| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MysteriAce
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:00 pm Post subject: OT: The mathematics of movement |
 |
|
Since we're on the 'post non-poker-related' gibberish today, I have one
that has always been my favorite.
The argument is that movement is an illusion, since it is mathematically
impossible for us to move. Therefore, one could argue that this state of
existance is purely an illusion, which opens the door to all sorts of
possibilities...
Anyhow, here's the proof:
"In order for one to move, you must transition from one point to another
point. We'll call the first point 'Point A' and the second point 'Point
B'. You agree that, in order for movement to occur, we must move from
'Point A' to 'Point B'?"
<here is where you nod>
"So, using the principle of endpoints and midpoints that exist in any
line, one could argue that in order to move from 'Point A' to 'Point B',
you must first cross 'Mid-point C'. That's simple geometry; it is
impossible to cross from one point on a line to another without crossing a
middle point"
<this is where you nod some more and pretend to be interested as you get
sleepy>
"So now we are faced with the issue of moving from 'Point A' to 'Mid-Point
C' before moving to 'Point B', on the other side of the line. Well, to
move further with this process, it is apparent that in order to move from
'Point A' to 'Mid-Point C', we have to cross a mid-point between this two
new points, which we will call 'Mid-Point D'."
"Of course, you cannot move from 'Point A' to 'Mid-Point D' without
crossing 'Mid-Point E', and so forth. Using the mathematical principle
behind halving numbers, you will find that there are an infinite number of
'Mid-Points' between any two given points, since the distance that you are
halving approaches - but never reaches - zero."
"Therefore, movement is impossible, and strictly an illusion, since you
cannot move from one point to another without having to cross an infinite
number of midpoints in between."
So how did I type this?
~ MysteriAce
"I'm a lot like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way"
----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cpitt398
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:00 pm Post subject: Re: OT: The mathematics of movement |
|
|
I award you no points and everyone in the room is now dumber having heard that.
On Apr 20 2005 1:31 PM, MysteriAce wrote:
| Quote: | On Apr 20 2005 1:26 PM, asdf1234 wrote:
So does this mean if someone were to be preordained to hit me in the
nose it wouldn't hurt because their fist would never get to my nose?
"There is no spoon"
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:18:00 -0700, "MysteriAce"
wrote:
On Apr 20 2005 1:03 PM, OrangeSFO wrote:
you can demonstrate that there are infinite mid-points to cross, but
you haven't shown why it's not possible to traverse them.
You cannot traverse them because, before you can move to any midpoint, you
must cross the one before it. And there are an infinite number of
midpoints. Therefore, for every midpoint you attempt to traverse, you
must first traverse the one before that.
For example, to move 1 foot, you must first move 1/2 foot, but before that
move 1/4 foot, 1/8 foot, 1/16th, 1/32nd, 1/64th....
This reminds of the game you can play while driving or walking...pick a
point in the distance and visualize the space between you and that
point as you approach it. As the space closes, time almost seems to
slow down as you continuously re-calculate the distance. The last few
yards can seem like an eternity if you concentrate--to the point where
you wonder if it's possible that you'll never get there.
~ MysteriAce
"I'm a lot like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way"
~ MysteriAce
"I'm a lot like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way"
|
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mr.mister
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:00 pm Post subject: Re: OT: The mathematics of movement |
|
|
i got a speeding ticket..want to go to court with me?
[email protected]> wrote:
| Quote: | Since we're on the 'post non-poker-related' gibberish today, I have one
that has always been my favorite.
The argument is that movement is an illusion, since it is mathematically
impossible for us to move. Therefore, one could argue that this state of
existance is purely an illusion, which opens the door to all sorts of
possibilities...
Anyhow, here's the proof:
"In order for one to move, you must transition from one point to another
point. We'll call the first point 'Point A' and the second point 'Point
B'. You agree that, in order for movement to occur, we must move from
'Point A' to 'Point B'?"
here is where you nod
"So, using the principle of endpoints and midpoints that exist in any
line, one could argue that in order to move from 'Point A' to 'Point B',
you must first cross 'Mid-point C'. That's simple geometry; it is
impossible to cross from one point on a line to another without crossing a
middle point"
this is where you nod some more and pretend to be interested as you get
sleepy
"So now we are faced with the issue of moving from 'Point A' to 'Mid-Point
C' before moving to 'Point B', on the other side of the line. Well, to
move further with this process, it is apparent that in order to move from
'Point A' to 'Mid-Point C', we have to cross a mid-point between this two
new points, which we will call 'Mid-Point D'."
