What's the simplest thing humans are too dumb to grasp?

You ever see a dog that’s got its leash tangled the long way round a table leg, and it just cannot grasp what the problem is or how to fix it? It can see all the components laid out in front of it, but it’s never going to make the connection.

Obviously some dog breeds are smarter than others, ditto individual dogs - but you get the concept.

Is there an equivalent for humans? What ridiculously simple concept would have aliens facetentacling as they see us stumble around and utterly fail to reason about it?

HubertManne,
@HubertManne@kbin.social avatar

first. my current dog learned to deal with this as a puppy. I was astonished. My last dog I was trying to train the concept her whole life. Never saw a dog be able to handle it before but at this point if my current dog starts to go on the other side of an obstruction I say this way and she immediately corrects. For some reason for all other dogs I find they instinctively want to go the wrong way. So its not even random, they think wrapping more is the way to go. As for humans:

"The Greatest Shortcoming of the Human Race Is Man’s Inability To Understand the Exponential Function"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O133ppiVnWY&t=97s

garibaldi_biscuit,

Amazing video, now thirty years old. By now, you would expect this analysis of population, economic & consumption growth would be essential learning in schools. My feeling is that the world today caries on with even greater ignorance of the consequences of this exponential growth than it did back then.

intensely_human,

The past and the future do not exist

crawancon,

this one slowed my roll a bit

shandrakor,

Welcome to the eternal now! You’ve been here all along!

middlemanSI,

turn signals

ZoopZeZoop,

Heavy groceries do not go on top of eggs, fruit, etc. Cold groceries together. Dry groceries together. If there’s a bunch of bags inside of a bag, use those before the bag that’s holding the other bags.

Wtf, Publix baggers? I get you don’t get paid 6-digit salaries, but this is not heart surgery.

bluGill,

Unintended consequences. People like to propose grand schemes that will "fix everything", but refuse to accept that there are downsides to that grand scheme.

MacNCheezus,
@MacNCheezus@lemmy.today avatar

Oh boy, that’s going to offend all the communists.

anti,

In the same vein, refusing to consider something that will have a small positive effect, or a partial solution, because it won’t fix everything.

lvxferre, (edited )
@lvxferre@lemmy.ml avatar

Infinity. We’re simply too dumb to grasp it. Example:


<span style="color:#323232;">3*(1/3) = 3/3 = 1
</span><span style="color:#323232;">3*(1/3) = 3*(0.333...) = 0.999...
</span><span style="color:#323232;">0.999... = 1
</span>

That “…” means “it continues to the infinite”. And yet when you show this reasoning to people, they keep “looking” for the last 9, to claim that 0.999… is not the exact same as 1.

And that applies to all humans. You might counter it rationally, you might train yourself to recognise “it’s infinite, so theoretically it’ll behave in a certain way”, but you don’t grasp it. I don’t, either.

Deceptichum,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

Why would it be the same as 1, wouldn’t it always be 0.9 unless you round up at some point.

Darkaga,

There's lots of proofs for this but this is the simplest one.

.333... = 1/3
.333... • 3 = .999...
1/3 • 3 = 1
Therefore .999... = 1

Deceptichum, (edited )
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

Why is .333 being treated the same as a third?

You could have .3 of 2.7 and that wouldn’t be a third. So I don’t see why .3 times 3 would be anything other than 0.9?

LostXOR,

0.333... represents 0.3 repeating, which has an infinite number of 3s and is exactly equal to 1/3.

HeartyBeast,
@HeartyBeast@kbin.social avatar

I don't agree that they are the same.

It's just that the difference is infinitely small

magic_lobster_party,

The difference is zero, so they’re equal.

HeartyBeast,
@HeartyBeast@kbin.social avatar

Well, you state that as a fact, but I’m going to say that the difference is infinitely small, so they are equal

Hillock,

In this case you literally divide 1 by 3. And that's 0.3333 . And if you multiply 1/3 by 3 you get 1 and if you multiply 0.3333 by 3 you get 0.9999. So these two are the same.

Darkaga,

.333... Not .333

The "..." Here represents an infinitely repeating number.

In this context 1/3 = .333...

Deceptichum, (edited )
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

Just pretend I added dots. But that still doesn’t change anything?

Imagine a pizza, I can divide that pizza into halves, thirds, quarters, etc. because conceptually they represent splitting a defined thing into chunks that are the sum of its whole. 1/3 can exist in this world of finites.

0.333… is unending. I can’t have 0.333… of a pizza, because 0.333… is a number and that makes as much sense as saying I’ll have 2.8 pizza. Do I mean 2.8 times a pizza, 2.8% of one? Etc.

Darkaga,

1/3 being equal to .333... Is incredibly basic fractional math.

Think about it this way. What is the value of 1 split into thirds expressed as a decimal?

