German city offers $1.1M to whoever proves it doesn’t exist • Hacker News Board

Re: German city offers $1.1M to whoever proves it doesn’t exist

#41

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 1:46 PM UTC

b_tterc_p wrote: post #38

PeterStuer wrote: post #32

Its existence relies on formal documentation such as a deed declaring its existence as a city. Proving it doesn't exist would rely on proving the absolute absence of the documentation, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is a logical proof of non-existence fallacy. But surely the German city officials would not make a mockery of such things by frivolously asking for something they know would be l…

I’m no philosopher but this sounds incorrect. You can prove that many things couldn’t exist, and therefore prove that it doesn’t exist. Like an integer greater and less than 0.

[deleted]

Re: German city offers $1.1M to whoever proves it doesn’t exist

#42

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 1:47 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #28

gberger wrote: post #18

Pet peeve: converting currencies from the original makes for awkward headlines, as well as making the article future-incompatible (because of exchange rate fluctuations). They should keep the original €1M in the title. It is what they offered.

The problem is that you and I may know the rough exchange rates for Euros, pounds, and dollars (and the fact that we can more or less treat them as equivalent at this level). But a lot of US readers won't. I probably wouldn't have any idea if this were some other European non-Euro currency. I'd agree with you if they didn't have Euros in the article but the headline is really just there to entice readers. And it does…

[deleted]

Re: German city offers $1.1M to whoever proves it doesn’t exist

#43

Post by tlarkworthy » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 1:48 PM UTC

gberger wrote: post #18

Pet peeve: converting currencies from the original makes for awkward headlines, as well as making the article future-incompatible (because of exchange rate fluctuations). They should keep the original €1M in the title. It is what they offered.

Or they just abbreviate to 1M dollars, they offered slightly more, but they also did offer 1M dollars worth of euros.

Re: German city offers $1.1M to whoever proves it doesn’t exist

#44

Post by PeterStuer » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 1:50 PM UTC

chousuke wrote: post #37

PeterStuer wrote: post #32

Its existence relies on formal documentation such as a deed declaring its existence as a city. Proving it doesn't exist would rely on proving the absolute absence of the documentation, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is a logical proof of non-existence fallacy. But surely the German city officials would not make a mockery of such things by frivolously asking for something they know would be l…

Surely you can prove that something doesn't exist if you can show that assuming its existence leads to a contradiction? I'm pretty sure the whole "can't prove a negative" thing is a meme, or I'm just misunderstanding it.

Same as below, You can prove that something can not exist, typically by proving its existence would lead to a contradiction. You can also prove exhaustively that some thing that can exist does in fact not exist if the set of potential evidence of existence is finite. where you run into trouble is in cases were something could exist, but the set of potential evidence is infinite or for practical purposes beyond the means of exhaustive coverage.

IMHO, not a professional philosopher

Re: German city offers $1.1M to whoever proves it doesn’t exist

#45

Post by nickpsecurity » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 2:24 PM UTC

gcmrtc wrote: post #20

In Italy we have an entire region (Molise) that doesn't exist. Do other countries have their own non-existent places too?

I don't see any mention of that on the Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molise

Why does it not exist to Italians?

Re: German city offers $1.1M to whoever proves it doesn’t exist

#46

Post by dustfinger » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 2:26 PM UTC

close04 wrote: post #21

gibba999 wrote: post #12

Here's the basic problem: They gave a month deadline. That's not enough time to get permission for time off from work, book a ticket, take photos to show there is no city there, and submit, at least with the required degree of integrity (e.g. confirming GPS coordinates in some temper-proof way, etc. -- they'll just say you took the photos elsewhere). There is no city there. Pretending it's a fake conspiracy seems to…

Poppycock! :) You can’t cry wolf for 25 years and then say you didn’t have time to collect evidence. This was the thing to do before making the claim. After ~25 years of this running conspiracy if none of the evidence was collected we can call it evidence that the conspiracy theory is indeed fake.

It wouldn't be a theory if they had proof, it would be a fact ;-)

Of course you are talking about evidence which is not the same as proof. However, if we do think in terms of proof for a moment and following that line of reasoning, is it even possible to have a fake conspiracy theory? That is to say, is it possible to have a fake theory? I think the notion is absurd. The moment someone makes a hypothesis the theory is real and by definition, pending proof to qualify as fact. If someone provides evidence disproving the theory, then the theory would be wrong, but not fake.

I like your comment though :-)

Re: German city offers $1.1M to whoever proves it doesn’t exist

#47

Post by ryacko » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 2:55 PM UTC

gberger wrote: post #18

Pet peeve: converting currencies from the original makes for awkward headlines, as well as making the article future-incompatible (because of exchange rate fluctuations). They should keep the original €1M in the title. It is what they offered.

There is only one significant figure, saying $1M would be enough. It is an editorial decision anyway.

Re: German city offers $1.1M to whoever proves it doesn’t exist

#48

Post by Fnoord » Sat, Aug 24, 2019, 2:22 PM UTC

gcmrtc wrote: post #20

In Italy we have an entire region (Molise) that doesn't exist. Do other countries have their own non-existent places too?

A reverse one: Scarfolk.

See the book Discovering Scarfolk by Richard Littler [1].

"Scarfolk is a town in north-west England that did not progress beyond 1979. The entire decade of the 1970s loops ad infinitum. In Scarfolk children must not be seen OR heard, and everyone has to be in bed by 8 p.m. because they are perpetually running a slight fever..."

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20493657-discovering-sca...

Re: German city offers $1.1M to whoever proves it doesn’t exist

#49

Post by Havoc » Sat, Aug 24, 2019, 9:36 PM UTC

JeanMarcS wrote: post #13

Havoc wrote: post #7

What's the going rate for a medium yield nuke?

Not sure if it works with « doesn’t exists anymore » And who will pay ? Too bad, it was a good idea out-of-the-box !

Timing on history is way more fungible than existence of towns.

Got downvoted to hell so clearly hn didn't appreciate/understand my town no longer exists joke

Re: German city offers $1.1M to whoever proves it doesn’t exist

#50

Post by gibba999 » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 7:03 AM UTC

close04 wrote: post #21

gibba999 wrote: post #12

Here's the basic problem: They gave a month deadline. That's not enough time to get permission for time off from work, book a ticket, take photos to show there is no city there, and submit, at least with the required degree of integrity (e.g. confirming GPS coordinates in some temper-proof way, etc. -- they'll just say you took the photos elsewhere). There is no city there. Pretending it's a fake conspiracy seems to…

Poppycock! :) You can’t cry wolf for 25 years and then say you didn’t have time to collect evidence. This was the thing to do before making the claim. After ~25 years of this running conspiracy if none of the evidence was collected we can call it evidence that the conspiracy theory is indeed fake.

Who says I didn't have the time?

1) The contest has a very specific standard for evidence. Just because I went there and saw no such city existed doesn't mean that gets me a million bucks. That's my testimony.

2) Even going back, I need a high standard of evidence. They want irrefutable proof. That means I'd need to have some way of, in a photographically-secure way, guaranteeing I was there, and some kind of temper-proof photos or similar. That takes time to figure out.

This contest is great since anything submitted will be discredited. They'll claim they proved their existence. It does no such thing. In the rules, they say they'll only post entries online they find amusing (in other words, not the best ones), they decide if the evidence is irrefutable, and that the contestant waives the right to sue / contradict that judgement.

I hope you see the problem here. They'll claim to have generated proof of existence (hey, no one can disprove it), without providing people time to do so, and with tools to bury any proofs which would convince others. They'll post the comical ones, and be done with it.