Jump to content
The World News Media

13, 15, 17, __ , 21, 23, what’s the missing number in the sequence?


Ask me a question

Recommended Posts


  • Views 363
  • Replies 2
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

x

Of course, this could be part of a sequence that goes 7, 9, __ 13, 15, 17, __ , 21, 23, 25, __ , 29, __ , 33, etc., in which case no number is missing in that portion of the sequence. (In this ca

  • Member
Quote

13, 15, 17, __ , 21, 23, what’s the missing number in the sequence?

Of course, this could be part of a sequence that goes

7, 9, __ 13, 15, 17, __ , 21, 23, 25, __ , 29, __ , 33, etc., in which case no number is missing in that portion of the sequence. (In this case it would have been a series of incrementing odd numbers from 7 where we skip odd numbers that match the prime status of the previous number.)

It's for a similar reasons that pattern recognition in AI should never be considered "set in stone" but should only be given a probability. The probability was very high that the missing number was 19, but this should be subject to change on discovery of further information.

Another example happens all the time to engineers. If you happen to sample the amplitude of a 400 Hz sine wave at time increments of once per second you could get a sequence of 0, 0, 0, 0 ... etc. If you think it's a mistake and sample it 200 times a second you could still get 7, 7, 7, 7, etc., or 0, 0, 0, 0, etc., depending on when the wave starts its peaks and troughs. But you could sample it at some odd number of increments, or accelerate and decelerate the time sampling increments and discover it is a 400 Hz sine wave. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...