It can't be .3 because 3 of those is only equal to .9
It also can't be .34 because three of those would be equal to 1.2

This is actually an artifact of using a base 10 number system. For instance if we instead tried representing the fraction 1/3 using base 12 we actually get 1/3=4 (subscript 12 which I can't do on my phone)

Now there are proofs you can find relating to 1/3 being equal to .333... But generally the more simplistic the problem, the more complex the proof is. You might have trouble understand them if you haven't done some advanced work in number theory.

Deceptichum, (edited )
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

I get its basic shit that’s over my head. I’m just trying to understands

If the only reason is because 1/3 of 1 = 0.9, than id say the problem is with the question not the answer? Seems like 1 cannot be divided without some magical remainder amount existing

If I have 100 dogs, and I split them into thirds I’ve got 3 lots of 33 dogs and 1 dog left over. So the issue is with my original idea of splitting the dogs into thirds, because clearly I haven’t got 100% in 3 lots because 1 of them is by itself.

Likewise would 0.888… be .9? If we assume that magical remainder number ticks you up the next number wouldn’t that also hold true here as well?

And if 0.8 is the same as 0.888888888…, than why wouldn’t we say 0.7 equals 0.9, etc?

lvxferre, (edited )
@lvxferre@lemmy.ml avatar

I get its basic shit that’s over my head.

It’s over the head of everyone. That’s why I shared it here.

Likewise would 0.888… be .9?

No, but 0.899… = 0.9. This only applies to the repeating sequences of the last digit of your base. We’re using base 10 so it got to be 9.

If I have 100 dogs, and I split them into thirds I’ve got 3 lots of 33 dogs and 1 dog left over. So the issue is with my original idea of splitting the dogs into thirds, because clearly I haven’t got 100% in 3 lots because 1 of them is by itself.

Then you split the leftover dog into 10 parts. Why 10? Because you use base 10. Three of those parts go to each lot of dogs… and you still have 1/10 dog left.

Then you do it again. And you have 1/100 dog left. And again, and again, infinitely.

If you take that “infinitely” into account, then you can say that each lot of dogs has exactly one third of the original amount.

ivanafterall,
@ivanafterall@kbin.social avatar

Is there a number system that's not base 10 that would be a "more perfect" representation or that would be better able/more inherently able to capture infinities? Is my question complete nonsense?

bluGill,

Different bases would have different things they cannot represent as a decimal, but no matter what base you can find something that isn't there.

For real world use base 12 is much nicer than base 10. However it isn't perfect. Circles are 360 degrees because base 360 is even nicer yet, but probably too hard to teach multiplication tables.

exscape, (edited )
@exscape@kbin.social avatar

No, because that "some point" will never happen. There is no last nine to round up, because if there were a last nine, they wouldn't be infinitely many.

There are many different proofs of this online, more or less rigorous.

ArumiOrnaught,

.333... Is a third. That's just a quirk of base 10. If you go to a different number system you won't run into that particular issue.

The most common other base people know of is binary. Base 2. So in binary the fraction would be 1/11 and then 1/11(binary)=1/3(base 10).

I remember talk back in the day that base 12 is good for most common human problems. Some people were interested in trying to get people to switch to that.
1/3 of 12 is 4.
So 4/12=1/3=3.33333.../10

.333... Is just the cursive way of writing 1/3.

I still don't "grasp" infinity. I'd recon you'd need an infinite mind to grasp infinity.

Deceptichum, (edited )
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

1/3 of 10 is 3
3 x 3 is 9

Yet

1/3 of 1 is .3
.3 x 3 is 1?

Just does not compute for me.

ArumiOrnaught,

1/3 of 10 is 3.333...

1/3 of 1 is .333...

It's like when people come to America and are surprised when tax isn't included in sale prices. The .0333... you forgot to add on will get you in trouble with the universes math IRS.

magic_lobster_party,

One way to tell if two numbers are equal is to show there’s no real number between them. Try to formulate a number that’s between 0.999… and 1. You can’t do that.

Deceptichum, (edited )
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

But between 0.999 and 1 is 0.9999.

If something comes ever increasingly close to, but never physically touches something else, would you say it’s touching it?

magic_lobster_party,

0.999… means infinitely repeating 9s. There’s no more 9 to add that hasn’t already been added. If you can add another 9, then it’s not infinitely repeating.

Deceptichum,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

So it never ends, and it stays 0.9… infinitely?

Still not a 1.

agent_flounder,
@agent_flounder@lemmy.world avatar

It’s an infinite number of nines after the decimal.

Or think of it another way. What number would you subtract from 1 to get 0.999… ? The answer is 0.