"Of course, you cannot move from 'Point A' to 'Mid-Point D' without
crossing 'Mid-Point E', and so forth. Using the mathematical principle
behind halving numbers, you will find that there are an infinite number of
'Mid-Points' between any two given points, since the distance that you are
halving approaches - but never reaches - zero."
"Therefore, movement is impossible, and strictly an illusion, since you
cannot move from one point to another without having to cross an infinite
number of midpoints in between."
So how did I type this?
~ MysteriAce
"I'm a lot like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way"
----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MysteriAce
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:01 pm Post subject: Re: OT: The mathematics of movement |
|
|
On Apr 20 2005 1:26 PM, asdf1234 wrote:
| Quote: | So does this mean if someone were to be preordained to hit me in the
nose it wouldn't hurt because their fist would never get to my nose?
|
"There is no spoon"
| Quote: |
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:18:00 -0700, "MysteriAce"
[email protected]> wrote:
On Apr 20 2005 1:03 PM, OrangeSFO wrote:
you can demonstrate that there are infinite mid-points to cross, but
you haven't shown why it's not possible to traverse them.
You cannot traverse them because, before you can move to any midpoint, you
must cross the one before it. And there are an infinite number of
midpoints. Therefore, for every midpoint you attempt to traverse, you
must first traverse the one before that.
For example, to move 1 foot, you must first move 1/2 foot, but before that
move 1/4 foot, 1/8 foot, 1/16th, 1/32nd, 1/64th....
This reminds of the game you can play while driving or walking...pick a
point in the distance and visualize the space between you and that
point as you approach it. As the space closes, time almost seems to
slow down as you continuously re-calculate the distance. The last few
yards can seem like an eternity if you concentrate--to the point where
you wonder if it's possible that you'll never get there.
~ MysteriAce
"I'm a lot like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way"
|
~ MysteriAce
"I'm a lot like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way"
----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MysteriAce
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:01 pm Post subject: Re: OT: The mathematics of movement |
|
|
On Apr 20 2005 1:03 PM, OrangeSFO wrote:
| Quote: | you can demonstrate that there are infinite mid-points to cross, but
you haven't shown why it's not possible to traverse them.
|
You cannot traverse them because, before you can move to any midpoint, you
must cross the one before it. And there are an infinite number of
midpoints. Therefore, for every midpoint you attempt to traverse, you
must first traverse the one before that.
For example, to move 1 foot, you must first move 1/2 foot, but before that
move 1/4 foot, 1/8 foot, 1/16th, 1/32nd, 1/64th....
| Quote: | This reminds of the game you can play while driving or walking...pick a
point in the distance and visualize the space between you and that
point as you approach it. As the space closes, time almost seems to
slow down as you continuously re-calculate the distance. The last few
yards can seem like an eternity if you concentrate--to the point where
you wonder if it's possible that you'll never get there.
|
~ MysteriAce
"I'm a lot like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way"
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:02 pm Post subject: Re: OT: The mathematics of movement |
|
|
So does this mean if someone were to be preordained to hit me in the
nose it wouldn't hurt because their fist would never get to my nose?
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:18:00 -0700, "MysteriAce"
<[email protected]> wrote:
| Quote: | On Apr 20 2005 1:03 PM, OrangeSFO wrote:
you can demonstrate that there are infinite mid-points to cross, but
you haven't shown why it's not possible to traverse them.
You cannot traverse them because, before you can move to any midpoint, you
must cross the one before it. And there are an infinite number of
midpoints. Therefore, for every midpoint you attempt to traverse, you
must first traverse the one before that.
For example, to move 1 foot, you must first move 1/2 foot, but before that
move 1/4 foot, 1/8 foot, 1/16th, 1/32nd, 1/64th....
This reminds of the game you can play while driving or walking...pick a
point in the distance and visualize the space between you and that
point as you approach it. As the space closes, time almost seems to
slow down as you continuously re-calculate the distance. The last few
yards can seem like an eternity if you concentrate--to the point where
you wonder if it's possible that you'll never get there.
~ MysteriAce
"I'm a lot like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way"
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam L
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:02 pm Post subject: Re: The mathematics of movement |
|
|
ehh, Xeno's Paradox sort of says what you're saying, but is much more
interesting.
