0
Incongruent is something that is not alike, usually a math or geometry term, such as if one square was 2 inches in length and height and so on, and another is 3, then they would be incongruent. If there was two squares that where 2 inches in length and height and so on, that would be congruent.
What else can I help you with?
What actors and actresses appeared in Incongruities - 1996?
The cast of Incongruities - 1996 includes: Adryenn Ashley as Alice
What are incongruities?
Incongruent message occurs when your verbal communication doesn't match your non-verbal communication.
What is Aristotle's theory of comedy?
Aristotle's theory of comedy, as outlined in his "Poetics," suggests that comedy is a form of imitation that focuses on the absurdities and incongruities of human behavior, often resulting in laughter. He believed that comedy typically features characters of lower social status and portrays them in a light-hearted manner, ultimately aiming to provoke amusement and catharsis in the audience.
What part of the brain controls humor?
Humor is processed in multiple areas of the brain, including the frontal lobe, amygdala, and temporal lobes. These regions work together to recognize incongruities, generate a humorous response, and experience the pleasure associated with laughter.
Describe the deferents equants and epicycles Ptolemy used to maintain Aristotle's model while still explaining the incongruities?
In Ptolemy's geocentric model, the deferent was a large circle centered on the Earth that carried the center of a smaller circle called the epicycle, where the planets moved. The equant was a point near the center of the deferent where the planet's motion appeared uniform. By incorporating these features, Ptolemy could account for the irregularities in the motion of the planets as observed from Earth, while still preserving the idea of circular orbits as proposed by Aristotle.
What movie and television projects has Adryenn Ashley been in?
Adryenn Ashley has: Played Sarah in "Money Trail" in 1995. Played Vicki in "Road Stories" in 1996. Played Alice in "Incongruities" in 1996. Played Basketball Fan in "Flubber" in 1997. Played Ann Tikwittee in "Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego" in 1998. Played Documentarian in "Making Metamorphosis" in 2001. Played Allana in "Fly on the Wall" in 2005. Performed in "Anarchy Ahead: The Harvesting of American Families" in 2005. Played Herself - Host in "The F Word" in 2013.
How are logic and humor working together?
I would say that they are working very well together. After all, depending on how you see it though, logic is humor and humor is logic. People have been relating these two for centuries, so how can they not be working together? The only thing is, if you have to much of the humor, your laughter will become a distraction and the logic part will be nearly erased, be careful.
What are 'The Four Basics of the American Art of a Humorous Story' according to Mark Twain?
Ok I am doing correspondence schooling for this year and this was one of my questions for a test this is what my book had to say about "The Four Basics to the American Art of the humorous story." It can be found in Mark Twain's "How To Tell A Story." 1) "To string incongruities and absurdities together in a wandering and sometimes purposless way, and seem innocently unaware that they are absurdities" >Twain also states here that that is the basis of American Art< 2)"The slurring of the point" 3) "The dropping of a studied remark apparently without knowing it, as if one were thinking aloud" 4) "The Pause" >Mark Twain also emphazises that this is the most important of the four< *The reason he chose to mention the pause at the end is because he felt that people best remember the last thing they read... and since this is the most important he chose to put it last. I hope this could be of help to you
Why is it important to clarify work requirements?
Clarifying work requirements occupy congregation in the company of team members at the same time as folks to converse insights on contemporary concert and what is necessitated in their roles despite the fact that allotment of profession objective. Many natives start a fresh occupation thrilled regarding the prediction of causative to a mounting business. In some period in view of the fact that, on the other hand, they've revealed the occupation is not what they predictable. Furthermore it means, occupation doesn't equivalent the arrangement explanation for which they were take into serviced or more responsibility than they expect. If this is the holder with occupation, inquire about supervision from administrator about the responsibility. By having conversations each individual will be capable to accomplish to better understanding regarding the prospect while recognizing sustain for professional development. Clarifying work requirements assist to outline priorities as well as key chore at the work environment while identifying talents needed to undertake the responsibilities.Also helps to explore professional development along with sustainability options. This stage is important as it is the underpinning of an organization which enables to classify values and involvement of workers while demonstrating clear responsibilities to accomplish goals etc. These enable to ensure good awareness among each other to contribute to overall success of the business in the industry. Study the job description and presentation standards cautiously and then compare how fighting fit the missions and assignments are specified at effort pathway with the contractual obligation and farm duties delineated in the career description. Construct memorandum of most important incongruities. Organize questions for conversation with superintendent. Using the disagreement recognized prior draw round detailed feat duties which require amplification. Plan summits with superintendent and be positive to have adequate time to apportion to the conference to swathe compulsory matters. Performance evaluation is a excellent instance to simplify responsibility at occupation.
