5 Pokémon Paradoxes
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 чер 2024
- Paradoxes have been some of the biggest mind twisters we can think about. So I’ve made a list of 5 paradoxes that very well could be a thing in the Pokémon universe.
References:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of...
mentalfloss.com/article/59040/...
brainden.com/paradoxes.htm
Poké Ball Art: mangotangofox.deviantart.com/a...
Twitter: / theauraguardian
Facebook: / auraguardian94
Google Plus: plus.google.com/u/0/+TheAuraG...
Poké Amino: TheAuraGuardian
Something something fair use something something
#Pokemon #Paradox #Puzzle - Ігри
Just want to clear some things up about people saying the shiny paradox isn't a paradox. It's based on the lottery paradox, and tbh I kind of felt confused by it as well when I first researched it. Sorry if I didn't explain it too well
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery_paradox
TheAuraGuardian the shiny paradox is clear and I think it's right.
TheAuraGuardian hai
how the are shiny legendary pokemon and thire is one legendary pokemon of a kind
Halt TAG (no, not the game), if 1 patch is having a shiny then :
first=1/8192
second=1/8191 because it is less with 1 patch.
So on until one of them either is the last or has the shiny before the last.
What if the thief cant trade the Pokemon because it isnt his own Pokemon.
If a trainer and another trainer battle and 1 trainer has a shellder and the other has a slowpoke. If the shellder bites the slowpokes tail, who keeps the slowbro?
limpinSeal oh my lord
My guess would be whoever catches it first, since its technically a different Pokémon than either of the originals ..... (Does this comment make me a genius? I hope so :P )
its technically an evolution, so the slowpoke owner would get it
+Ellie
So, if you caught a bunch of slowpoke, you could make them bug a bunch of trainers' shellders until they bit all the slowpokes' tails, and then you could take other peoples' shellders and not technically be stealing?
I just want to see an episode where Jessie and James figure out this loophole, then catch a bunch of slowpokes to abuse the hell out of it. Maybe steal all the magikarp salesman's shellders and rub it in his face. It'd be hilarious.
The slowpoke trainer!
“Once you catch a pokemon, it’s yours. No one can catch it.”
*Pokemon Colosseum and XD Gale of Darkness wants to know your location*
No other poke ball can be used to catch the domestic Pokémon now lol a stolen Pokémon would still have the original trainer tagged to it but through process of trading the Pokémon recognizes the trainer it was traded to as its new trainer
GameShark: I too wanna know the location
@@brucebrittain6183 In pokemon HGSS you can throw a pokeball at a trainers pokemon, and the trainer has to actively block it to prevent you from stealing their pokemon. I learned this cause I was trying to catch a Nidoran forgetting that it was a trainer battle cause I got distracted by a video I was watching at the same time. So it seems at least in that game that a pokeball can catch an already caught pokemon.
@@brucebrittain6183 I'd imagine the trade machines might require something like recognition you own that Pokemon for cases like this.
If an Eevee and a Pikachu both touch the same Thunder Stone at the same time, who evolves, since a Thunder Stone can only be used on one Pokémon?
none because Lets Go wont let you
there is no way twp pokemon will touch it the exact same moment there will be at least a couple microseconds between so whoever touches first evolves i guess
Ping
the one that touched it first. the chances of two touching the same one at the same time are pimossible
Let's fight over it
Commenter sent out Eevee!
Replier sent out pikachu!
Both used the same thunder stone!
Eevee evolved into eeveeon!
Pikachu evolved into raipika!
Pokemon Name:
Anime - Pokemon are probably named based on what they can say;
Game - Pokemon are probably named by researchers;
And Pokémon who say their name from another language are from alternate universes.
And for the different language one, all of the Pokémon world speaks the same language.
*Me when it's 3 am and I can't brain anymore*
Yeah the Naruto Pepe
If they follow the same rules as Taxonomy. Pokemon should have a scientific name. Latin names in animals were stated because of that same problem of different regional names for the same animal. But idk, lol.
You mean you don't want Pokemon named LEEDLEEDLEE WOOOOOOOP?
I have a bigger question: why would someone take apart a Pokeball in the first place?
uncleltr ikr
Maybe it's damaged and has to be repaired
uncleltr cause he can
The original paradox involved a boat (sometimes an ancient boat in a museum) being replaced piece by piece, usually one plank of wood each year or something.
If it’s old or broken.
Pinnocio: My nose will now grow!
*nose falls off*
Pinnocio: D:
@@Spark-nl2nj oh sorry, anyway thanks man, I get it now
Pinnocio: ...Wait, now I can lie undetectable
Ok DIO
That’s a paradox
It fell off because he broke the system
3:05 Oh, so THAT'S how Wally got his Gallade into an Ultra Ball in SM.
Now it makes sense
Oh Yeah
maybe he realesd it and caught it again in an ultra ball
Or just “man, you were good gallade, but your IVs were trash.”
Trainer teacher one is easy, just use a recoiling move to knock out both your last pokemon and the teachers, then nobody wins, they both lost.
The first paradox is answered by how animals sound in different countries. A cat's meow sounds different in France then it does in the United States.
So, basically different otomottapoeias? (Forgive me, but I forgot how to spell that word.)
onomatopoeia
In the games the Pokémon don’t say their names...
the Pokémon anime is dumb
i live in brazil,here the cat sound is "miau"
But if a black cat goes to China? Will it be a Chinese Cat?
I hurt myself in confusion while watching this video
Ethan Redsky I swear to drunk I'm not God.
Eclipse We need a Lum, Persim or a full restore
same
The 2nd and 3rd weren't even about pokemon
Mewoth Says *English*...
So Meowth Has The Longest Pokemon Name
What meowths name is as long as mewtwo or arceus
More than 1000 letters in his name
Ok, 1. Not all Meowths speak English...
And 2. I know I'm gonna get r/whooshed hard when I do post this comment, and I know you're listening if you do.
Lmao
Gardevoir has 9 letters while English has only 7
im a simple man. i saw a shinx and cliked
Shining Shinx - Mongoose556 I’m a simple man. I spell clicked as cliked
Omg same!!!!
