Most incorrect thing you were taught?

whatdoicare

Patchy~ wrote: »

I remembered another one today. Not exactly something I was taught but the riddle "Brothers and sisters I have none, but this man's father is my father's son" with the answer being "hes looking at a picture of himself" makes no sense. The dad is his own son?
Once again, a primary school teacher. :rolleyes:

He's looking at himself:
Brothers and sisters I have none = He has no brothers or sisters
This mans father is my father's son= it's the same thing said twice.
This mans father = The father of one guy.
Is my father's son = Is the son of another.

coffee_cake

eh
my father's son = himself/"me"
=>this man's father is my father's son = this man's father is "me"
it's his son

whatdoicare

bluewolf wrote: »

eh
my father's son = himself/"me"
=>this man's father is my father's son = this man's father is "me"
it's his son

And my father's son is? me
and this mans father? me
Himself is the answer.

coffee_cake

whatdoicare wrote: »

And my father's son is?

Someone who didn't bother reading my post?

whatdoicare

bluewolf wrote: »

Someone who didn't bother reading my post?

Sorry, sorry I was in the middle of posting and I pressed reply. I was writing:

And my father's son is? me
and this mans father? me
Himself is the answer.

coffee_cake

whatdoicare wrote: »

and this mans father? - me
Himself is the answer.

re-read the bolded part
Someone tells you "I'm this guy's dad", what does that make the guy he's talking about?

whatdoicare

bluewolf wrote: »

re-read the bolded part
Someone tells you "I'm this guy's dad", what does that make the guy you're looking at?

But that's the riddle! It's supposed to lead back to the same person each time!

It doesn't say I'm this guys dad - it says "This mans father" This man - A man's father.

very

That either your veins or your intestines, cant remember which, could stretch around the world twice.

Took CSI to teach me otherwise.

coffee_cake

whatdoicare wrote: »

But that's the riddle! It's supposed to lead back to the same person each time!

No, it doesn't
or - it does until he tells you he's the father of the person in the picture

face1990

whatdoicare wrote: »

and this mans father? me
Himself is the answer.

How can he be his own father?

whatdoicare

We can agree to disagree so - but the whole point of it is it's himself. The intended point by the writer.
If you get that he is talking about his son from it then sure that's grand too.

coffee_cake

Did you know the writer? Did the writer sit down and tell you?

"I am my own father" is not a solution

You seem a bit too caught up in what you think it should be based on some strange reasoning of what a riddle should be about - work through it logically sometime and you'll see

whatdoicare

bluewolf wrote: »

Did you know the writer? Did the writer sit down and tell you?

"I am my own father" is not a solution

You seem a bit too caught up in what you think it should be based on some strange reasoning of what a riddle should be about - work through it logically sometime and you'll see

Do you know the writer?? Did he tell you it wasn't the answer? I said agree to disagree - move on.

poppers

whatdoicare wrote: »

We can agree to disagree so - but the whole point of it is it's himself. The intended point by the writer.
If you get that he is talking about his son from it then sure that's grand too.

say you have a son joe and are looking at a pic of him then

that mans (joes) father = you
my fathers son =you

so joe must be in the picture

face1990

whatdoicare wrote: »

I said agree to disagree - move on.

Okay, but just know that your theory is disregarding all logic! That's how religions get started.

whatdoicare

face1990 wrote: »

Okay, but just know that your theory is disregarding all logic! That's how religions get started.

I don't believe in any religion.

EmatoelDiablo

very wrote: »

That either your veins or your intestines, cant remember which, could stretch around the world twice.

Took CSI to teach me otherwise.

That's your nervous system! Not far off.

The King of Moo

"Brothers and sisters I have none, but this man's father is my father's son"

"This man's father" = the father of the person I'm looking at (A)

"My father's son" = me (B)

=>

if "this man's father is my father's son"

then

A = B

or

"The father of the person I'm looking at is me"

or

"I'm looking at my son."

EmatoelDiablo

whatdoicare wrote: »

I don't believe in any religion.

That's not what he meant.
A disregard of logic is usually basis enough for a religion, which your argument has much of. Your answer to the riddle is wrong.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Man has only been to the moon once. My history teacher.

Thwip!

Patchy~ wrote: »

Actually my geography teacher (remember, I'm in sixth year) constantly lectures me when I start a sentence with because. Not only is that the most ridiculous piece of primary school education, I dont know why hes insisting on it when I clearly make sense!

For example we did a question on meanders - I wrote "Because the river flows fast, it erodes the bank" and he circled the because. Yet English is one of my best subjects. :rolleyes:

Because the night belongs to lovers
Because the night belongs to us

FOOK DAH AUTORATAH

steddyeddy

Chris columbus discovered America, all the animals have been discovered and there was only one species of man.

Chazz Michael Michaels

steddyeddy wrote: »

only one species of man.

?

Canard

This man's father (talking about your own dad now)...is my father's son.

"My father is my father's son".
It makes no sense!

deise go deo

Patchy~ wrote: »

This man's father (talking about your own dad now)...is my father's son.

"My father is my father's son".
It makes no sense!

Pah, Its so obvious, he went back in time and rode his own mammy. Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

steddyeddy

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

?

Well homind. There were thought to be over twenty species of the genus homo at various points in the past. In indonesia up to 12 thousand years ago islanders shared the island with a three foot tall man like like species.

Chazz Michael Michaels

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well homind. There were thought to be over twenty species of the genus homo at various points in the past. In indonesia up to 12 thousand years ago islanders shared the island with a three foot tall man like like species.

Ok. Although that latter example isn't exactly an 'open and shut' case, is it?

steddyeddy

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Ok. Although that latter example isn't exactly an 'open and shut' case, is it?

Well they did exist or is that what your asking?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html

Chazz Michael Michaels

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well they did exist or is that what your asking?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html

No, the debate surrounds just how 'manny' they were.

EDIT: I might be thinking of something else...

steddyeddy

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

No, the debate surrounds just how 'manny' they were.

EDIT: I might be thinking of something else...

Ah right yes well theres huge debate over how many hominds there were and indeed what point they existed up until.