The very idea of a point implies that an infinite number of them exist
within any given space. Since a point does not have any volume, distance,
area, etc. you are able to move through it instantly. If you use actual
measurements of length it kind of falls apart. Lets say you want to move a
meter, and you can move at the speed of 1 meter a second. In order to do
that, you have to move past the 500 cm mark which takes you .5 seconds. In
order to do that you have to move past the 250 cm mark which takes .25
seconds. To get to that point, you have to move past the 125 cm mark which
takes .125 seconds. etc. As the distances get smaller, the time to reach
those distance decreases at the same rate.
Xeno's paradox involves 2 runners, runner A and runner B. Runner A is
faster than Runner B, but at the moment runner B is in front of him. Lets
say that Runner B is at point X. By the time Runner A reaches point X,
Runner B reaches point Y. By the time Runner A reaches point Y, runner B is
at point Z. It appears that Runner A can never surpass Runner B because by
the time Runner A reaches any point that Runner B was at, Runner B would
have left. I believe that mathematicians were only able to show why this
was false after the invention of calculus.
Sam
"MysteriAce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Quote: | Since we're on the 'post non-poker-related' gibberish today, I have one
that has always been my favorite.
The argument is that movement is an illusion, since it is mathematically
impossible for us to move. Therefore, one could argue that this state of
existance is purely an illusion, which opens the door to all sorts of
possibilities...
Anyhow, here's the proof:
"In order for one to move, you must transition from one point to another
point. We'll call the first point 'Point A' and the second point 'Point
B'. You agree that, in order for movement to occur, we must move from
'Point A' to 'Point B'?"
here is where you nod
"So, using the principle of endpoints and midpoints that exist in any
line, one could argue that in order to move from 'Point A' to 'Point B',
you must first cross 'Mid-point C'. That's simple geometry; it is
impossible to cross from one point on a line to another without crossing a
middle point"
this is where you nod some more and pretend to be interested as you get
sleepy
"So now we are faced with the issue of moving from 'Point A' to 'Mid-Point
C' before moving to 'Point B', on the other side of the line. Well, to
move further with this process, it is apparent that in order to move from
'Point A' to 'Mid-Point C', we have to cross a mid-point between this two
new points, which we will call 'Mid-Point D'."
"Of course, you cannot move from 'Point A' to 'Mid-Point D' without
crossing 'Mid-Point E', and so forth. Using the mathematical principle
behind halving numbers, you will find that there are an infinite number of
'Mid-Points' between any two given points, since the distance that you are
halving approaches - but never reaches - zero."
"Therefore, movement is impossible, and strictly an illusion, since you
cannot move from one point to another without having to cross an infinite
number of midpoints in between."
So how did I type this?
~ MysteriAce
"I'm a lot like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way"
----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MysteriAce
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:00 pm Post subject: Re: The mathematics of movement |
|
|
On Apr 20 2005 2:37 PM, andreas kinell wrote:
| Quote: | well, you typed far to much.
Obviously, there is an infinite amount of mid-points,
and obviously, you can cross several midpoints in one step.
so the whole argument falls.
|
Prove me wrong MATHEMATICALLY, not with your empirical evidence and
conjecture.
:)
| Quote: | andreas
"MysteriAce" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
Since we're on the 'post non-poker-related' gibberish today, I have one
that has always been my favorite.
The argument is that movement is an illusion, since it is mathematically
impossible for us to move. Therefore, one could argue that this state of
existance is purely an illusion, which opens the door to all sorts of
possibilities...
Anyhow, here's the proof:
"In order for one to move, you must transition from one point to another
point. We'll call the first point 'Point A' and the second point 'Point
B'. You agree that, in order for movement to occur, we must move from
'Point A' to 'Point B'?"
here is where you nod
"So, using the principle of endpoints and midpoints that exist in any
line, one could argue that in order to move from 'Point A' to 'Point B',
you must first cross 'Mid-point C'. That's simple geometry; it is
impossible to cross from one point on a line to another without crossing a
middle point"
this is where you nod some more and pretend to be interested as you get
sleepy
"So now we are faced with the issue of moving from 'Point A' to 'Mid-Point
C' before moving to 'Point B', on the other side of the line. Well, to
move further with this process, it is apparent that in order to move from
'Point A' to 'Mid-Point C', we have to cross a mid-point between this two
new points, which we will call 'Mid-Point D'."