Same here
Same
HOLY SHINX
The shiny paradox is just basic statistics.
Yes, individually the chances of finding a shiny in a patch of grass are very low, but overall the chance of all the patches having a non shiny is:
(8191/8192)^8192 = 0.368 or 37%
This means that the actual probability of at least one patch of grass having a shiny is 63%, so it is actually quite likely to happen.
I see, I'm late. You're right, also I think most of the others don't necessarily classify as paradoxes either.
RonnyTime you said what i wanted to said but i cant
Isn't there the the starting contition, that on one patch there is a shiny, so the overall chance of finding a shiny in one of them is 1?!
It's similar to Schrodinger's Cat
Ehm, no it isn't. Schrödingers cat is at the same time dead and alive, because we can never say if the poison is released or not without opening the box. This is just simple statistics under 8191 patches there is no shiny Pokémon and under one patch there is a shiny. It isn't important what's the status of the Pokémon in the grass.
As soon as the Pokéball is broken, the Pokemon is released.
this wouldn't happen if the pokemon is out of the pokeball when it is broken
but then the pokemon wouldn't belong to that pokemon anyways because it has damaged
but at the same time it doesnt mean the pokemon would start disobeying it's trainer. after all, pikachu stuck around after a theory that it's pokeball broke
Why are t
DO WE HAVE ANOTHER PARADOX
No, the top 5 is:
1. Great Tusk
2. Brute Bonnet
3. Iron Leaves
4. Roaring Moon
5. Iron Hands.
My top 5
Miraidon
Iron Bundle
Iron Treads
Great Tusk
Koraidon
Damn this hits hard after Scarlet and Violet
"Imagine 1892 patches of grass"
Me: oh god no
Fangette 8192*
And you can't walk around them
"there is both a shiny and no shiny"
Schroedinger's shinx
@@themilkman1938 And until you open the box (pokeball?) you will never know if it's a shiny or not. However, the possibilty of it NOT being a shiny will prevent you from opening it so you can avoid dissapointment. But for the love of god let the poor Shinx out of the box (pokeball?)!
Sounds like my math questions. All it needs is, "every third is black. Then every 5 rot. How many good patches lf grass are left?"
For the last paradox, in the games a pokémon will have the original owner's name on it, so it belonged to the trainer who had their pokèmon stolen from them.
For the last one, I assume it the trading machine works by switching the the trainer the pokeball is registered to so the traded pokemon will technically belong to the trainer as it's registered to that trainer.
Though now that I think about it, it's a great way to get around the pokeball registration thing. Catch a common pokemon like a pidgey or a rattata and trade a stolen pokemon with it and now the stolen pokemon is technically legal.
...This is pretty much pokemon laundering
AND if you break the pokeball containing the pokemon , the popkemon is released , so , they steal a pokemon , give another pokemon to the other trainer , and then the pokemon they gave to the trainer by trading , they break the pokeball and the pokemon is released. But if they didn't break it , the pokemon would belong to the trainer.
Since only the trainer that is the legal owner of the original pokemon is allowed to trade it, the trade itself is invalid too. I assume the pokemon would disobey their new master anyway. So before you trade your pokemon for a stolen pokemon, you better make sure it's really theirs (let them proof that they have known the pokemon for some time). In worst case you lose both.
But yeah, it's one of many aspects about the pokemon universe neither the games nor the anime are particularly clear about.
6:23 Simple. The OT is the person who caught the pokemon.
@Megalovania Fan Is it? (Seriously, I don't remember anything from this video)
@Megalovania Fan It actually is. The Pokemon is attached to your trainer number.
If it is how it works in the games, it’s true. In the description of the pokémon there is the original trainer name which will be always the trainer who catches it, and if someone steals the pokemon it doesn’t matter. The thief didn’t catch the pokemon, so it is not the OT. If the thief trades the pokémon with another person, it is still part of the trainer who catched it
@@aquaneutral True, the OT is registered forever and you can't change it
So when you get your starter Pokémon, the original trainer should be professor Oak (or any other professor in other regions than Kanto), but unexpectedly you are the OT of your starter... So the OT is the person who caught the Pokémon except it was given to you as a starter!?
Why isn't anyone mentioning that the teacher looks like he's flipping off the student? Lol
Finest Cat because the teacher is right
If they decide to settle it in a battle, all previous arranges should be nule.
The student is right cause it's not his first battle ( maybe )
If a teacher wants you into that paradox, hes already flipping you off from the start
since when was someone able to change parts of a pokeball?
DeadlyViper37 I have no idea
Velia Hernandez maybe its the seals from gen 4
I think Alex created that himself based on the Ship of Theseus paradox.
the seals wouldn't completely change the ball, they're just covers
and it shouldn't chip, the only way that a pokeball has seen to be damaged is when it gets stomped on (i think jessie did it with her dustox's ball)
well how do you think they made the jewel incrusted pokeball, besides I'm all for an improved seal system that can change the outside as well I mean in sun in moon You can actually see what ball they use when you through it Even the npcs have diferent balls of Course i don't think it was worth removing sitting but still pretty good
Simple solution to the Pokeball paradox:
There's likely a specific component in the capture module that "imprints" on the Pokemon it caught, that defines what Pokemon, if any, "belongs" in it.
Replacing that part would be impossible without help from a means to change the "imprint" data in it, most likely requiring a Pokecenter, and thus marking the exact point at which the ball ceases being Pidgey's ball.
*Ninja edit: Obviously you can't repair a ball that has the Pokemon actively in it!
I'm assuming that the trainer is replacing parts as they become worn, but before they break, just to maintain believability.
Can’t wait for the upcoming sequel to this video, “5 Paradox Pokemon!”
2:50 the pidgey either died or got its energy released because the pokeball would break in the process of replacing it, and the pokeball isn't the original pokeball when he replaces the part the first time because it is no longer as a whole the original pokeball. :P
Pancake butter Actually, it's probable that there is a single piece that has the regestration of the pokemon for anti theft purpose. This piece will most likely have a factory reset security feature upon removal to prevent the paradox (and so some employee doesn't take the old regestration chips and steal people's pokemon with it.)
