• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Schrödinger's Cake

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RevenantKioku

PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS oh god i am drowning in them
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
You can't eat your cake and have it too.

I argue the first one is non-sensical, but the second makes sense. Then again, if you try to have both states concurrently, you cannot argue against either.

Discuss.
 
I'm pretty sure that "have" in this phrase means "keep unaltered". Eating your cake would destroy the appearance. Thus the phrase could be stated as:

"You can't keep your cake unaltered and eat it too."
 
schrodinger.jpg
 
Kipz said:
Why would you even want to have a cake if your objective wasn't to eat it?
Click to expand...
The expression refers to how once you eat the cake you no longer have it. It's gone. You ate it. However, by keeping the cake around just to admire its appearance you aren't able to enjoy its taste, satisfy your after-dinner hunger, or feel that sugar rush afterwards.

It's like when you buy a fancy car but refuse to drive it for fear of wear or damage, when the whole point of a car is to transport you places although doing so inevitably incurs wear or damage. You can't have it both ways.
 
Hitokage said:
The expression refers to how once you eat the cake you no longer have it. It's gone. You ate it. However, by keeping the cake around just to admire its appearance you aren't able to enjoy its taste, satisfy your after-dinner hunger, or feel that sugar rush afterwards.

It's like when you buy a fancy car but refuse to drive it for fear of wear or damage, when the whole point of a car is to transport you places although doing so inevitably incurs wear or damage. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
So, always get two cakes?
 
RevenantKioku said:
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
You can't eat your cake and have it too.

I argue the first one is non-sensical, but the second makes sense. Then again, if you try to have both states concurrently, you cannot argue against either.

Discuss.
Click to expand...
First statement translates to: "If you eat your cake, then you can't have it"
Second statement translates to: "If you have your cake, then you can't eat it"

You eat your cake = p
You have your cake = q

p -> ~q
q -> ~p

If the second statement is true then ~(~p) -> ~q is the contrapositive of q -> ~p and is true, because contrapositives are equivelant to their original statements.

~(~p) -> ~q = p -> ~q

Therefore: q -> ~p = p -> ~q

Both statements can exist cocurrently because they are equivelant.

Yes, I could've just invoked Modus Tollens but that's not nearly as fun.
 
But the has changed: is half a cake truly a cake? And is it possible to have only half a cake, and eat the other half? Are you truly living a full life?
 
What if you were bulimic? Then you could eat it, then 10 minutes later, have it. Albeit in slightly less appetising form. Also stops you from becoming a fatty.

I think that's how you kill 2 birds in the bush with a bird in your hand
 
lyre said:
NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERD!
Click to expand...
I'm taking Discrete Math this year, I can't help it.

ALSO, POT MEET KETTLE.
 
Halycon said:
First statement translates to: "If you eat your cake, then you can't have it"
Second statement translates to: "If you have your cake, then you can't eat it"

You eat your cake = p
You have your cake = q

p -> ~q
q -> ~p

If the second statement is true then ~(~p) -> ~q is the contrapositive of q -> ~p and is true, because contrapositives are equivelant to their original statements.

~(~p) -> ~q = p -> ~q

Therefore: q -> ~p = p -> ~q

Both statements can exist cocurrently because they are equivelant.

Yes, I could've just invoked Modus Tollens but that's not nearly as fun.
Click to expand...

Discrete math has been one of my favorite subjects. <3
 
RiskyChris said:
Discrete math has been one of my favorite subjects. <3
Click to expand...
It's an easy A, but I'm somehow screwing it up.
 
What if I accidentally the whole cake?

Halycon said:
First statement translates to: "If you eat your cake, then you can't have it"
Second statement translates to: "If you have your cake, then you can't eat it"

You eat your cake = p
You have your cake = q

p -> ~q
q -> ~p

If the second statement is true then ~(~p) -> ~q is the contrapositive of q -> ~p and is true, because contrapositives are equivelant to their original statements.

~(~p) -> ~q = p -> ~q

Therefore: q -> ~p = p -> ~q

Both statements can exist cocurrently because they are equivelant.

Yes, I could've just invoked Modus Tollens but that's not nearly as fun.
Click to expand...

You just proved his point, actually.
 
I ain't much for them fancy book learnings, GAF. I just came here for the cake.
 
I have my cake in my belly. My cake turns to shit.

I have my cake in my cupboard. My cake turns to shit.

Therefore cake always turns to shit.

(I could freeze it, or give it away, but that just delays the inevitable entropy)


Also: the word have has ambiguous meaning in the OP.
eg: I have a full English breakfast every morning. Have and eat
are sometimes synonymous. Regionally: Have means pwn
'round here, so "I'll have you" is an invitation to step outside.

As far as Schroedinger's concerned, the wave-form probability
of the cake existing and not existing simultaneously before observing
the eating event depends on whether there's a quantum
event triggering the collapse of the probability-wave. (see cat)

Schroedinger is famous for the cat in a box thought-experiment.
The experiment is there to help us think about quantum events.
Although it's tempting to extrapolate these ideas to a reality beyond
the atomic, these findings and ideas rarely apply when thinking
about eating/having cake.
 
RevenantKioku said:
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
You can't eat your cake and have it too.

I argue the first one is non-sensical, but the second makes sense. Then again, if you try to have both states concurrently, you cannot argue against either.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

Oh I get it, if you eat your cake you no longer have it, so that's what the phrase "can't have your cake and eat it too."

Never understood that.
 
Hmm, a fish and fisherman analogy can be useful right about now:

Learn to bake your own cake, for after you eat a cake, you can have another one shortly after eating with relative ease.
Unlimited supply of cake is at hand
(so as long as you have enough of the raw materials)
!

Halycon said:
That's not fair, you're not using your EO2 avatar!
Click to expand...
If you have played the game my current avatar is representing, you wouldn't need for me to have my default avatar. :p
 
lyre said:
Hmm, a fish and fisherman analogy can be useful right about now:

Learn to bake your own cake, for after you eat a cake, you can have another one shortly after eating with relative ease.
Unlimited supply of cake is at hand
(so as long as you have enough of the raw materials)
!


If you have played the game my current avatar is representing, you wouldn't need for me to have my default avatar. :p
Click to expand...
Your avatar looks like Cossack if he turned into a dog.

I am intrigued by this canine Cossack and wish to learn more.
 
RevenantKioku said:
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
You can't eat your cake and have it too.

I argue the first one is non-sensical, but the second makes sense. Then again, if you try to have both states concurrently, you cannot argue against either.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

Essentially they have the same premise, but second sentence present an impossibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Real or Cake?
12
1K
daffyduck replied
Local man celebrates with dogs eating cake on some steps
2
58
3K
Ailynn replied
What do you like better: cake or pie?
29
1K
Maiden Voyage replied
"You can't have your cake and eat it too"
48
1K
-YFC- replied
Your thoughts on Whole Cake Island arc in One Piece (Spoliers Up to Whole Cake Island)
17
4K
Cutty Flam replied
Top Bottom