100万个问题

This easy little question was asked on social media and shared wildly. At first, it looks like we all know the answer, but when we take a closer look, we realize it is not that trivial.

这个简单的小问题在社交媒体上提出并得到了广泛的分享。 乍一看，我们都知道答案了，但是当我们仔细研究时，我们意识到这并不是那么简单。

Let us know what you think before reading the rest of the article in the comments.

阅读评论中的其余文章之前，请让我们知道您的想法。

我们去兔子洞 (Let’s go down the rabbit hole)

We all know that if we have four choices, and one is correct, the probability of being right is 1/4=25%, which is correct. Since there are two 25% possibilities at A and D, we have 1/2 giving us 50% as being the correct answer. Given that now question C is right, the chance of choosing it randomly is again 1/4=25%.

我们都知道，如果我们有四个选择，并且一个选择正确，那么正确的可能性就是1/4 = 25％，这是正确的。 由于A和D处有两种25％的可能性，因此我们有1/2给出50％作为正确答案。 假设问题C现在是正确的，则随机选择它的机会再次是1/4 = 25％。

Giving this beautiful circle of self-referencing, many users opted for choice B, being 0%. However, assuming this would indeed be the right answer, we again would have a 1/4=25% chance of drawing it at random.

考虑到这种自引用的美好循环，许多用户选择了选项B，为0％。 但是，假设这确实是正确的答案，我们将再次有1/4 = 25％的机会随机绘制它。

One more circle? Let’s assume that one answer must be correct, and this leads to excluding the answer B. This would then lead us to believe that we have a chance of 1/3 of being right 33%, which is not on the board, leaving us with 0% as the correct answer…is your head making circles fast than any F1 driver?

还有一个圈？ 让我们假设一个答案必须是正确的，这导致排除答案B。这将使我们相信，我们有1/3的几率是正确的33％(不在董事会上)，这给我们留下了0％是正确的答案……您的头脑比任何F1赛车手都要快吗？

No worries, as we can see, this is just an ill-posed problem, and indeed many answers can be seen as correct. Through the way this question has been asked, we can not be sure what method of randomness we are encountering. Can we exclude an answer? This entire thing can be seen as a so-called mathematical paradox.

不用担心，正如我们所看到的，这只是一个不适的问题，实际上许多答案都可以被视为正确。 通过询问此问题的方式，我们无法确定遇到的是哪种随机方法。 我们可以排除答案吗？ 整个事情可以看作是所谓的数学悖论。

悖论 (Paradox)

Sometimes also called an antinomy. A paradox generally refers to a logically self-contradictory statement. Two very famous examples of such paradoxes are “The liar’s paradox” and “Russell’s paradox.”

有时也称为对数。 悖论通常是指逻辑上自相矛盾的陈述。 这种悖论的两个非常著名的例子是“ 骗子的悖论”和“罗素的悖论”。

The liar’s paradox: “this statement is false”

骗子的悖论 ：“这个说法是错误的”

Russell’s paradox: the set of all sets that are not element of themselves cannot exist

罗素悖论 ：所有不属于自身元素的集合的集合都不存在

“The liar’s paradox,” for instance, can not be assigned a truth value since it’s true exactly when it’s false and vice versa.

例如， “骗子的悖论”不能分配真值，因为当它为假时恰好为真，反之亦然。

“Russell’s paradox,” is a slightly more complicated example to understand and created quite some trouble in the past.

“罗素悖论”是一个稍为复杂的例子，易于理解并在过去造成了很多麻烦。

A slightly more comfortable version of the same problem can be explained by looking at

可以通过看一下来解释同一问题的稍微舒适一些的版本

The Barber paradox: A barber who shaves all men who do not shave themselves

理发师悖论：理发师剃光所有不剃光自己的男人

Should the barber now shave himself?

理发师现在应该刮胡子吗？

The main problem with the real paradox is that the set would include itself exactly when it does not include itself. What may seem to be a short little statement had the smartest man of the time doubt themself and their chosen field of study.

真正的悖论的主要问题是，当集合不包含自身时，它将恰好包含自身。 似乎是一个简短的简短声明，使当时最聪明的人怀疑自己和他们选择的研究领域。

Named after and published by Bertrand Russell in 1901, the paradox created quite some problems, since it could be derived from their axoms.

该悖论以伯特兰·罗素 ( Bertrand Russell)的名字命名并于1901年出版，它引起了很多问题，因为它可能是由它们的轴突衍生而来的。

为什么会出问题呢？ (Why was it a problem?)

First, we must understand that mathematics is based on axioms. From those axioms, everything else is proven. An axiom is a statement that is taken to be true. They serve as a basis for all reasoning that is then made based on them. One of the earliest examples comes from ancient Greece.

首先，我们必须了解数学是基于公理的。 从这些公理中，其他一切都得到了证明。 公理是被认为是正确的陈述。 它们是所有基于它们进行推理的基础。 最早的例子之一来自古希腊。

When an equal amount is taken from equals, an equal amount results.

从等式中取等量时，将得出等量。

From this axiom, we could prove simple things like:

从这个公理，我们可以证明简单的事情，例如：

if a=b -> a-42=b-42 (not entirely formal ;)

Another small thing we need to understand is the principle of explosion. The principle of explosions states that from a false statement, anything can be proven. We could, for example.

我们需要了解的另一件事是爆炸的原理 。 爆炸原理指出，通过虚假陈述，任何事情都可以得到证明。 例如，我们可以。

P1: You follow me and you don't follow me
P2: You follow me (1, simplification since both are true)
P3: You dont' follow me (1, simplification)
P4: You follow me or You will clapp 100 times for this article(Since we can add anything to a already true OR statement and it will still be true, also called addition)P5: You will clapp 100 times for this article(Since P3 is true and P4 is true, we know that the second part of P4 must be true, aka disjunctive syllogism)

The combination of a paradox and the principle of explosion now basically breaks math, science, and reasoning in general. It leaves us with a very fuzzy definition of what true and false mean. The consequence of the mathematicians of the time was to create a new and consistent set theory.

悖论和爆炸原理的结合现在基本上打破了数学，科学和推理的整体。 它给我们提供了关于真假含义的非常模糊的定义。 当时的数学家的结果是创建了一个新的一致的集合论。

结论 (Conclusion)

Well done, you challenged yourself today with some of the most awkward problems. Each of those examples made you a bit more skeptical about what and how we can even formulate a question!

做得好，您今天面临一些最尴尬的问题。 这些示例中的每一个都使您对我们甚至可以提出问题的方式以及方式更加怀疑！

Paradoxes have been around for as long as humans asked strange questions. Their existence teaches us a valuable lesson; sometimes, not the answer is wrong. It is the question!

只要人类提出奇怪的问题，悖论就存在了。 它们的存在为我们提供了宝贵的教训。 有时候，不是答案是错误的。 这是问题！

There is a good reason why paradoxes are studied around the world, they are crucial to developing critical thinking. I hope you can now stop worrying about it and accept that some questions are indeed not to be answered, assuming you want to keep your sanity.

在世界范围内研究悖论是有充分的理由的，它们对于发展批判性思维至关重要。 我希望您现在可以停止担心它，并接受假设您确实要保持理智的某些问题，但确实无法回答。

If you did enjoy this article, feel free to connect on Twitter or LinkedIn.

如果您确实喜欢本文，请随时在Twitter或LinkedIn上进行连接。

翻译自: https://towardsdatascience.com/the-1000-000-question-c89f2daa9b34