And there is probable a single piece that contains the pokemon data in so the only issue is if it was wired incorrectly.
Edit: spelling corrections
Id assume as soon as a piece breaks off, then Pidgey is auto released from pokeball needs to be recaptured. So whatever pokeball it was captured, so long as it isn't broken, it will stay in
Box-O-Cookies but it is still mostly the oeiginal pokeball... at that point, I guess then when more than 50% of the pokeball is replaced, it is no longer the original.
.
And I thought any pokeball worked on any pokemon as long as it doesn't have another pokemon.
Blue killed his own raticate! O_O
See, the problem here is that the pokeball either has a memory card that keeps the pokemon's data inside it, at which point when you replace that it would be a different pokeball (You could still have the same pokemon inside, it'd basically have to be traded), or the pokeball contains a pocket dimension (more likely given the name), in which case no part could be replaced without breaking said pocket dimension and releasing or sending out the pokemon.
its a lot easier to come down on any given side with pokemon than the original paradox (a boat with its parts being replaced), because a pokeball actually stores something tangible that will most definitely let you know if it is no longer the original.
Finally a unique pokemon top n list. Nice idea AuraGuardian.
Although I've never heard of replacing Pokeball Parts as being a thing.
keero kamiya it's like with the ship
/\ Exactly. Look up The Ship of Theseus aka Theseus's Paradox.
***** what does that have to do with replacing parts of pokeballs ever being established as a thing you can do in pokemon?
keero kamiya I thought you were new to the idea of the paradox, not the actual concept. Yes, I believe that's not actually a thing in the games/show.
***** lol yeah I'm familiar with the concept of paradoxes I was just having trouble thinking of a way to actually do that with a pokeball. I guess if the pokemon were outside the ball at the time of replacing a part.
3:57 looks like the teacher is subtly flipping people off.
For the last one, the Pokemon would still belong to the original trainer. I'm basing this answer off of the mechanics in the games.
Each Pokemon caught in the wild is assigned a trainer ID (a numerical ID that belongs to the trainer), by the trainer who caught that Pokemon. No matter how you transfer that Pokemon, that Pokemon will have that same ID (unless you release it, in which case you may have well deleted that Pokemon's data).
So even if a thief stole someone's Pokemon, it would still have the original owner's ID attached to it, and therefore still be treated as if it were the original owner's Pokemon. Same would go for if it were traded by the thief: no matter who the Pokemon is transferred to, it will always have the original owner's ID.
99.9% =/= 100%
This is actually accepted in math as true.
Only if it repeats to infinity. 0.999... equals 1, but 0.999 does not equal 1.
≠ - is should've been this not =/=
Its pretty simple actually.It all comes down to probability theory..P(A)+P(B)=P(AUB)..So yes if u encounter 1 pokemon randomly,reload the game,encounter another one randomly,reload->u will never find it..But if u encounter one pokemon,move to the next grass tile encounter another,then u are uniting the probabilities as i wrote above...Meaning if u encounter a pokemon on all of the tiles the probability is P(T1)+P(T2)+P(T3).....+P(T8192)=P(T1UT2UT3....UT8192)=1
thebluebearb not all keyboard have that key
Wait a second, about the pidgey pokeball one.
If you took the pidgey out of its pokeball, and the pressed both buttons at once, which one would it go into?
Both
*schrodinger's Cat intensifies*
the darker one
And if it goes into both, would they be split messes after they are let out? Of would the pidgey be cloned?
AetherResonant that's how cloning works canonically!
5: the person who currently has it.
????????
I thought the becuz red would be listed under ot(original trainer)
I would argue that you can't trade a pokemon that is not yours
No
@@Corrupted_Eon Does the original owner of a car still pay for it after selling it?
Love the HOLY SHINX in the background.
Yes
Glad to see you're back :]
Videos are taking longer than usual now, but yeah it's always nice to be able to upload haha :D
TheAuraGuardian 300000k is coming soon so congratulations (early)
Hi Supra I subscribed to you . Your sun and moon randomizer nuzlocke is class .
Abodi x no 300k 300000k is 300million
U sucks
In the last one it you asked if it belonged to the trainer who caught it or the thief who traded it, it belongs to neither it belongs to the person it was traded to
he's talking about the one the thief received you dimwit
It belongs to the original trainer as when you trade it still has the original trainers ID on it so not a paradox
Pokemon paradoxes (2023):
1. Scream Tail
2. Iron Jugulis
3. Great Tusk
4. Roaring Moon
5. Miraidon
5:40 Except, that's not how probability works so this paradox isn't even valid.
deathboy17 thank you! i clicked the like to the original paradox and it makes just as little sense
It’s not even a paradox, it’s just about the same as the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment. Each patch simultaneously contains a regular Pokémon and a shiny Pokémon until you check.
@@thegoatcarnival Valid.
@@thegoatcarnival Based
I click this video and I see 99,999 views and now I'm weirded out
u were 100,000 view. good job
it's 578k views, bro
TheKingRiki and I seen your comment and it had 199 likes
Anomolous Tesseract- *_Are you serious?_*
And you have 333 likes now
My brain hurts now
Teddybear 4lyfe27 yes you are alone
Which one of the two Comments are correct?!?! My Brain is melting know
Oh, hey! It's Mr. Gumby!
same here
The shiny paradox's foundation is shaky. It is more like the Price is Right "paradox" (I forget the actual name of it)
it’s the monty hall problem
That's not how probability works
Yeah this video is full of shit
@Megalovania Fan That one wasn't even a paradox. The probability would change more in favor of you finding a shiny as you look through each bush without seeing a shiny.
I was drawn in by a shiny Shinx. Dammit.
Dermit*
Holy Shinx!!
xGuumi same
Same xD
xGuumi HOLY SHINX!!!!
What is it with all these monster something game adds stealing pokemon footage?
