[Msoto]

my oh my....what an analysis lily...

now thats....what i call dollar vibez...hehehe
:7
keep it up shawwty....dayyyuuuumm

[chiqueafrique]

Oh how we so easily digress.


Se**iem@m@

[MercedesK]

Msoto sasa..wachana na Lily wewe.

Hey Lily

I like your analogy, I got a question though.

How does Rabell know that Juma does not know if Rabell does not know whatever it is that there is to know?

For Rabell to know that Juma does not know

1. Rabell has to know what it is there is to know.

2. He has to know what Juma knows...

right?

I KNOW THAT YOU DONT KNOW
implies that Rabell knows what Juma knows

I KNOW THAT YOU DONT KNOW THAT I KNOW
means that Rabell knows what there is to know, which is an oxymoron given that he has to know the truth for him to know that Juma does not know.

[suk_ma_fukin_cok]

>I KNOW THAT YOU DON'T KNOW AND I KNOW
>THAT YOU DON'T KNOW THAT I KNOW-SAYETH
>RABELL.

"yu have the right to remain stupid, anything you say can and will be used to evaluate wat yu know"

see yu in hell b|tch!

[Lily]

What I did was to change that sentence from:

~~>I KNOW THAT YOU DON'T KNOW AND I KNOW THAT YOU DON'T KNOW THAT I KNOW

to:

~~>I KNOW THAT YOU DON'T KNOW AND I KNOW THAT YOU DON'T KNOW THAT I KNOW THAT YOU DON'T KNOW

So let's say Labell and Juma were in a class and they were asked to solve the equation x + y = 6, when x = 4. (LoL I know...baby maths)

So we know that both Labell and Juma don't know how to solve this equation. Labell on the other hand knows that Juma doesn't know how to solve the equation (you may ask how does Labell know that Juma doesn't know? We just assume that he's trying to copy Juma's work). Juma is soo engrossed in trying to solve the equation that he fails to notice that Labell has found out that he (Juma) doesn't know how to solve the equation.

So you see MercK, Labell doesn't have to know how to solve the equation for him to know that Juma doesn't know how to solve the equation.

Lakini all this is an assumption. If I had tried to interpret the original sentence I would have probably asked the same question "How does Rabell know that Juma does not know if Rabell does not know whatever it is that there is to know?"

Why hasn't Labell come to explain himself?

[MercedesK]

Lily

I insist..the only way that Labell will know that Juma does not know the solution is if Labell himself has the correct solution to compare Juma's solution with. He cannot claim that Juma's answer is wrong if he does not know what the correct answer is.

[Sumukali]

Yes life in Kenya is tough enough but some Kenyans are making it tougher for others by stealing/defrauding others of their hard earned money and then taking off to the U.S with their loot. Some are actually here in Mashada !!!! e.g one Kenyan "business lady" who stole over Ksh. 0.9M from a business partner in Nairobi and took off to the U.S while their case was still pending in court. Yes she owns 2 chips cafes in Nairobi and currently illegally holed in Alabama, Birmigham(sp??)The son is even a mashada staff. This is bad.
Another one has a wine and spirits shop in Highridge shopping centre. Both Kiuks.
You can run but you can't hide !! Dear brothers and sistas in the U.S help the victims back home get justice !!
And you the culprits, we have been collecting a dossier on you for the last 24 days and the INS is already closing on you. Lets not condemn corrupt and thieving people only in Kenya, but even in the diaspora, so that we can all build a better, more prosperous KENYA.
On a juste commonce la lute.
Sumukali, utaiweza kweli ?

[Labell]

SOME BODY GOTTA BREAK THIS...IT'S VERY SIMPLE.

[shidanyingi]

@Lily:

Equation x + y = 6, when x = 4. is a one-dimensional problem with a known answer. The forgoing puzzle is very very complex. Perhaps we could modify it as
x+y=z to make it closer to Rabell’s , which can be reduced to a multi-dimensional matrix with one’s and zero’s as elements (“read coefficients) of the multi-variables. That is very advantageous because its sparsity in the numerical grid representation can effectively be used for optimization. To avoid having infinite solution, we may set up the boundary conditions or “constrains”, which now brings me back to MercK’s suggestion.

Hmmmmmmmm,

>I KNOW THAT YOU DON'T KNOW AND I KNOW
>THAT YOU DON'T KNOW THAT I KNOW-SAYETH
>RABELL.

Ok, let us start by breaking this puzzle into pieces.
I
know that
You
don’t know
And
I
know that
You
don’t know that
I
know

With I and Y standing for I and You respectively, know being a constant and -know (negative know) to negate the knowing. Note that –know and know are two separate variables connected only with negative. “And” is a multiplicative connector in probability theory.

@MercK: are we still together?

Let me get some coffee………………….…to be continued

[Nyako ber]

@Merc and Shida:

Tho uru yawa!! You have hijacked the girl's thread and now you are giving us math lessons kaeri yawa!! Timbe u richo :) .... Get back to Pebble's question. ;-)