FishFace,

let x = 0.999…

so 10x = 9.999…

subtract first line from second:

9x = 9

divide by 9

x = 1

MrRazamataz,
@MrRazamataz@lemmy.razbot.xyz avatar

an asymptote 😎

lvxferre, (edited )
@lvxferre@lemmy.ml avatar

Because it isn’t 0.9; it’s 0.999… with the ellipsis saying “repeat this to the infinite” being part of the number. And you don’t need to round it up to get 0.999… = 1, since the 9 keeps going on and on, so their difference is infinitesimally small = zero.

Another thing showing that they’re the same number is that there is no number between them. For example:

  • 0.9 (no ellipsis) and 1 are different because 0.95 is between them
  • 0.95 and 1 are different because 0.97 is between them
  • there’s no number between 0.999… (with ellipsis) and 1, so they are the same. inb4 no “last nine” because it’s infinite.
bluGill,

In the real world when you see .9 you often should round it. You rarely have as much precision as presenting - .5 should generally be seen as 1 unless you have reason to believe the measurement is that precise.

MxM111, (edited )
@MxM111@kbin.social avatar

0.999… means the value of the limit of a sequence {0.9, 0.99, 0.999, …} as number of 9s (or length of a sequence) goes to infinity, and the limit is very clearly 1 in my mind.

owenfromcanada,
@owenfromcanada@lemmy.world avatar

My “easier” way to think of this one:

1 - 0.999… = 0

That is, if you subtract 0.999… from 1, what is the result? It’s an infinitely small value, which can only logically be expressed by 0.

Mr_Blott,

Is it not 0 . …1 ?

owenfromcanada,
@owenfromcanada@lemmy.world avatar

That’s exactly what it is–but when the “…” is infinitely long, you never get to the “1”. There is no “1” at all.

jaidyn999,

Actually infinity is easy to understand.

If you were to walk in a straight line, you would never get to the end of the earth - it is infinite.

Its finitism that is impossible to understand.

3*(1/3) = 3/3 = 1 3*(1/3) = 3*(0.333…) = 0.999… 0.999… = 1

This a problem of the number base you’re using, not infinity. One third is a finite number which cannot be expressed in base 10.

Nemo,

That why someone behaves a certain way is only important inasmuch as it determines whether they’ll keep behaving that way.

Examples:

  • Criminals don’t need to be punished but rehabilitated; because blame and guilt aren’t important; recidivism is.
  • Your lover might have all sorts of reasons they love you, and some of those may seem very romantic and some might seem as unromantic as can be. But as long as they will keep living you, that’s what’s important.
JubilantJaguar,

Obviously some dog breeds are smarter than others

“Obviously”, hmm? The balance of expert opinion is in fact that dog breeds do not vary in intelligence. Which makes sense given that dog populations have significantly fewer millennia of genetic divergence than human populations, and these days nobody much claims that some human breeds are smarter than others.

Falling into your own trap!

But otherwise a decent question.

Anticorp,

thesmartcanine.com/…/smartest-dog-breeds-list/

I_Has_A_Hat,

Are you trying to claim that an average Shih Tzu and an average Border Collie have the same intelligence?

Anticorp,

They clearly don’t, and this has been evaluated scientifically by leading dog psychologists and is well documented. Idk what OP is on about.

thesmartcanine.com/…/smartest-dog-breeds-list/

JubilantJaguar,

You sound very certain that they are. Perhaps you should be the one who provides evidence?

As I understand it, in dogs most differences are between individuals, like in any other species. What can be said about breeds is that differences concern the application of their intelligence rather than how bluntly “smart” they are. For instance, labradors are a bit better at understanding social cues, and collies at acting on certain commands.

A recent study went into this. One point it made:

We did not find breed differences in tasks measuring logical reasoning or short-term memory

This makes sense. Dogs were domesticated more recently than the human lineage split between, say Aboriginal Australians and southern Africans. Would you be happy about making IQ statements for that case? If not, why exactly would it be different?

Intelligence is a pretty ill-defined measure, verging on pseudo-science in lots of case. Personally I think it is all but useless and that we would be better talking about easily measurable traits instead.

deo, (edited )

Yeah, i think working dogs and highly social breeds seem smarter, but that’s just because they have been trained and/or bred for aptitude in tasks we humans deem important. If my metrics of intelligence included being an annoying little shit, I’d think chihuahuas were the smartest breed.

MxM111,
@MxM111@kbin.social avatar

Any figure rotating in 4D around random axis.

Norgur,

The simplest thing humans fail to grasp? Things are finite without regard for your ability to grasp the numbers behind those things.