Yee
Josh Lyman Idk But Its Really Annoying
MysticGengar 12 also the legacy of discord stolen videos, that game is like 50 games in 1 according to the ads
Futaba Meguca To be fair, Nintendo didn't take down Uranium. Nintendo had their lawyers snooping around, seeing what could be done, and the creators of Uranium realized that they might get sued, and so, in respect to Nintendo, took down Uranium.
Josh Lyman I know it shucks
The thing with the shiny is, that when you have 8192 patches and every of that patches has a 99,9% chance of not having a shiny you have to calculate it like this: 99,9% x 99,9% x 99,9% and so 8192 times and then it adds up to a way lower chance of not getting a shiny.
The pokeball paradox is in a way not a paradox because: pokeballs are used to store pokemon in them, so if you replaced every part one by one, it would've still kept the pokemon inside, which means that the original pokeball would work because it's empty. If I'm wrong, please inform me!
I'd like to take a crack at some of these. I'm not saying I'm right, but these are the most logical conclusions that I can come up with.
1.) It's reasonable to think that humans are what name pokemon, beings as pokemon have proven to be able to learn language to at least some extent (I.E. Chatot, Meowth, and various other legendaries capable of telepathic speech). When a pokemon learns a certain word or sound, that sound can be encoded into their DNA over the course of several generations similarly to how an instinct is encoded. This can also account for language differentiations based on where that pokemon is found. Of course, this can also mean you can discover a new species of pokemon, separate it from all other human kind, keep calling it "Dumbass" until it's encoded into it's DNA over the course of a few generations, and then you've got one great, dick move.
2.) This argument in particular is VERY opinionated based on how you view originality. My personal take on the "broom argument" is that the Pokeball is still the exact same pokeball as long as it has at least ONE of it's original parts, no matter how small (this can include the Pidgey to a certain extent, but not entirely). Once all it's original parts are replaced, it is no longer the same pokeball, but that's not to say it cannot still be considered Pidgey's Pokeball. If you reconstruct a new pokeball based on the original components of the original pokeball, you have effectively transferred Pidgey into a new pokeball.
3.) Legally speaking, the original settlement becomes void once it is in mutual dispute by both parties (and yes, the battle itself can be considered a "mutual dispute" regardless of their own individual views of the agreement). The new settlement takes into effect once the Student and the Teacher enter battle. If the teacher wins, the teacher most be paid because the rule stating that "The teacher cannot be paid until he wins a battle" is now void under the new settlement. If the student wins, the student does not have to pay because the rule stating that "The teacher must be paid after the student wins the first battle" is now void under the new settlement.
5.) I feel like there was a major misunderstanding here. When the canon states "once you catch a pokemon, it is yours", what it really means is that the owner of the pokemon is whomever threw the ball to capture it, and was successful. You don't own a pokemon simply by possessing it, you own it by being the one to capture it. You cannot legally transfer ownership of someone else's property unless the original owner transfers ownership to you first. Now the pokeball itself is an individual property inevitably intertwined with that of the pokemon. If you were to say, find an empty pokeball abandoned by someone and you capture a pokemon with it, then the owner of that pokeball comes over and says "Hey man, I lost that pokeball, it's actually mine, give it back", I would say that would be a special circumstance, since the pokeball is not yours until the original owner gives it to you, but the pokemon is irreversibly yours until you trade it (you could really just release the pokemon and then capture it again with a pokeball that is yours).
cooldude56g Maybe the pokeball is the owner. Once a pokemon is caught it is stuck in that ball until released. So, stealing that pokeball wouldn't make a difference.
cooldude56g u freaking legend
Well, if the student won the battle, he would have to pay to the teacher; but, at the same time, the teacher would have to pay to the student because he lost the battle. So... nobody lost any money?
I just think this. Nobody loses money. They both Gain then lose (Or lose then gain) so it's not much of a paradox.
Maximiliano Penna I guess the kid wins cause he got trained by a master for free.
***** That's not much of a paradox as it does have an answer. The student was smarter than the teacher to get away with it for free.
Piplup1704 He probably still sucks at battling though.
Matthew Coyle Probably. Though he did have 6 pokemon...
*Or the aura guardian just didn't plan this paradox out well*
My favorite pokemon paradox is koraidon👍
Bro predicted paradox pokemon
Answer to the 1st one with Japanese and English: The Pokemon are from different countries so they learned to speak differently.
So if I trade a japanese pokemon it would speak its japanese name? For example I get a japanese Bulbasaur and it says Fushigidane?
SuperSmashTails well yeah (in the anime since the games and anime are different)
Jessica Bradley i
Nup, Pokémon don't speak differently depending on the country. If pokémon names cames from what they cries, it's just that according to countries people ears different things. Just like in the real with the frog, the rooster and the list goes on
Jessica Bradley if u take an english cat and a cat from Japan it Would still make the same sound, so why should it be diffrent with pokemon?
Wait, WHY WOULD YOU REPLACE PARTS OF A POKEBALL?!
And better, how? would the pokemon escape as pure energy?
Really Bad Productions that exactly is the paradox.... which one contains the Pidgey...
better still... duplication glitch, anyone?
Maybe it gets damaged? That type of thing has happened before in the anime.
With the pokemon in question just hanging out outside the pokeball until it gets fixed.
he just based the premise off of the ship of theseus paradox
Really Bad Productions if a ball is broken or damaged a pokemon can become trapped until the repair is done as for the true answer well i havent the slightest clue but i would guess the ball that has become completely redone
"Today is opposite day" is also a paradox
@John Paciorek ur fucking confusing me
@John Paciorek I understand actually. I was just making a joke
@John Paciorek what if it comes from a person who, for whatever reason, is incapable of lying?
The Shinx paradox doesn’t work because it is already assumed that there is a shiny meaning with patch you check that doesn’t have a shiny than the chance of the next having a shiny goes up
I don't get think I really get it either but I think he means that each individual patch of grass has a 1/8192 chance of having a shiny pokemon, therefore it's technically very likely that none of the patches of grass contain a shiny pokemon? This really only works if you think of the patches of grass as being individual rather than part of a whole
Wrong the chances reset after each wild encounter. So you cant just expect that by the last clump it has to have the shiny. That's not how lottery statistics work.
