But isn't this whole argument based on the premise that paradoxes are impossible? If you simply allow for the possibility that you can change the past but you really, really shouldn't (which is exactly what Dumbledore, the walking encyclopedia on everything magical, says), the whole question becomes moot.

Of course it means Dumbledore and McGonagall are irresponsible to the extreme by giving potentially very dangerous device to a school kid for trivial reasons, but it's not like the existence of common sense is given either in HP universe.

 

The irony of this thread is that Taure originally created it to discuss how many supposed plot-holes, as declared by HP fans, were actually plot-holes. Earlier on, Taure would come here to debunk purported plot-holes and engender actual, fruitful discussion. Now, it's become more of a place to moan and whine.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.



My only plothole/gripe is about Gamp's Laws and how Molly Weasley to create sauces out of thin air, yet Hermione reiterates that magic cannot create food. Yes, DLPers have previously rebutted that Mrs Weasley may simply be summoning sauces, rather than creating it, but what do we define as "food"? Is Serpensortia contravening Gamp's Law? What about Aguamenti? Where do we draw the line between food and non-food?

Can Taure or somebody Taure-esque please step in and answer my query?

 

For Gamp's Law and its five exceptions, the trick is not that you can't but that you shouldn't.

Conjured food has the unfortunate side-effect that it has no nutritive value. Eating it gains you nothing and may even cause damage as your body attempts to process it. Transform a rock into a pig, cook the pig, eat it- same problem.

At least in my head-canon, life feeds on life, and shortcuts don't make the cut. Even replicating food only distributes the nutritive value, but at least it has some. Thankfully our bodies don't use all that we consume, so turning 1 donut into twenty isn't such a bad idea.

omigod. Krispy Kreme is run by wizards!

 

I don't think either Serpentsortia or Aguamenti are permanent. No one is actually seen drinking water summoned by aguamenti as far as I remember. That water might be useful for putting out fires like at the end of HBP but drinking it would be the same as eating conjured food. I personally like to think that matter can't be permanently created by magic and all the stuff like food and water come under that rule.

 

Harry actually tries to give Dumbledore water to drink by using Aguamenti at the end of HBP, so it's probably drinkable. The only thing that keeps him from doing so is the magic of the Cave, which only allowed for the consumption of water from the lake, which had Inferi in it.

But water isn't really food, so it shouldn't break any of Gamp's Laws.

 

What about this theory for Gamp's laws: you transfigure only aspects of objects when you transfigure them. An incorrectly transfigured matchstick-into-needle will look like a needle, but still feel like wood. The reason 'you can't transfigure food' is that people dont/aren't able to understand the Nutrition aspect, so transfigured food can taste good (maybe Molly's gravy?) but not fill you up.
Other aspects that can't be understood could be responsible for the other 4 exceptions.
That or Gamp's laws don't exist and Hermione was doing what we call 'lies to children' to Ron.

 

The way she's defined Transfiguration defeats that idea. So long as you've actually done it properly, you can turn as many rocks into pigs as you want, and they'll all be actual food, but for the magical traces that distinguish them from real pigs. The standard explanation for the problems this raises seems to be that Tansfiguration is quite difficult.

But both Gamp's Law and Word of God have ruled out the conjuration of food.

 

when your rock-turned-pig gets a knife in it, the magical matrices (or any other magico-babble) fails, and you get left with a rock. Maybe damaging a transfigured object beyond a scratch (or whatever) un-transfigures it.

 

What? You think damage undoes the Transfiguration?

 

Until someone disproves my theory, I will accept it as a possible explanation for Gamp's law and a reason why we haven't seen Dumbledore (who taught transfiguration) use it during fights with Riddle.
In other words, yes unless someone gives a quote saying otherwise, afrojack.

 

And that is the option I support.

JK said that it is impossible to create food from nothing. However, she said nothing about transfiguring it from other things. We can safely assume that Hermione was not skilled enough in Transfiguration to turn a rock into a pig.

That makes no sense. Like, at all.

 

I think I may win the prize of nitpickiest nitpick with this one.

Student/Teacher timetables.

What do we know?