How did the pharisees serve god?
The pharisees served god by preserving the oral law and preserving the text which had been written by this time. Also much like the teachers of the doctrine today, they professed themselves as attempting to live in a state of purity. But more importantly they did as the teachers of today---they preserve the truth in foolishness. Which is what was written that they would. In this way they serve. Not believing that only god can teach it, (let no man teach you)they seek to understand that which is written with the vain imaginings of the human mind thinking that through semantics and study of stories and fables and accounts of events could actually decipher the word of god and then explaining the many contradictions and incongruities* that result as misunderstanding of word play and symbolism and as decay of the text and difficulties of translation. Which is why their name is synonymous with hypocrisy today. Because in darkness is their deception. That the plan would unfold only when god releases the truth opening up the old testament with the latter rain. Yet, those who seek truth realize that they all teach differently and all of their teachings require that they ignore or purposefully alter meanings of substantial and essential text. And if you believe any religion today as "true" or "pure", know that purity only comes from our conversion into pure truth which is the definition of one of the names of god. The facet of whom is to be housed in us perfecting us. *a few contradictions created by false wisdom are easily illustrated in the incongruity of verses that do coincide if god write the word in you but i assure you if you can truly see why these maxims in the bible do not contradict but actually reinforce the plan of god, you may want to start seeking communication with the others of God's election who were foretold and even now are starting to be awakened. Here are just a couple of the easier ones: Honor your mother and father. Call no man father. You must hate your father your mother and even your own life to able to come unto me. (if you use semantics to question the use of the word hate as they do, know that it is in the tongue written, detest abhor) Beware of those who admonish don't look at that, don't taste that, don't touch that. They bring false wisdom. Their abnegation does nothing to edify them. The many verses they use to convince you why certain food or drink or handling of certain objects will keep you from god. It is gods will that all men be saved. NO man can break the will of god. Eve is told that no you shall not surely die for god does know that if eat of it you will be as god to know good and evil. When god sees he says behold man is become as one of us to know good and evil and ejects him from the garden so he would not eat of the tree of life also at the center of the garden and live forever in evil. Here's a hint for you of the election god says in the day you eat thereof dying you shall die i(n Hebrew) when admonishing us to avoid the fruit. We are told no one should dictate the gatherings for learning. But that the spirit will move from one to another so that they will rise and speak and then sit back down. Why when Peter just stated that surely Jesus shouldn't be killed he who gave him the very keys and named him the rock said vehemently get behind me satan.
What are some math similes?
The use of "X times more" and "X times less" is a pernicious mathematical idiom; it diverts the meaning of "more" away from the concept of "additional" and the meaning of "times" away from the concept of counting. "3 times more" becomes unsupportably synonymous with "3 times as much" or "3 times the quantity." The X is unconsciously and artificially restricted (the number 1 is seemingly disallowed) and the results are ambiguous (compare "5 times less" and ".8 times less"). It's expeditious, but it's facile.The answer to the question "how much" (how much more? how much less?) is not present in either expression. The only way to reach that answer is to perform the calculation that should have been made at the outset: addition or subtraction.Multiplication is a shorthand method. The underlying concepts are counting and addition. One reason for the "fencepost" form of the off-by-one error (see Wikipedia) is that multiplication consists of X instances but only X-1 additions. (How many spaces are there between the five fingers on one hand?) So "3 times" consists of three instances, NOT three additions (unless the starting point of counting is considered to be zero). The upshot is that "times" and "more" both refer to addition, and "times more" should indicate both a multiplication and a further addition. For mathematical consistency, "3 times more" should indicate "4 times as much."Using "times" to represent division muddles the elements used in THAT shorthand method. The basis for division is the counting of subtractions. Division expresses one quantity (the dividend) in units of another (the divisor). Confusion arises because in teaching division the quotient is stated as how many "times" the reference unit "goes into" the compared quantity. But in "3 times less," the division is performed using 3 as the divisor, not as the quotient. It isn't the reference unit, and it isn't a count of subtractions.This idiom is responsible for misstatements of fact. Writers who rely on it have published claims such as "the price of oil is down 384%" and "a 24 MHz processor is 150% faster than a 16 MHz CPU." A doubling of insurance rates is mistakenly called a "200% increase." In these examples, the authors used the "times" expression and converted X to a percentage.How often have you heard that a man fell eight floors to his death--from the eighth floor, where the ground level is the first floor? Hint: how many staircases do you climb to get to the eighth floor? This mistake happens because the eighth floor is assumed to be "8 times higher." (When the deceased fell from the eighth floor to a THIRD-floor balcony, reporters--and readers--do the math and get it right. No idiom, no mistake.)Although one can find this phraseology in the works of educated and generally astute people, there is no way to determine how many others have recognized its incongruities and opted for more careful language. Besides, most occurrences don't provide empirical data and can't be evaluated. And if you can't evaluate it, why trust it?Idiomatic and literal interpretation of this formulation can't coexist; they contradict one another. Most people aren't aware that it's an idiom and not a straightforward mathematical statement. It's often used in a simple declarative with no context provided. And it's a form of sensationalism, overstating something that could be said less dramatically.In the absence of a concerted (and monumentally difficult) effort to eliminate this mathematical idiom, at a minimum its existence, parameters and effects should be made explicit at the middle- (primary-?) school level.