What I wanna know is where does the pokeball go once the Pokemon is sent to battle
Jayden Lawrence it either dissolves itself or it somehow bounces back to the trainer without you noticing
Pretty sure it just goes back to the trainer...
Jayden Lawrence it bounces back to trainer, you can see that in one of the episodes of DP when dawn first caught pachirisu
3:54 have you noticed that the teacher is almost flipping us off? 😂
This is the most confusing/brain hurting/interesting video I've seen in a while. My favorite thing combined with another cool thing! Strange but awesome!
That Pinocchio paradox still gets me every time but even that still pales in comparison to the most famous one of them all..."who came first the chicken or the egg?".
The egg. Seriously, that is not a paradox. Chickens are not at all the first creatures that would lay eggs. It would be reasonable to say that millions of eggs were laid before the first chicken came to be. Furthermore, if it's given that the egg is a chicken egg, then, going by evolution, two birds, of the same or different species, did you-know-what and created a chicken egg.
Due to Charles Darwins evolution theory it would be the egg since evolution happens between each generation meaning that when chickens finally became chickens it would have came out of an egg.
Andre Stewart I know the answer to it it's BOTH the chicken came inside the egg
the egg
There was no egg, only Zuul
The sentence below is true
The sentence above is false
Sparky Joltz (Brain Explodes)
They aren't sentences without the proper period at the end.
Yep, I'm *THAT* guy.
Sparky Joltz uuuuuuhhhhh
That means the bottom sentence is telling the truth and the top sentence is lying about it being true so one of them is lying hehe
Except those aren't sentences, or at least, not proper ones. Where did the periods go?
5:34 if you do ur math right, u will understand that you are absurdly wrong
@@mintayza7784 Maths are just maths. It's never weird, it's just maths. All here is probability. There's a chance for all the patches to contain a non-shiny , and there's a (Really small tho) chance for all the patches to contain a shiny pokemon.
If you calculate (8191/8192)^8192 , you'll calculate the probability of all the patches to contain non-shiny pokemons.
The chance of all the patches to contain shinies is (1/8192)^8192.
So, all is possible since the probabilities of encountering a shiny isn't 0 and the probability of encountering a non-shiny pokemon isn't 0 either or 1.
Even if the probability of meeting a non-shiny pokemon out of 8192 patches is pretty small (0.36785698645) and that the probability of meeting at least one shiny in 8192 patches is higher, all is possible and you could meet between 0 to 8192 shinies out of 8192 encounters.
But anyway we get to the same point : The logic in the video is stupid. It's not a paradox , it's just that you can't calculate probabilities right , TheAuraGuardian.
@@minhoshin7269 can you for a second read the pinned comment?
He admitted himself that he's wrong, bro.
Ani-P no he admitted that he explained it weird or incorrectly because of what its base was
For the final paradox, I imagine that it's like stealing a credit card. If the thief has stolen the card but not the PIN, then the money still belongs to the victim. If the thief stole the card and knows the PIN, then the money is his.
I would imagine that a trainer would need to enter his or her Trainer ID number to let the trading machine know to or from whom the Pokemon is going.
since when can you replace the parts of a bloody pokeball?
also probability doesnt work like that at all
He's using the paradox of the Ship of Theseus, which is similar, but replace Pokeball with a ship. He mentioned earlier that these would be paradoxes based on real life given a Pokemon twist.
you can not replace any parts of a pokeball based on how they work
If you take off a part o a pokeball to replace, it the pokeball will probably break and the pidgey will be released
actually yea, i think once or twice a pokeball broke and the pokemon was released
3:35 "fight me you little shit" XD I DIED
#5
The trainer because he didn't let the Rocket steal the PokèMon in the first place.
Lol
I think for the last one, it’s all dependent on where the Pokémon’s loyalty lies. You can’t catch someone else’s Pokémon unless that Pokémon wants to be caught. This is how Ash originally caught his Charmander. It belonged to another trainer who abandoned it, but the pokemon was still loyal to its old trainer despite being abandoned, and therefore could not be caught. Only once Charmander consented to being caught by Ash did the poke ball work and the Charmander become his. So basically the Pokémon is the one who decides whether it is owned by the original trainer, the thief, or the person who received it in trade from the thief.
Paradox: HOW THE FUCK ARE THERE PEOPLE (LILLIE) WITH CRIPPLING FEARS OF TOUCHING POKEMON!? POKEMON ARE EVERYWHERE IN THE POKE-UNIVERSE! IT'S LIKE BEING SCARED OF DOORKNOBS! I CAN GET BEING SCARED OF A CERTAIN TYPE OF POKEMON DUE TO A TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE, BUT NOT BEING ABLE TO TOUCH ANY POKEMON?! AND MOST OF THEM ARE SO CUTE!
SirRilic She got over it
Shannon Deonier well I know that (btw alolan vuloix is the cutest thing ever) but I still have a point. lillie isn't the only person in the anime to have a crippling poke-phobia. in the hoenn anime there was also a child unable to make contact with his pokemon
SirRilic and what about the time in the games when she literally carried THE HEAVIEST POKEMON IN EXISTANCE IN HER BACKPACK???
Paul Leszczensky Lillie is a strange entity
SirRilic You mean Tory from the Deoxys movie? ...oh man I HOPE we get Lillie angst like he got, since his was caused by being in a stampede as a kid and we all know how terrible Lillie's backstory is.
Some pokemons don't like to stay in their pokeballs, and they can freely leave it if they want, just like Misty's Psyduck. So, if team rocket steals a pokeball and trades it with someone, all the pokemons in the trade are free to escape their new owner if they realize something is wrong here. Pikachu does that all the time, escapes from team rocket. He would do the same if team rocked happened to have Pikachu's original lightning pokeball and traded it to Giovanni.