"Of course, you cannot move from 'Point A' to 'Mid-Point D' without
crossing 'Mid-Point E', and so forth. Using the mathematical principle
behind halving numbers, you will find that there are an infinite number of
'Mid-Points' between any two given points, since the distance that you are
halving approaches - but never reaches - zero."
"Therefore, movement is impossible, and strictly an illusion, since you
cannot move from one point to another without having to cross an infinite
number of midpoints in between."
So how did I type this?
~ MysteriAce
"I'm a lot like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way"
|
~ MysteriAce
"I'm a lot like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way"
----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Dworkin
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:00 pm Post subject: Re: OT: The mathematics of movement |
|
|
The trick of Xeno's paradox is that it assumes that space can be divided
infinitely ie 1 meter, 1/2 meter, 1/4 meter etc...
However, suppose that this is only possible in theory but in reality there is a
smallest possible distance, ie a 'distance atom' (actually, it is most likely a
smallest building block of the fabric of space-time, but I don't do physics, so
we will stick with 'distance atom'  ) this distance is passed in an instant or
'time atom' and we do not actually cross its 'middle' as it does not have one.
Problem solved.
Ron D.
On Apr 20 2005 12:47 PM, MysteriAce wrote:
| Quote: | Since we're on the 'post non-poker-related' gibberish today, I have one
that has always been my favorite.
The argument is that movement is an illusion, since it is mathematically
impossible for us to move. Therefore, one could argue that this state of
existance is purely an illusion, which opens the door to all sorts of
possibilities...
Anyhow, here's the proof:
"In order for one to move, you must transition from one point to another
point. We'll call the first point 'Point A' and the second point 'Point
B'. You agree that, in order for movement to occur, we must move from
'Point A' to 'Point B'?"
"So, using the principle of endpoints and midpoints that exist in any
line, one could argue that in order to move from 'Point A' to 'Point B',
you must first cross 'Mid-point C'. That's simple geometry; it is
impossible to cross from one point on a line to another without crossing a
middle point"
sleepy
"So now we are faced with the issue of moving from 'Point A' to 'Mid-Point
C' before moving to 'Point B', on the other side of the line. Well, to
move further with this process, it is apparent that in order to move from
'Point A' to 'Mid-Point C', we have to cross a mid-point between this two
new points, which we will call 'Mid-Point D'."
"Of course, you cannot move from 'Point A' to 'Mid-Point D' without
crossing 'Mid-Point E', and so forth. Using the mathematical principle
behind halving numbers, you will find that there are an infinite number of
'Mid-Points' between any two given points, since the distance that you are
halving approaches - but never reaches - zero."
"Therefore, movement is impossible, and strictly an illusion, since you
cannot move from one point to another without having to cross an infinite
number of midpoints in between."
So how did I type this?
~ MysteriAce
"I'm a lot like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way"
|
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andreas kinell
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:00 pm Post subject: Re: The mathematics of movement |
|
|
well, you typed far to much.
Obviously, there is an infinite amount of mid-points,
and obviously, you can cross several midpoints in one step.
so the whole argument falls.
andreas
"MysteriAce" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
| Quote: | Since we're on the 'post non-poker-related' gibberish today, I have one
that has always been my favorite.
The argument is that movement is an illusion, since it is mathematically
impossible for us to move. Therefore, one could argue that this state of
existance is purely an illusion, which opens the door to all sorts of
possibilities...
Anyhow, here's the proof:
"In order for one to move, you must transition from one point to another
point. We'll call the first point 'Point A' and the second point 'Point
B'. You agree that, in order for movement to occur, we must move from
'Point A' to 'Point B'?"
here is where you nod
"So, using the principle of endpoints and midpoints that exist in any
line, one could argue that in order to move from 'Point A' to 'Point B',
you must first cross 'Mid-point C'. That's simple geometry; it is
impossible to cross from one point on a line to another without crossing a
middle point"
this is where you nod some more and pretend to be interested as you get
sleepy
"So now we are faced with the issue of moving from 'Point A' to 'Mid-Point
C' before moving to 'Point B', on the other side of the line. Well, to
move further with this process, it is apparent that in order to move from
'Point A' to 'Mid-Point C', we have to cross a mid-point between this two
new points, which we will call 'Mid-Point D'."
"Of course, you cannot move from 'Point A' to 'Mid-Point D' without
crossing 'Mid-Point E', and so forth. Using the mathematical principle
behind halving numbers, you will find that there are an infinite number of
'Mid-Points' between any two given points, since the distance that you are
halving approaches - but never reaches - zero."