Approximate layout of a day:

9am start.
9am - 10:30am class.
10:30am - 10:50am break.
10:50am - 12:20pm class.
12:20pm - 1pm lunch.
1pm - 2:20pm class.
2:20pm - 3:40pm class.
4pm end of classes.

This seems likely to me given the known facts:
1) Classes start at 9am.
2) There are two morning classes with a breka in between, followed by lunch.
3) After lunch classes resume at 1pm.
4) We don't kow much about the afternoon.

So each student/teacher has a maximum of 20 teaching periods in their week.

Now for some maths!

Lets assume an average of x hours per subject.
Lets assume that the 1-5th years are split into two groups per year for their classes while 6-7th year classes are shared by all houses.

Each teacher has 20 periods of time they can devote to the students. Split among those groups.

So we have : x periods * (5 * 2 + 2 * 1)
or 12x periods spent teaching.

This means the subjects must average a maximum of 1.666... periods per week.

So that means, if we average the number of hours across all seven years they must total 1.666... or less.

What's the upshot of all this?
From what we know of the OWL and NEWT timetables Harry had all of the core subjects had more hours scheduled than the teachers could possibly attend.

Harry had 3 periods of Potions on his OWL timetable (and at least 2 hours of Transfiguration).
Harry also had at least 2 hours of Potions on his NEWT timetable and 3 hours of Transfiguration.

That means Snape must have managed to slip in 22 periods teaching OWL/NEWT students alone. If the first and second years only have 1 period of potions he's already at 26 periods when he can only actually manage 20.

McGonagall is in a similar situation, apparently managing to squeeze in 18 periods of OWL/NEWT students while somehow also making time to fit in at least another 4 periods of 1/2nd years for 22 periods of work over a 20 period week.

Put simply, if the students aren't spending 70% of their week twiddling their thumbs the teachers cannot possibly have enough time to teach them.

Unless Time-turners. :fire

 

Or they have three class periods in the afternoon, which would make this make sense:

That day:
DADA with Snape
break
Hermione to Arithmancy
lunch
Free Period
break
Potions x2
dinner

5 periods a day, 25 periods a week.

Primary subject teachers see each year 3 periods per week, lab-based classes being a single and double. They still have 4 periods without students to handle administration.

EDIT: Hang on- if primary subjects see two shifts of two houses for each of the first 5 years, they need 30 units up to OWL and 6 units for NEWT, so the week needs at least 36 periods to accommodate a full Potions (for instance) schedule with only one Professor.

7 periods a day (3 in AM, 4 after lunch)... or Time Turners.

Maybe giving Hermione a Turner really wasn't that big of a deal.

 

She had to use one to be able to take all the classes she needed to as well, to be in all of them.

We hear of other students getting O.W.L.s in every subject. Perhaps giving one to Hermione wasn't so unheard of, or without precedent.

She might just have been the only student from Harry's year with any need for one, or the qualifications to use them.

EDIT: Also, we generally hear the term "food and drink." Gamp's Law prevents the conjuration of food, but what about "drink?"

Does this mean that wizards like Albus can legitimately conjure things like tea, alcohol, and so forth?

 

I remember Olivander conjuring wine from a wand during the triwizard starting thing -- photos and wand testing. (the section where we learnt Fleur's wand had veela hair from her grandmother). Conjuring drinks is probably possible. But that cases a huge mess with wand ownership and stuff like that.

 

When Dumbledore summoned the mead at Privet Drive in HBP, he claimed that it was Rosmerta's best. This suggests that he prefers summoning to creating. Perhaps the real thing tastes better?

 

Why would it create a mess with wand ownership? Just because you own it, doesn't mean you can't let someone else use it.

 

That was my theory, but I assumed other users of this forum (and perhaps the wands themselves) wouldn't see it that way.

 

More fuel to the fire: Aguamenti is a Charm, specifically mentioned by Ron as assigned by Flitwick in book 6.

Since it isn't a conjuration, my guess is that it collects water from nearby and shoots it out from the tip of the wand. Using the same principle, Molly could be using Gravy-aguamenti to dispense sauce without bothering with carrying the pot.

Dumbledore might also be drawing his mead or whatever from a flask in one of his many hidden pockets. All it takes is a little presentation and an understanding of the charm being used.