Sinera And then Giovanni would send it right back because after all this time he's never said he wanted it in the first place. Though it would probably mysteriously learn an entirely new move that way like Yanma did when they tried to send it to the boss (hey he's a gym leader for a reason)
pokemons.....why? just. WHY?
The Yanma had AncientPower when it was traded to him. Since he never let it out of the ball, it didn't evolve until it got back to Jessie
PhoenyxRysing It also isn't a trade evolution though.
I know. Since it learns AncientPower through leveling up, it would have been right about to evolve, but it couldn't do that while in the Pokeball. Remember when Koga's Venonat did the same thing?
The name paradox: alternate timelines.
The percent changes every time for he shiny paradox. It starts off as 1/8192, but then after the first patch is done (assuming it is not a shiny) there becomes a new percentage,1/8191
thats not how probability works.
after checking 8191 patches of grass you would know that the last one has 1/1(=100%) chance to have a shiny.
thats wrong.
each tile has a 1/8192 chance every time. thats why you can get a shiny after 20 trys or after 1 million.
or get 50 shinys in a row.
veeery unlikely, but possible.
@@mrnoneofurbusiness7942 shiny Pokémon aren’t caused by probability in this situation. If we know there’s a shiny then everything that’s not a shiny increases the chances of finding it
The Arceus movie actually creates a bootstrap paradox.
Arthur Newton How?
Arthur Newton dialga sends ash and the rest back in time to prevent arceus from attacking, but if they fixed the problem then they wouldnt need ro go back in time in the first place
The movie ends with essentially Dialga being in its own flow of time basically just think about it as the way Xenoverse Works Dialga keeps things in a separate time of its own so nothing that happens in the past or the future will affect something that has been changed by the time bubble
notification squad where you at
ScorpionClaws86 Gaming here
ScorpionClaws86 Gaming here
ScorpionClaws86 Gaming Here
ScorpionClaws86 Gaming WE HETE
YUUUP!
Schrodingers Meowth:
If an NPC trades you a Meowth and you don’t know if it’s shiny or not then the Meowth is both shiny and not shiny simultaneously.
This video proofs that paradox Pokémon existed in 2017
Top 5 ways to marry TheAuraGuardian
1 say I'm pregnent.
Zz Blast lol
Zz Blast so cringy
Say that you have a shiny lucario
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO but shiny lucario sucks ass
Bro, your editing has gotten so much better. Good job on it! :)
Thanks Dan!
thats true
Pokemon only say their names in the anime...the original concept is they just make roars, growls and sounds like normal animals
I still after 7 years think that its funny that the thing about pokemon names isnt even a paradox and is just explained in a way that makes it sort of mildly confusing
the first one isn't a paradox at all... deciding on the names of pokemon... first point of them only saying their name, but some don't.. its obvious that if they say a recognizable "word", than its named after said word.. but if they simply growl/roar, than they are given a name of the scientist's choosing. the second point about different languages: different translations in the show doesnt equal differnet names in the pokemon world.... it works the same as it does in normal language translations if you actually listened to your greninja example, the english greninja says "greninja", whereas the japanese greninja (gekkouga) it says "gekkouga".. this is like an american saying "human" and a japanese person saying "ningen" which is the japanese word for human. same word, just different language. same rules apply to "greninja" and "gekkouga"... same word, different language.
the "replacing pokeball parts" one.. it'd function like any computer would. since (its assumed that) pokemon are stored as data within the pokeball, when you replace the memory stick within said pokeball, you must transfer the pokemon to the new memory stick.. with that in mind, it doesn't matter which is the original ball, as the pokemon itself has changed locations. (its like replacing parts on a normal computer, if you want to keep the data on your computer you must transfer it to the replacement harddrive when you go to replace the old harddrive..) and since we are looking at it like a computer, we identify that each part of the pokeball/computer is new, not that it is a new computer (unless we buy the whole computer at once)...
i understand its a take on the ship of theseus paradox... but the answer is actually the same as the original. when replacing parts, you don't get to a point where the whole item is "new" rather its "upgraded" or "repaired".. with each part being new, not the whole thing. (in short: the original entity would have new parts, and the old parts would create a new entity... )
the third one: neither are correct as the "settlement" is simply to prove whether the teacher's teaching is good or bad and has no payment involved. if the student loses, then he proves the teacher's methods of training aren't working for the student and thus does not have to pay. if the student wins, the teacher proves his methods work and thus the student must pay. no paradox there.
adding money into it would have to be an equal bet on both sides, in which, if the student wins the teacher would have to pay the student the money for the bet but the student would have to pay money for the original agreement (assuming the bet doesn't cancel out the original agreement). if the teacher wins, the student would have to pay the teacher for the bet, and then later on for the first win (if the student is still with the teacher, and the bet didn't cancel the original agreement)
the shiny paradox... well.. +RonnyTime already explained that one with.. so to quote him:
"The shiny paradox is just basic statistics.
Yes, individually the chances of finding a shiny in a patch of grass are very low, but overall the chance of all the patches having a non shiny is:
(8191/8192)^8192 = 0.368 or 37%
This means that the actual probability of at least one patch of grass having a shiny is 63%, so it is actually quite likely to happen."
as for the stolen pokemon one.... i see several answers for this. most noticeably is that the pokemon belongs to whoever it decides is his trainer... but also, im not sure you can actually trade a pokemon that is not your own... further more, since the professors can give you a pokemon without a trading machine, im pretty sure the trading machine isn't the only way to transfer ownership.. i think its just for legality purposes (like, it does paperwork for or registering it for gym battles and stuff like that.)
however, if it is as it is described, and the machine is the only way of transfer... the pokemon would still belong to the original trainer and the whole ordeal would be a crime of theft... its just like if my dog is stolen and sold/traded to someone else, when its discovered the dog would be returned to me and whatever was given for it in return by the one who received it from the trade/purchase would get their original stuff back (money or traded item)...
so really... none of these are actually paradoxes... just thinking puzzles. ┐(┘-└)┌
darcraven01 no that's not how probability works if ones chance is 1/8197 then all of them will
Well, no 1 I can understand. Its like having a japanese cat being transferred to america and ask what noise they make. It's portrayed differently between shows to apply our naming to the sound they make. So lets say we name a cow betsie, but the japanese name her bettusu instead, we're still talking about the same thing, we just pronounce it differently. The shows just portray how certain regions hear the sound. You actually have to look at the games to fully understand this one as pikachu is one of the very few pokemon who's cry in text was ALWAYS pika-pika or chuuuu. But for some pokemon, you see stuff like fwufwufuw, rwaaaa and gruuu. Later on this started to be region specific text more and more, but the key thing is that the text would represent the sound they produce and the name would be on how they would name that sound.
