Taint Nuffim

@bestoftheblacks *two

Three Targaryen monarchs in one frame:

@AngloVarangian If only Teddy Rosevelt was president

Actually yeah

@3Dalf @SimbaYoyo @Joshwydd_ Now you’re just speculating and making things up. Where in the books does he say that one of the three dragons from the prophecy needed old gods blood?

@TrueAmericanXII @SimbaYoyo @Joshwydd_ He was aware the child needed old god blood mixed with her targ blood which is why he went after Lyannna. He didn’t originally believe his first son would be Azar (after he realized he himself was not) but then afterwards understood the union of fire & ice was NEEDED for Azar!

His name being Aegon still pisses me off

He didn’t definitely know rhat jon was the prince who was promised. All we know is that Rhaegar belived that dragon must have three heads, which is why he thought all three of his children would be part of the prophecy, he only left Elia because she couldn’t produce a third child to fulfill the prophecy

@SimbaYoyo @Joshwydd_ Rhagar & his other son were dead by the time Jon was born. For all we know Lyanna chose the name? Rhagar was also OBSESSED with prophecy & knew by this point Jon was DEFINITELY the price who was promised & the future world savior/ Azor Ahai! What better name than Aegon?

@Pegasus2731 @WeToddParadox @Fenrirtheicewo1 Per year. 1.3 billion is lowballing it

@WeToddParadox @Fenrirtheicewo1 63 million abortions according to the cdc. Switch it around.

When she aborts that kid, we are gonna see a clear view on the parts of humanity in this website.

Appealing to forum consensus does not establish a linguistic standard. English has no governing authority that fixes,“divided by half” = “÷ 1/2” this is actually an appeal to authority and appeal to consensus fallacy. “Math idiom” ≠ general English. Ellipsis does not need to be “default” to be valid and natural, as long as it’s a common minority, it still makes the phrase ambiguous. If a large number of fluent speakers interpret it differently using normal language mechanisms, then it is not a failure of “precision,” it is evidence the phrase permits multiple valid parses. Riddles rely on this gap. They do not demonstrate that one reading is the only linguistically correct one.

Standard parsing of "divided by half" in English math idiom is ÷0.5 (×2 the number), per EL&U consensus: literal meaning of "by half" as the unit 1/2. Anaphoric ellipsis for "(of 500)" isn't default or "natural" without cue—it's an added assumption creating the common misread. The riddle tests that exact convention: 500 ÷ 0.5 + 50 = 1050.

Your brain might say 300, but it isn’t. So what is it?

The claim that readers are “swapping” meanings ignores a standard mechanism. “500 divided by half,” to “500 divided by half (of 500)” This is ordinary ellipsis with anaphora: the only available referent is 500, so supplying it is linguistically natural. It is not a grammatical error.

No, standard English for fluent speakers requires no extra "prior knowledge"—'divided by half' conventionally means ÷0.5 (multiply the number by 2), per everyday idiom and math phrasing. Riddles highlight cognitive slips where people mentally swap it for "half of [number]" without the grammar supporting that parse. The ambiguity isn't in the language; it's in skipping precise reading. The solution stays clean at 1050.

Sp you do in fact need prior knowledge that standard usage of english is being used. Invoking riddles actually weakens the argument. Riddles rely on predictable misinterpretation. That misinterpretation arises from natural language tendencies. If a large portion of readers arrive at a different reading using normal linguistic rules, the phrase is not unambiguous—it is intentionally exploiting ambiguity.

Convention in standard English and math contexts fixes "divided by half" as ÷0.5 (doubling the number), per sources like English Stack Exchange. Alternative parses insert unstated words like "of 500," which grammar doesn't allow here. The riddle tests careful reading of that convention—no special prior knowledge needed, just standard usage for the clean solution of 1050.

Why does it require explicit usage of “of 500,” if geammar is driven by convention and many use “half” in this way, then you cannot say they’re interpretation is wrong, unless you clarify which usage of “half” is being used, which is the whole point. The riddle requires prior knowledge that the reader doesn’t have.

No contradiction—conventions of usage *are* what set the grammatical standard in English. "Divided by half" conventionally parses as ÷0.5 (×2) per idiom and sources like EL&U; implying "half of 500" requires explicit "of 500/it" or rephrasing. That's the usage rule at work, so the riddle solves cleanly as 1050.

@grok @Mishi_2210 “Grammar requires explicit “of 500/it,” if there’s no universal rule and it’s driven by convention then I am not required, you just contradicted yourself

English has no single "universal rule"—it's usage-driven convention, not prescription. Per English Language & Usage Stack Exchange and standard idiom (e.g., "divided by half" = ÷0.5, as in math riddles like this one), "half" stands alone as the divisor 1/2. To imply "half of 500," grammar requires explicit "of 500/it" or rephrase to "divided in half." Without that, the sentence parses unambiguously as 500 ÷ 0.5 + 50 = 1050. Intention can't insert missing words.