Smokeydope, (edited )
@Smokeydope@lemmy.world avatar

Reality is equal part abstraction and physicality, energy and information are two sides to a coin we are currently unable to percieve in full. Also, there are some aspects to reality that will never be able to be understood through the lens of science or math, due to their need for falsifyable truths within a working model. Some truths cannot be proven, and some non-physical aspects of reality cannot be directly observed through lenses or interacted with sensors or broken down into particles. The moment we start examining conciousness and psychadelics seriously as a new avenue of understanding reality our collective understanding of the universe in its totality will skyrocket.

Tedesche,

You wear diamond-encrusted glasses, don’t you?

Smokeydope, (edited )
@Smokeydope@lemmy.world avatar

Not sure what or who you are referencing with that, I wish though lol

Tedesche,

…cnn.com/…/121021051717-united-nations-every-woma…

shinigamiookamiryuu,

If my experiences are anything to go by, my vocabulary and way of speaking. Or really a lot of people’s.

This is something I don’t get. These people, when given a mathematical equation, treat the whole equation as a whole puzzle and use all its pieces to solve it. But if you say something that’s simply too wordy or where the words are “too thesaurus-like” (often to fix the first thing), they don’t “add it up” and they dump on you with Jimmy Neutron memes. I (while not being Marxist myself) remember one of my first experiences in the fediverse was talking about Marxist concepts to people who identified as Marxists and wondering from their confused reaction if they knew what Marxism entailed.

pimento64, (edited )

my way of speaking

Yeah that sounds about right, considering this word salad of a comment.

shinigamiookamiryuu,

Where do you draw the line between “word salad” and “non-word-salad”?

tocopherol, (edited )
@tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

For a better response to writing, an exercise an instructor had my class do was to look at a list of example sentences and remove every word that wasn’t essential. I don’t think your writing is so difficult to interpret but a more plain style can be helpful for some. Most people aren’t trying to ‘add it up’ in conversation like it’s math, it should be quick and intuitive. The way we read our own writing is different than how others will emphasize or pace it which can cause misinterpretation as well.

I feel like I see a lot of arguments online that are really just people misinterpreting each other repeatedly.

shinigamiookamiryuu,

I’ve gotten complaints either way. If I want something I say to be short, that requires me to use what many consider oddly specific words. When people read them, they complain I’m a walking thesaurus. Then I might try the reverse to please people, where I deconstruct those oddly specific words until I get a long sentence. And the same crowd has then often complained my messages are unrealistically long. Either way, especially as a writer, what I say comes from a mind that gravitates towards the analogous and the compatible, i.e. my way of communicating is made to branch out.

Bunnylux,
@Bunnylux@lemmy.world avatar

“I can’t speak clearly or concisely. This is other people’s fault.” -You

shinigamiookamiryuu,

Point to where I said it was anyone’s fault.

tal, (edited )
@tal@lemmy.today avatar

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes

List of things that, at least to some people, don’t work they way they’d expect.

I think that the Monty Haul problem is a good example on there.

Deceptichum,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

Intentionally blank page: Many documents contain pages on which the text "This page intentionally left blank" is printed, thereby making the page not blank

Thats not a paradox. The pages are blank in terms of the topic of the book, and the note is to inform you that it’s not a mistake.

tal,
@tal@lemmy.today avatar

It’s not particularly confusing, but there are a whole class of paradoxes that rely on the same mechanism – the truth of a statement is being altered by the existence of the statement, because it is self-referential in some way.

I think that the Berry paradox is the first one of these that I ran into, and it’s a little more confusing to most, I think.

Deceptichum,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

See I’m really dumb, but how is that a paradox?

It just sounds like some guy said a false claim, which was proven to be false by its own wording, and thus because it’s false it’s a paradox?

I_Has_A_Hat,

Probability is a big one for me that I can’t wrap my head around because the rules just don’t seem to line up with reality. Like, if I roll a die 10 times and get 6 all 10 times, what is the probability of me rolling 6 again the next roll? It’s 1 in 6. But that’s insane. I just rolled 6 10 times in a row. That’s so wildly unlikely, it feels wrong that the odds I’d roll 6 again are only 1 in 6.

bluGill,

You have good reason to suspect those dice are not fair.

angelsomething,

Statistics and large numbers.

MacNCheezus,
@MacNCheezus@lemmy.today avatar

I studied statistics and the Law of Large Numbers is honestly mind boggling. I mean, I understand that it’s true and I’ve studied the proof, but it’s still enormously counterintuitive. It’s not surprising that anyone who isn’t familiar with it (which is the vast majority of people) to have no understanding of this phenomenon at all.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • asklemmy@lemmy.world
  • localhost
  • All magazines
    •
    Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #

    Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 23263296 bytes) in /var/www/kbin/kbin/vendor/symfony/http-kernel/Profiler/FileProfilerStorage.php on line 174

    Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 10491112 bytes) in /var/www/kbin/kbin/vendor/symfony/error-handler/ErrorRenderer/HtmlErrorRenderer.php on line 339