[Continuous] The Empathy Game page 25 (locked)

Originally posted by AdeebNafees:

Originally posted by CAMA2:

They are all categories of things, but the words themselves are not specific instances of what they categorize. e.i. emotion (sadness, joy), palindrome (racecar), holiday (Christmas, Easter), color (blue, green, yellow), island (Canary Islands, archipelago).

Pictured above: The other name of genius.

The above criterion is easily applicable to basically every categorical operation though. I take it you mean sardonic satire? The only thing that comes into mind automatically as to a categorical operation of which violates the aforementioned principle is the set of all sets (universal set) as opposed to a set of all non-sets (null set)

Originally posted by simeng:

Originally posted by AdeebNafees:

Originally posted by CAMA2:

They are all categories of things, but the words themselves are not specific instances of what they categorize. e.i. emotion (sadness, joy), palindrome (racecar), holiday (Christmas, Easter), color (blue, green, yellow), island (Canary Islands, archipelago).

Pictured above: The other name of genius.

The above criterion is easily applicable to basically every categorical operation though. I take it you mean sardonic satire? The only thing that comes into mind automatically as to a categorical operation of which violates the aforementioned principle is the set of all sets (universal set) as opposed to a set of all non-sets (null set)

It wasn’t meant as satire. And while I am not sure what you are talking about, I think you aren’t sure what you are talking about either. While set theory is definitely very interesting, I don’t see how the above criterion is applicable to every list.

In the mean time, going on a limb here, but are they words that you can add the suffix “en” to in order to form new words in non-English languages?

Originally posted by AdeebNafees:

Originally posted by simeng:

Originally posted by AdeebNafees:

Originally posted by CAMA2:

They are all categories of things, but the words themselves are not specific instances of what they categorize. e.i. emotion (sadness, joy), palindrome (racecar), holiday (Christmas, Easter), color (blue, green, yellow), island (Canary Islands, archipelago).

Pictured above: The other name of genius.

The above criterion is easily applicable to basically every categorical operation though. I take it you mean sardonic satire? The only thing that comes into mind automatically as to a categorical operation of which violates the aforementioned principle is the set of all sets (universal set) as opposed to a set of all non-sets (null set)

It wasn’t meant as satire. And while I am not sure what you are talking about, I think you aren’t sure what you are talking about either. While set theory is definitely very interesting, I don’t see how the above criterion is applicable to every list.

Apologies in advance if that sounded brash to anyone

What I said makes perfect sense? You’re basically saying that a set doesn’t contain itself as one of its subsets. For example, you’re saying that the set of all turtles is not composed up by sets of all turtles, although it could definitely be turtles or even standardized collections of turtles smaller than the set of all turtles. That’s what he was trying to say

By the way, I studied set theory for a math/science competition back in middle school (special program thingyamiggy) – I think i know what I’m referring to here

On a side note, I have no idea what the list is about

EDIT: In reflection, besides the set of all sets (which is a paradox), there are no sets (read: categories) of which violate the criterion. In other words, since by definition virtually all categories do meet the stipulation of: “They are all categories of things, but the words themselves are not specific instances of what they categorize.”, the OP basically just said the similarity is that they are all categories. However, since anything and everything is a category, (s)he essentially meant nothing more than the fact that they can all be rationalized. Since every imaginable thing can be rationalized, what (s)he said is practically worthless and philsophically meaningless in retrospect

Originally posted by AdeebNafees:

In the mean time, going on a limb here, but are they words that you can add the suffix “en” to in order to form new words in non-English languages?

Your answer seems not fit the word “rustic”. Sorry.

You’re basically saying that a set doesn’t contain itself as one of its subsets. For example, you’re saying that the set of all turtles is not composed up by sets of all turtles, although it could definitely be turtles or even standardized collections of turtles smaller than the set of all turtles. That’s what he was trying to say

Oh, now it’s easier to understand.

I suppose what you say IS applicable in case of any list that consists only of countable instances. If a list contains “push”, I don’t see how “push” is supposed to be set, unless you are considering “light push”, “strong push” etc. as subsets of that set, in which case, you still have to agree that “push” can define itself.

If it helps, this is what I mean.

“I am feeling emotion today”. } Main set, incorrect statement
“I am feeling happy today”. } Subset, correct statement

“A push got the ten ton truck moving.” } Main set, correct statement
“A strong push got the ten ton truck moving.” } Subset, correct statement

Your argument does not take usage into account. If Bluji included “Push” in his list, the criterion by CAMA2 would not longer be applicable.

By the way, I studied set theory for a math/science competition back in middle school (special program thingyamiggy) – I think i know what I’m referring to here

My knowledge is limited at best, so I suppose you might be making more leeway than I am.

Also, is it a list of words that you can add the suffix “a” to in order to form new words in non-English languages? Rather a broad sweep, and I doubt that it will be something so easy.

Just add an -o, everyone knows all Spanish words end with that :D

Originally posted by Woon1957:

Just add an -o, everyone knows all Spanish words end with that :D

hey im sort-of offended by this
( IDIOTA)

Nein, nein, nein, nein, nein.

Don’tcha think that “new words” and “non-English languages” are a bit broad? You guys are on the right path, though.

Re: the whole “set” brouhaha:

I think CAMA was originally going for heterological words.

You add an “a” to the end of each word

Grass (grassa = fat in Italian)
Lab (laba = profit in Indonesian)
Architect (architecta = author in Latin)
Rustic (rustica = rustic in Italian)
Detest (detesta = hates in Spanish)
Exhort (exhorta = calls in Spanish)
Lament (lamenta = regrets in Spanish)
Rim (rima = rhyme in Spanish)

I did not mean my post as satire. Both AdeebNafees and racefan12 appear to be correct on the matter.

Different languages haha. My answer isn’t this broad.

Maybe it’s just too hard. If 4 people request to make the puzzle easier, I will do it.

Is it the same suffix that needs to be added to each word?

Originally posted by racefan12:

Re: the whole “set” brouhaha:

I think CAMA was originally going for heterological words.

But the vast majority of nouns are heterological, it’s like looking at a list of people and saying “people who were born with ten fingers and ten toes.”

When he says “Subject other than English” He could mean in an academic sense.

Mmm, possibly Latin, or science.

OK, add -or to each item to produce a Latin verb.

Deponent verbs. I admit I’m evil.

Sir, you win.

OK.
1. Two
2. Eleven
3. Seventy-One
4. Seven Hundred and Nineteen
5. One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Thirty-One

They are all numbers

They are all rotationally prime numbers? 2 is a given, 11 is a given too, 71 is a must, 719 seems like it.

Correct. Circular primes, actually.

Originally posted by LouWeed:

Correct. Circular primes, actually.

Oh, they were called rotational primes in our textbooks :/

1) Rhythm
2) Chaos
3) Tunnel
4) Slave
5) Alien

I read

Two,
Eleventy-One
Seventy-seven
One Hundred and Nineteen Hundred and Thirty-One.

This is what happens when you look at it for less than a second while scrolling down…

Hmm…
I know for a fact that all of these are single-word movies…
Am I on the right track?
Also, could I have a clue?

A clue please, for RIM and for me.

@RIM: Not really.

@Both: Not sure whether you want a new word or a hint.

6) President

Hint: Don’t think about the structure of the words much. They do not relate like Capitonyms or anything.