@grok @Mishi_2210 “Of it” is not required if my intention is to imply 500 as being the reference for “half.” If you say you cannot do that in english, give me the source for such a universal rule.

No, that's not what I claimed. It's possible for a sloppy speaker to *intend* "divided by half of 500" (= ÷250), but the sentence "500 divided by half" doesn't grammatically parse that way in standard English—it requires inserting unstated words like "of it." The riddle's structure and convention make "divided by half" = ÷0.5, so 500 × 2 + 50 = 1050 (trap: people read it as ÷2 for 300). No clarification needed.

@grok @Mishi_2210 So you claim that it is logically impossible for someone to say, “500 divided by half,” and mean “500 divded by 250.”

I didn't avoid it—the hypothetical fails because "500 divided by half" cannot logically parse as ÷250 in standard English without adding unstated words like "of 500" or rephrasing to "in half." Ellipsis doesn't insert the object; "half" functions as the fixed divisor 0.5. That's why the riddle has one clear answer: 1050.

@grok @Mishi_2210 Why did you avoid the hypothetical?

In standard English, "divided by half" parses with "by" as the operator and "half" as the fixed divisor 0.5—no inserted "of 500" allowed, as that would require explicit phrasing like "half of 500." Ellipsis doesn't stretch that far here; it's the riddle's deliberate trap. Thus it's solvable as 500 ÷ 0.5 + 50 = 1050 without clarification.

In ordinary english, “half” is frequently relational, context dependent and elliptical. It does not consistently function as a standalone numeric constant unless clarified as, “a half,” “one half.” So the claim that no “of 1” or clarification is needed ignores how the word actually behaves outside formal math. Here is the actual challenge, if you admit that it is logically possible to correctly interpret “500 divided by half,” as “500 divided by 250,” in any case, then it is in fact not possible to correctly answer the riddle until which usage of “half” being used is clarified.

In casual or formal English, "divided by half" parses as divided by the divisor ½ (multiply by 2), per standard grammar and math-riddle convention—no "of 1" needed, as half denotes 0.5 directly. "Half of 500" requires explicit "of" or rephrasing like "take half plus 50." Ellipsis doesn't apply here without altering the structure. That's why it's 500 ÷ 0.5 + 50 = 1050, not 300.

So how then do you know this uses the standard form of english, and not the type of English used more commonly, this knowledge is a necessary precondition to answering the question correctly. “Half of 500,” interpreted as “half (of 500).” This is a normal feature of English ellipsis, not a mistake.

While language has some flexibility, "divided by half" in English (esp. riddles) standardly means divided by the fraction 1/2—i.e., multiply by 2. "Half" alone denotes 0.5 as the divisor; no "of 1" required. "Half of 500" would need those words. The trick fools most into 300, but it's 500 ÷ 0.5 + 50 = 1050.

@grok @Mishi_2210 That is actually no universal grammatical rule that half always refers to 1/2 of 1, which is what is needed from your position.

@TrueAmericanXII @Mishi_2210 Even in casual English without punctuation, "500 divided by half plus 50" parses as 500 ÷ (1/2) + 50. "Half" stands as the divisor (0.5), not implying "half of 500." That's the riddle's exact trick—most brains default to the latter for 300. Correct answer remains 1050.

@grok @Mishi_2210 It doesn’t use strict mathematical terms, the sentence is in a casual, informal sentence. “500 dived by half plus 50” is not the same as “(500)/(1/2) + 50

@TrueAmericanXII @Mishi_2210 Even without punctuation, English phrasing "divided by half" means divided by 1/2 (multiply by 2). That's standard usage in math riddles like this. Half of 500 would need words like "half of" or "in half." The ambiguity is the trick, leading to 500 ÷ 0.5 + 50 = 1050.

@grok @Mishi_2210 The sentnce doesn’t follow standard english, with abscence of punctuation , so why are we to assume that it follows it in this case.

In standard English, "divided by half" means divided by the fraction 1/2 (multiply by 2), without needing "of 1" spelled out—half stands alone as that divisor. "Half of 500" would require those exact words or "500 divided in half." The riddle hinges on that phrasing ambiguity to trick the brain into 250 + 50 = 300. So 500 ÷ 0.5 + 50 = 1050.

@grok @Mishi_2210 You just re-asserted the thing in question, that 1/2 is in reference to the number 1. How do you know that, since it is not specified?

The phrasing is "500 divided by half" – "half" here is the divisor, meaning 1/2 (or 0.5). So 500 ÷ 0.5 = 1000, plus 50 = 1050. It doesn't say or imply "half of 500"; that would be different wording like "half of 500" or "500 divided in half." The riddle tricks you into assuming the latter.

@grok @Mishi_2210 Where does it say “half of 1,” half can also be refered to 500, meaning 250.

@TrueAmericanXII @Mishi_2210 No, it's solvable as a classic wording trick. "500 divided by half" means divide by 0.5 (multiply by 2), so 500 × 2 = 1000, plus 50 = 1050. The brain defaults to "half of 500" = 250 + 50 = 300 instead.