Even if you look at it as the same computer when you replace old parts, its technically still a newer part of YOUR pc. The question isnt if its still YOUR pc, just upgraded over time, but if all the old parts gathered(same software that just got outdated) and rebuild into the pc you bought is authentically yours. And actually, you do get to a part where the entire thing is new. Even though you kept upgrading it over and over again, from bottom to top, back to front, the ENTIRE thing consists of entirely different information and atoms than the first. If you'd regather the old parts and make the old boat, you'd have the original boat. But because its property mixed with concepts, where is the line where something original gets replaced and upgraded to be an entirely new whole object? That is the paradox. We dont tend to think about it, because we like to stick with concepts in society rather than objects. But just because we like it doesnt mean we're right.
The third paradox hinges on pokemon battle laws and the agreement they made. The thing is, they are both right.
One fital detail tho: this is assumed that the amount paid to the teacher is the amount won in battle, since there has been no number given to money being won and money needed to be paid
The paradox here is that to the student, even though its a settlement, its still a lesson untill he wins his first battle. But the teacher sees them seperate. Both are right. Under law, if the student loses, he still has to pay, but under contract he doesnt need to pay. The contract is the paradox. This sometimes still happens in real life in very specific cases and can end up in massive court fights as even though its against the law, you still signed a contract and depending on the law it can take a long time of debating and arguing with both sides and the supreme court of the country to figure out which one will be more important. Its basically the question "if violence is wrong, but the only way to stop an attacker is by attacking him, is it still wrong?" It is a grey area and grey area's are where a lot of paradoxes originate.
The shiny one never was about the eventual outcome. There was already 100% chance that there was a shiny in the entire patch of grass as said in the start. The question is that if 8192 people went into 8192 patches gives them each a near 100% chance of encountering a non-shiny. But there is garantueed to be a shiny, then how can be deducted where the shiny is roughly located to get your best pick? They never talked about the chances of 1 patch being a shiny one, we KNOW one is, for certain, 100% shiny patch. But each patch has practically 100% chance of having a non-shiny. Its a quantum state(yay, quantum mechanics) and it wont go away untill you start checking.
In case you, reading this, still dont get it. Remember schrödingers cat? Imagine 10000 boxes and only 1 cat alive, but you dont know where it is. This leaves each single box with a 99.99% chance of holding a dead cat. To put it more "adult", this is as certain as using both a condom and the pill(double dutch) preventing pregnancy during intercourse. Sure, it still happens, but its so freakishly rare that its practically impossible to get pregnant while having a double dutch. But its garantueed that 1 cat is alive. This means that one box has a 100% chance of having a living cat where 9999 boxes have a 100% chance of having a dead cat. These paradoxes are paradoxes because they are intertwined with special relativity. Since its just the probability, the key part of the entire thing of why its a paradox is because no one checks. If you look at that grasspatch in general, none of the patches holds a shiny, but the entire patch is garantueed to have a shiny. Meaning the entirety of the patch is in a quantum state where it both has and hasnt got a shiny(because its garantueed to have one).
Yeah, statistics and mathematics is weird when there are 100% garantuees. They still work, but its because we check. If we stop checking for given garantuees, we'll never find them.
Now that tricky one is out of the way. The final one.
It is a paradox since tradingsystems dont check who the person is who sends it, just what is registered with the pokeball(as the information stays the same after the transfer), it never registers who secondary or following owners are. And considering the tradingsystem traded the pokemon was a legal one(even though the pokemon was gotten in an illegal way), the one leaving with the pokemon is the rightful owner to the traded one because both sides were willingly trading pokemon with each other. This problem, like the previous one, is based on a lottery, but has nothing to do with special relativity, so dont worry. Now lets imagine if someone steals 10$ to buy a lottery ticket and win the jackpot. Does that mean the jackpot is yours because he bought the ticket with it? Or does it belong to him since he bought the ticket, even though it was stolen money?
This one is more similar to the third one actually, since its a grey area. Because in reality, he owes you what was stolen, not what he aquired with what was stolen. If what was stolen has been unretrievably lost, we hit a grey area which again requires a debate with tons of arguments and a jury. Some will end up giving the original owner the retrieved pokemon, others will end up requiring the thief to either refund and otherwise compensating with interest(which in case of the jackpot means the original owner always at least gets 10$ back because what thief is idiotic enough to trade back the jackpot?), but since pokemon are more specific and the question is just about the pokemon in question, I'd say that legally it belongs to the thief due to the trading machine regulations, but that doesnt mean the thief isnt required to get the pokemon back that he stole.
You can slap an answer on them after looking for details, but that doesnt mean the answers are correct. I agree the first one does have an answer(its based on a parallel universe where there is a parallel earth, but what they call water is a substance of XyZ instead of H2O). But instead of calling different substances the same name its a bit easier since they call the same thing different names based on what they say, which already happens in the real world, sort off. But the others dont have a definite answer, just a conclusion in a grey area based on laws and regulations. Since everything luckily takes place in 1 pokemon world where the laws are pretty much universal no matter what, its a bit easier to conclude what they most likely end up with:
1- just lingual difference in hearing what an animal says, I hear miauw, others hear meow or nyan. Its just a silly thing to call animals to what they say anyway. Imagine calling different dog species bark, woof, arf or roof.
2- surprisingly, we dont have to look very far for this one, as in generation 4 we get a palpark and recatch pokemon that already have been caught in gen 3, meaning that the old pokeball isnt usable on the pokemon after its replaced(in contrary to pc's).