"Therefore, movement is impossible, and strictly an illusion, since you
cannot move from one point to another without having to cross an infinite
number of midpoints in between."
So how did I type this?
~ MysteriAce
"I'm a lot like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way"
----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:01 pm Post subject: Re: OT: The mathematics of movement |
|
|
Well are you going to give me the no points now or do I have to wait
until you are blinded down?
On Wed, 20 Apr 05 20:52:33 GMT, cpitt398 <[email protected]> wrote:
| Quote: | I award you no points and everyone in the room is now dumber having heard that.
On Apr 20 2005 1:31 PM, MysteriAce wrote:
On Apr 20 2005 1:26 PM, asdf1234 wrote:
So does this mean if someone were to be preordained to hit me in the
nose it wouldn't hurt because their fist would never get to my nose?
"There is no spoon"
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:18:00 -0700, "MysteriAce"
wrote:
On Apr 20 2005 1:03 PM, OrangeSFO wrote:
you can demonstrate that there are infinite mid-points to cross, but
you haven't shown why it's not possible to traverse them.
You cannot traverse them because, before you can move to any midpoint, you
must cross the one before it. And there are an infinite number of
midpoints. Therefore, for every midpoint you attempt to traverse, you
must first traverse the one before that.
For example, to move 1 foot, you must first move 1/2 foot, but before that
move 1/4 foot, 1/8 foot, 1/16th, 1/32nd, 1/64th....
This reminds of the game you can play while driving or walking...pick a
point in the distance and visualize the space between you and that
point as you approach it. As the space closes, time almost seems to
slow down as you continuously re-calculate the distance. The last few
yards can seem like an eternity if you concentrate--to the point where
you wonder if it's possible that you'll never get there.
~ MysteriAce
"I'm a lot like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way"
~ MysteriAce
"I'm a lot like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way"
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen Jacobs
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:00 pm Post subject: Re: The mathematics of movement |
|
|
"MysteriAce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Quote: | On Apr 20 2005 2:37 PM, andreas kinell wrote:
well, you typed far to much.
Obviously, there is an infinite amount of mid-points,
and obviously, you can cross several midpoints in one step.
so the whole argument falls.
Prove me wrong MATHEMATICALLY, not with your empirical evidence and
conjecture.
:)
|
I could do it, but it's doubtful that you'd understand what I said.
Developing the right concepts from everyday ideas would take several pages.
But here's some more hand waving with a tiny bit more rigor: We may as well
say that to go from point A to point B, you first have to get to the
half-way point. It takes half the nominal time of the trip to get from A to
the halfway point, and it takes half the nominal time of the trip to get
from the halfway point to B. No problem. But now you tell me that I have
to get to the quarter-way point before I can get to the halfway point. It
takes me a quarter of the nominal time for the whole trip to get to the
quarter-way point, and another quarter to get to the halfway point, total,
half the nominal total. Again, no problem. As the division continues to
get finer, the total time doesn't change at any stage, so in the limit
there's still no problem.
Here's one that ought to drive you batty. God decides to play a card game.
He has an infinite number of cards, with the integers on them. Every second
(count the seconds as 'n'), He puts the cards numbered 2n and 2n+1 in a hat,
but removes the card numbered n. At the end of infinite time, even though
one card a second has been going into the hat, the hat is empty---for any
number you choose, that card is not in the hat because I can tell you when
it was removed from the hat.
Georg Cantor, who worked out most of the mathematics of infinities, spent a
large part of his life in insane asylums. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andreas kinell
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:00 pm Post subject: Re: The mathematics of movement |
|
|
let d be the distance between A and B.
let t be the time needed to go from A to B.
For every A,B, let C be the middle-point, such that d(A,C) = d(A,B) =
d(A,B)/2.
d/t = const. => It time to go from A to C is t/2.
It follows: time to cross distance d/n is t/n.
Let n strive to infinity. Thus, to cross an infinite small distance, I need
an infinite
small time step. Since the time function is steadily increasing (let's say
linear),
it concludes, that a distance is covered in every time step.
QED
andreas
"MysteriAce" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
| Quote: | On Apr 20 2005 2:37 PM, andreas kinell wrote:
well, you typed far to much.
Obviously, there is an infinite amount of mid-points,
and obviously, you can cross several midpoints in one step.
so the whole argument falls.
Prove me wrong MATHEMATICALLY, not with your empirical evidence and
conjecture.
:)
andreas
"MysteriAce" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
Since we're on the 'post non-poker-related' gibberish today, I have one
that has always been my favorite.
The argument is that movement is an illusion, since it is
mathematically
impossible for us to move. Therefore, one could argue that this state
of
existance is purely an illusion, which opens the door to all sorts of
possibilities...
Anyhow, here's the proof:
"In order for one to move, you must transition from one point to
another
point. We'll call the first point 'Point A' and the second point
'Point
B'. You agree that, in order for movement to occur, we must move from
'Point A' to 'Point B'?"
here is where you nod
"So, using the principle of endpoints and midpoints that exist in any
line, one could argue that in order to move from 'Point A' to 'Point
B',
you must first cross 'Mid-point C'. That's simple geometry; it is
impossible to cross from one point on a line to another without
crossing a
middle point"
this is where you nod some more and pretend to be interested as you
get
sleepy
"So now we are faced with the issue of moving from 'Point A' to
'Mid-Point
C' before moving to 'Point B', on the other side of the line. Well, to
move further with this process, it is apparent that in order to move
from
'Point A' to 'Mid-Point C', we have to cross a mid-point between this
two
new points, which we will call 'Mid-Point D'."
"Of course, you cannot move from 'Point A' to 'Mid-Point D' without
crossing 'Mid-Point E', and so forth. Using the mathematical principle
behind halving numbers, you will find that there are an infinite number
of
'Mid-Points' between any two given points, since the distance that you
are
halving approaches - but never reaches - zero."
"Therefore, movement is impossible, and strictly an illusion, since you
cannot move from one point to another without having to cross an
infinite
number of midpoints in between."
So how did I type this?
~ MysteriAce
"I'm a lot like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way"
~ MysteriAce
"I'm a lot like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way"
----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam L
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:00 am Post subject: Re: The mathematics of movement |
|
|
You could write a function representing the number of cards in the hat and
it would be c(n) = n because at every step you are adding 2 and removing 1.
The key to this is that you never reach the "end of infinity". Yes, you can
name any card and give the time it was removed, but I can tell you that at
that time 2 more cards were added. For any arbitarily large number there is
that many cards in the hat. If you look at a graph with the number of cards
in the hat, it would be a line with slope of 1. From this it is easy to see
that the limit of the function as n approches infinity is infinity.
Sam |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andreas kinell
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:00 am Post subject: Re: The mathematics of movement |
|
|
"Stephen Jacobs" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
| Quote: |
"MysteriAce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Apr 20 2005 2:37 PM, andreas kinell wrote:
well, you typed far to much.
Obviously, there is an infinite amount of mid-points,
and obviously, you can cross several midpoints in one step.
so the whole argument falls.
Prove me wrong MATHEMATICALLY, not with your empirical evidence and
conjecture.
:)
I could do it, but it's doubtful that you'd understand what I said.
Developing the right concepts from everyday ideas would take several
pages.
|
or it takes like 8 lines.
| Quote: | But here's some more hand waving with a tiny bit more rigor: We may as
well say that to go from point A to point B, you first have to get to the
half-way point. It takes half the nominal time of the trip to get from A
to the halfway point, and it takes half the nominal time of the trip to
get from the halfway point to B. No problem. But now you tell me that I
have to get to the quarter-way point before I can get to the halfway
point. It takes me a quarter of the nominal time for the whole trip to
get to the quarter-way point, and another quarter to get to the halfway
point, total, half the nominal total. Again, no problem. As the division
continues to get finer, the total time doesn't change at any stage, so in
the limit there's still no problem.
|
the real point here is, that time increases steadily.
| Quote: | Here's one that ought to drive you batty. God decides to play a card
game. He has an infinite number of cards, with the integers on them.
Every second (count the seconds as 'n'), He puts the cards numbered 2n and
2n+1 in a hat, but removes the card numbered n. At the end of infinite
time, even though one card a second has been going into the hat, the hat
is empty---for any number you choose, that card is not in the hat because
I can tell you when it was removed from the hat.
|
any number I choose, you can tell me when it was removed but I can tell
you two cards that still are in the hat.
Also:
for n = 0, there is one card in the hat: the "1"
for n = 1, there are two cards in the hat: the "2" and the "3"
for 0<n<=infinity, there is one more card in the hat than there was at
second n-1.
=> the hat is never empty.
andreas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in