  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • My overall point is that most Witnesses I know in the United States are very political and don't even know it. Often much more political than their neighbors who vote. There are certain limits to what we will say about our political views, but I think we don't recognize that those political views often come out inadvertently in other ways. In fact, I've seen strong political views among Witnesses who only use the line "we don't take sides in politics" when they wish to shut down an argument they disagree with. My parents and many relatives were of the type that said they wouldn't be fooled by all the lies and exaggerations from MS-NBC supposedly on the "progressive left." Nor the lies and exaggerations from FOX News on the supposedly "conservative right." But that didn't stop them from being fooled by thinking that CNN was not mostly "state-sponsored media" that would cherry-pick stories now and then to keep up the ruse that they weren't. As long as they continued to support corporate sponsors, including "Big Pharma" and "Big Military Industrial Complex," it was clear what side they were going to take. And although Trump was golden to all networks for his ability to spout controversy, one of his biggest sins for CNN was the fact that he went 4 years without getting the USA involved in any new wars.  We were watching CNN once, not on purpose, and although many segments were introduced with "Brought to you by Pfizer" one was introduced "Brought to you by McDonnell-Douglas." As if any of us watching were about to go out and buy McDonnell-Douglas fighter jets and missiles for accessories. Of course, even the segments brought to you by Pfizer weren't really for any of us to be swayed in our pharmacy choices, either. As with all corporate media, those ads are really just payments to CNN; they are all just a way for corporations to PAY (bribe) the news writers and commentators to realize on which side their bread is buttered. They are merely buying influence. ---- All this was probably just my own rationale to excuse my own tendency to throw in opinions about politics, politicians, and the mainstream corporate media. There are no easy answer to how someone should go about getting their news, or how to feed their own opinions. But I would be happy to hear about the various sources people use when trying to find the "truth" about various world events. 
    • Here was the general conversation, skipping a part where I had just explained how 30,000 Palestinians, largely women and children, had been killed, and the majority of major news outlets were still equivocating about whether Israel had gone too far. But when mostly "white" aid workers were killed, suddenly Nancy Pelosi (friend of the aid organization founder), Joe Scarborough, Elizabeth Warren, and a bunch of others turn on a dime to stop giving Israel a free pass -- embarrassing their own man Biden.  THEM: Well, anyway, we don't take sides about literal Israel, and we don't discuss political sides of who supports whom. ME: But that last part is just information, even history. THEM: History is one thing but the Bible says don't speak against the King. What's that it says in Ecclesiastes? (Ecclesiastes 10:20) . . .Even in your thoughts, do not curse the king, and do not curse the rich in your bedroom; for a bird may convey the sound, or a creature with wings may repeat what was said. ME: Yeah. That's where we get the expression: "a little birdie told me." Basically, it means that someone on Twitter will turn you in. Or all the government agencies will be listening in on Twitter.   THEM: Very funny. You mean "X." ME: Yeah, but they still call them "tweets." THEM: But still we don't take sides, we don't even say anything against any ruler, whether he's good or bad. We only pray that they make decisions that are good for us.  ME: I don't think it's wrong to say something against a ruler. Don't you think Hitler was a bad ruler? THEM: But he's not a king now is he? He's dead. ME: I mean even when he was alive. THEM: Well, of course, because he was attacking Jehovah's people. ME: But it would have been wrong to say he was bad while he was attacking millions of Jews? THEM: [changing subject] But look how respectful Paul was talking to Felix, he never said a word against him. ME: Maybe not, but Luke tells us he was probably looking for a bribe. That's pretty negative. ME: continuing . . . And Jesus called Herod a fox. THEM: Well maybe he was "foxy" -- "crafty" not always a bad thing. ME: You don't believe that . . . and even if it was a good thing, then Jesus was taking sides. THEM: Anyway . . . it's wrong.
    • The conversation went like this: ME: I'm just now seeing the new article on the front of jw.org, about whether Bible prophecy points to literal Israel. That seems to be on everyone's mind. THEM: Absolutely. One of my studies just asked that question and I went through the usual scriptures, especially Galatians  6. I hadn't seen the article yet. I wish I had. ME: Yes, the article uses Matthew 23:37 "your house is abandoned to you" and Galatians 6, and Romans 11. THEM: I think I used Romans 11, too.  ME: I just noticed that the article says one thing that might be confusing though. “A dulling of sensibilities has happened in part to Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in, and in this manner all Israel will be saved.” (Romans 11:25, 26) . . . By the expression “all Israel,” Paul meant all of spiritual Israel. ME: continuing . . . Actually, I don't think that will make sense to most people though. I mean, ultimately, yes, it's spiritual Israel that is saved. We know that from Galatians 6, but in this context people are going to notice that Paul actually was speaking about the two olive trees and the LITERAL Gentiles getting grafted into the tree representing LITERAL Israel.  THEM: But it means all of spiritual Israel will be saved. ME: That's the only way it works out in the long run, yes. But doesn't it make more sense that as many of literal Israel as possible get saved because it's these people of the nations who now have Jehovah's blessing, and this makes some of natural Israel jealous? And that helps lead to the salvation of as many natural Israelites as possible. (Romans 11:11) etc., etc. Who is right on this point is not important here, it's the next part of the conversation. Next post . . . 
    • As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I always learned that you don't take sides in politics. In our family, this meant that you also don't discuss politics. Discussing it inevitably turns to offering opinions that favor one ideological side over another. But in a recent topic on the forum, several other JWs and/or those who have been associated with JWs brought up issues that appeared to take sides for or against the two major U.S. presidential candidates, as of April 2024. As factual commentary, this doesn't bother me in the slightest. In fact, if one favors one candidate over the other, this doesn't bother me either. But I just had a serious discussion about our (JW) view of politics with an 86-year old Witness, who thinks just like my own family always had. It started with the current jw.org front page article on: Does Bible Prophecy Point to the Modern State of Israel? When you read the article you also get pointed to other articles: Will Armageddon Begin in Israel?—What Does the Bible Say? Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Zionists? If you read more and go to specific links, you can also find articles on Human Rights Organizations, Russia and the European Court, etc. Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia Russia Withdraws From the European Court Or even end up linked to a mildly amusing article such as: Who Is to Blame—Russia or the Tourist? But the conversation, next post, made me think of our general stance on political discussion.
    • Correction: The Society’s position on beards was announced on December 15, 2023 with Governing Body Update No. 2023-8.
  • Members

    • TrueTomHarley

      TrueTomHarley 9,515

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Arauna

      Arauna 3,879

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,398

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.2k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,678
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    James Hume
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.