What is in the Deuteronomic History?
The Book of Deuteronomy is believed to be the Book of Law that was said to have been found in the Temple during the reign of King Josiah - around 622 BCE. Many scholars believe that the book was actually written at this time, but placed in the Temple, to be found, so as to lend antiquity to it. In fact, the Book of Deuteronomy clearly has the same style as the books of the Deuteronomic history, written around the time of Josiah, and used the same relatively modern Hebrew.Deuteronomy was written by Moses to record the message he gave to the Israelites just prior to their entry into the promised land of Canaan. The word itself in Greek deuteronomos means literally 'second law' , since this was the second time the law had been given to the Israelites. This was the 'new generation' who had arisen after their parents refused to enter Canaan due to unbelief and Deuteronomy is like a renewing of the covenant between God and Israel.The end of the book contains an epitaph about the death of Moses which obviously was added later, but there is increasing concensus about the facts supporting Mosaic authorship of this document.The ideas developed in the 19th century by Graf, Wellhausen, Kuenen and others regarding the date of authorship are now thoroughly discredited in terms of any factual base. The idea that writing was not in use in Moses time led the proponents of this theory to propose a later date for its authorship as mentioned above. This has been thoroughly refuted by archaeological discoveries which show that writing was widespread even in the time of Abraham centuries before Moses.Another presuppositional reason for putting Deuteronomy into the time of Josiah was the mistaken idea that religion in Israel and elsewhere took an evolutionary path from primitive polytheism (many gods) through to Henotheism (one chief god among many) to Monotheism (one true God). Thus, according to this mistaken view Israel's religion followed this path and 'could not' (they stated it as plainly as that) have had such a view of God at such an early stage in their history. Mistaken is an appropraite term (as used by scholars in referring to this theory) since archaeology has demonstrated that Monotheism was early, that Israel did not go through the alleged evolution in their religion and that even other nearby cultures descended into polytheism after an earlier Monotheism not the other way around.In addition to this there are a number of clear cultural and historical incongruities which are not explained by Deuteronomy being put into the time of Josiah, which are explained when it is placed in its proper historical and literary time period in Moses' time. Deuteronomy simply does not fit into the time of Josiah and only the entirely subjective criteria (so-called by scholars) of Wellhausen and the other theorists could place it there.Further to all this it is worth noting that outside of the Bible there is not one shred of historical or textual evidence of any kind for the existence of the alleged writer of Deuteronomy in the time of Josiah. There is also not one single shred of textual evidence for the existence of the document refered to as the Deuteronomic history. Needless to say, there is no real evidence inside the Bible either. So, it is a complete fabrication to purport to compare an existent document with a fictional one. It gives a degree of credibility to the Deuteronomic history which it clearly does not deserve. Scholars have long recognized the possibility both today and in the ancient past for authors to use different styles as occasions demand, and so there is no reason whatsoever to even propose the existence of such a history.Archaeological evidence also thoroughly refutes the false assertion regarding differences in Hebrew according to time of writing. Terms previously thought to be later have been found earlier. This is another example of a false theory refuted by facts. The real facts actually point in the opposite direction to the theory.To put it very simply, Moses wrote Deuteronomy around 1400 BC prior to the Israelites entering Canaan, a momentous event in their history which he was not himself to participate in. There was no fraudulent placing in the temple to give an 'appearance of antiquity'. It was actually and factually ancient but had not been followed. Scholars have also determined that authors were able to use different literary styles as the occasion required. We do this even today. Moses was no exception.
