116Views35Replies

# Paradoxes

just a place to discuss paradoxes (an immpossible statement) like The statement to the left is false the statement to the left is true

116Views35Replies

just a place to discuss paradoxes (an immpossible statement) like The statement to the left is false the statement to the left is true

The next sentence is a lie. I'm lying.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

Go back in time and kill yourself? Amy winehouse going back and killing jabba the hutt? Instructables destroyed and me building knex guns now?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

Here's an

apparentparadox:You have an

infiniteline, which is a closed-loop, like a circle.It's all scrunched up in zigzags \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ but

reallyclose together, more like |||||||||||||||||. Within the middle of the loop/circle there is an areawhich can be calculated- the peaks and troughs average out.Infinite border - finite area?

L

L

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

Are you taking the limit of zero angle for each zig-zag? If so, I think you've got an array of pseudo-delta-functions with finite peak height, and therefore infinitesimal (read zero) area, but covering the plane. How close to the center do the peaks go? The enclosed area should just be the space strictly interior to the peaks. If I'm wrong, could you post the derivation? Feel free to use LaTeX and a GIF or PDF, since it's much easier and clearer than ASCII math :-/

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

I used the word

apparentbecause it's not a paradox. Figuring out what's wrong with it is the point, and I think you can see that.L

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

Yes, indeed! I wasn't arguing :-) I don't think you're wrong -- a fractal, after all, is a boundary of infinite length which encloses or covers a finite area. I am interested in the computational details, though -- how do you represent the zig-zags, and how are you doing the integration?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

I don't - if it's infinite the angles must be zero, so obviating the thickness of any lines drawn or represented the enclosed area must be zero. Or without the zig-zagging infinite. It looks better on paper, but I didn't seek it out and post an image because these things work better for confusion without something to look at. It took me a little while to work it out (but I like thinking). L

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

But you know as well as I do that limits don't always come out intuitively. I'm interested in how you represent the zig-zag in the finite angle limit (i.e., an N-pointed star). Let's use the inner vertices of the star as the baseline. Give that a radius

r, so a circumference of 2(pi)r.For N points, each point has a base of 2(pi)r/N. In the small-angle limit (appropriate for large N), we can treat the sides as having a fixed, constant length

l, equal to the height, and hence an areaa= l×2(pi)r/N / 2. The area of the whole star is thereforeA = N×a + 2(pi)r

= N×2(pi)rl/N / 2 + 2(pi)r

= 2(pi)rl/2 + 2(pi)r

So, A = (2+l)(pi)r. Notice that the N cancelled out before we ever took the actual limit, so this result

isthe answer for your limiting case.Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

You'd have N as infinity, rather than l - so you get a result. Hmmm, there must be some wonky-maths in here somewhere... L

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

That's correct. By construction I kept the height of the zig-zigs finite (think of one of those kitschy '60's era wall clocks), but made them narrower and narrower (limit as N -> infinity). The

wonky mathis precisely in taking that limit :-)Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

Ah thanks. L

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

Look up a ring oscillator on wikipedia.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

Okay, E-R-IC. Was that a sufficiently interesting discussion of a paradox for you?

Next up ought to be quantum entanglement and spooky action at a distance, but it's already been done.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

. ROFL

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

No, that's just nonsense. The naïve paradox (with correct punctuation and words) is

The statement to the right is false. The statement to the left is true.Statements like that are just semantic mumbo jumbo. Far more interesting are the true logical (mathematical) paradoxes, such as Gödel's Indecidability Theorem.

Modern physics (both quantum mechanics and relativity) are replete with apparent paradoxes (such as entanglement) which arise from our attempts to interpret results in a classical way.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

well then how about this: nothing is imposible

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

Again with the semantic mumb jumbo (to borrow Kelsey's phrase). Or shall we start up again with oxymorons? Okay, my turn. Thoughtful guy! Polite evolution debater! Um...intelligent knexer! Oo, that last one might have been too much...>ducks barrage of non-lethal plastic toys

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

Creation science! Oo, that last one might have been too much...>ducks barrage of non-lethal bible verses

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

It's not the verses you have to worry about. It's the sharp corners on all of the badly mistranslated books.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

And the stones :D

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

I think Mick and Keith are old enough that you can out-run them if you really have to.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

. That answer is not very satisfactory.

_{link is for you young punks that didn't get the Mick & Keith reference}Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

Ummm..you proposed paradoxes, self-contradictory statements or groups of statements, or situations which are logically or physically inconsistent. "Nothing is impossible" is simply a falsehood, at least in this universe.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

"With God, all things are possible" I have that on a bookmark somewhere..

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

"With Ignorance, all things seem possible"Just a related quote; of absolutely no hold on your particular comment's content.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

Due to your explanation i will not flame. What you say is also perfectly true, alot of people through ignorance think things are possible. Me and my faith, is not an example.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

Flamebait.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

Nope : )

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

Yeah, bookmarks are always a great source for Truth. But how, exactly, do you write the citation?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

But what if I have a pair of entangled bookmarks? Every time I click on the one, the other changes!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

Unfortunately, they're only entangled as long as you

don'tclick on them. Once you do, you project them out into orthogonal (or parallel, depending on the specifics of the entanglement) eigenstates, and after that they evolve independently according to the Schrödinger equation._{You do know you were asking for it, don't you?}Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

if nothing is impossible, that means everything is possible, meaning that it is possible to make something that is impossible, but, that would be impossible because everything is possible, except making something impossible even though it's possible because everything is not not possible.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

Thank you!

Those stupid "paradoxes" have always annoyed me!

_{>Waits for the inevitable God-rock one<}Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

Strangely, it keeps saying Kelsey commented on this recently, but no news posts. That's happened several times over the past few hours.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

Um... no means yes, and yes means no.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer