that a sheep does.

For example:

Definition of a 'white pawn':
-It is white
-It is a pawn

Then everything that is:
-not white
-not a pawn
or
-not white and not a pawn

is a non-'white pawn'

I hope I dont have to write this down for a sheep... ? It would take a bit too long.
Yes. Maybe I have been a little to cryptic.
I'm not talking about a non-sheep.
I'm talking about a &quot;NOTsheep&quot;. The complete inverse of
a sheep. An virtual-entity defined as having ALL properites
not exhibited by *any* sheep, and no property in common
with *any* sheep.

There is a diffrence. :-)