3- Since I already talked about the legality, as soon as the battle ended, the contract would be declared void since the battle regulations are a stronger regulation than a freelance teacher and a student with a vocal contract. Meaning whoever loses has to pay the winner of the battle and are not bound to the student-teacher contract.
4- another easy one, the shiny was garantueed to be in there. The rest doesnt matter much. Probablistically seen, its in a quantum state because one is garantueed, meaning there is no way to tell if its there(which sounds weird, but trust me, the entire reason why shinies work in the game is because they arent pre-programmed to appear in wild encounters).
5- The recieved pokemon belongs to the thief, legally seen. I think I already explained why.
Nice essays, think you'll get an A+
If you dont like discussions, stay away from them. Simple as that. Discussions get people thinking and theorizing in the first place. Your favorite fanbased theories? Yeah, tons and tons of discussions for each single one of them. Either join them or stay out of them, dont critique the discussion itself.
Predated O Dang, I was just joking. I do the same thing on here, but the UA-cam comments section isn't the most traditional place for them. So take a joke.
thanks for making my day Alex.
Glad I could help :)
(fucking died because you noticed me)
oshuwott m8?
Oshawott TV what website is dat!?!!
Who are you?
For the shiny paradox, you also have to include that the patches before not containing a shiny. So that means that the odds of getting a shiny increases. At least that’s what I think
The shrödingers cat? BAH!! I acknowledge only the aura guardians shinx lol
With the last one, Check the OT
The OT will be the person who you just traded with.........
Really I though it stays
hang on let me do some tests
According to the wiki the OT stays
Magic is right, OT is Original Trainer
Your editing skills have improved drastically! Your channel is good and always makes me laugh.
nice ship of theseus twist! i loved your interoretation
1. Pokemon are named after what they say, because there's never been a undiscovered Pokemon who hasn't been named. The only exception are Pokemon who don't speak their names, such as legendaries.
As for languages, real world regions are separated in their own dimensions as explained in US/UM.
2. Pokeballs are merely the outer shell, its the core inside them that contains the Pokemon, so it would be the same Pokeball. If the old parts were put together, the ball would not function, so it would not be the same.
3. The teacher is right, as it was made explicitly clear he would pay after winning the first battle. The student didn't opt out of the agreement, if he did, then he wouldn't pay.
4. Game mechanic wise, this is correct, none of the patches of grass are guaranteed to have the shiny. It's the percentage that counts, not the number of grass.
5. Using game mechanics, the Pokemon would belong to the original trainer. Because even if the thief stole it, it would still count as a traded Pokemon, because the Pokemon belonged to the original trainer first.
MY TRAINER PARADOX ANSWER: When the thief takes the pokeball it is still the trainer's pokemon so when it is traded away the trainer is technically trading it away, it is just being handled by another person. So it is now in possession of the person who did the trade. Also, in the game you can only trade but in the anime you can give it away, that person gave Brock a vulpix but did not get anything in return. I'll give you this question as well, my favourite pokemon is umbreon, what is yours?
Dont really have one. But my favorite Eeveeloution is leafeon. A good pokemon in my opinion is Zoroark. Its just such a great design. I didn't actually notice it in the shadows until recently
Seadra Limestone gliscor
Law's NE0N X - D | G4MING & LETS PL4Y what if trainer A trade or give a pokemon to trainer B, then trainer B trade the same one to trainer C, if we use your logic, trainer A will receive the pokemon trainer C sent, but that doesn't happen, so the theif would actually have it
Law's NE0N X - D | G4MING & LETS PL4Y u stupid
Mine is Espeon, fight me!
i was early, better think of a joke
ash will catch every pokemon in the world
Suniti Bose or you saying that
And you said to think of a joke not typing one
Suniti Bose HAHAHA this is the best joke ever!
Suniti Bose iii
and the elite 4
The pokéball paradox is how Wally's Gallade is now in an ultra ball.
you really found a way to fit the ship of theseus into pokemon, nice
Huh, I just noticed the moving background, that's amazing! Good job Aura!
Very nice, well thought out video. Keep up the good work my man.
Thank you!
In the trainer parodox the money goes to whoever won the battle because their pokemon will beat the s**t out of the other person
@@courtneyevie BOTH.
My favourite paradox is the Ship of Theseus paradox (Pokeball Repair), my last favourite is the Lottery Paradox (Shiny Grass Patches). IRL, I mean. This also gave me some food for thought, and I love that. I think this is gonna be the video that makes me sub to you. =)
I love this moving background! :)
I really like those little movements and animations you gave to the Pokémon clip art.
2 and three aren’t Pokémon paradoxes, just a regular Paradox with a Pokémon spin
For the last one; The traded pokemon would belong to the second thief. It was still traded, just with an extra step [ of being stolen ] added in the process.
So.... I guess you could call the Shiny Paradox "Schrodinger's Shinx", huh?
here's a paradox, pokemon are oftentimes named after animals from our world the question is, how can Zangoose be a cat ferret if they don't know what a cat or ferret is.
or how can Charmander be a charred salamander if they don't know what salamanders are and as far as we know he and salazzal and salandit are the only salamanders
Randy Johnson if you watch the show or know basic science you would know that they would need my amoema,bacteria, and cingle celled organisms to survive
Travis West that doesn't answer the naming conventions and you misspelled single
Zangoose isnt a cat ferret but whatever
My prediction is that Pokémon is in da future because humans decided that animals would go extinct if they didn't act soon so they decided to create a way to capture animals and use them to battle and the animals evolved to new forms to adapt and then they were able to evolve and wow this just sounds stupid now but maybe Pokémon will be our future
If it was then that would be so cool
Well, as we know, for example, the Pokemon Pidgey is a bird in our world. But they are also called birds in the Pokemon world. I think, as an example, "bird" is simply what they categorize pidgey and spearow and the rest as.Like we do.
the first paradox is the reason i'd rather have pokemon using their in-game cries rather than saying their name
Crows have accents