I know that. I like my phrasing.

Speed is measured in meters per second. distance over time. wow. that was totally difficult.

there is no discussion here: you like your phrasing, i like mine, that's all there is. i know exactly what you've been saying the entire time, and your entire argument rests on preference, as does mine. we can't take this any further, nor do i want to.

Do you honestly not see it? you're getting worked up over simple semantics: let it go.

There is only not a discussion here if you simply refuse to discuss anything you believe/prefer. Preference are based on facts and reasoning even if the one holding them is not aware of them. Thus preferences can be discussed as much as one wants. I've been kind enough to give my reasoning behind why I think my pharasing does a slightly better job. You thus far have not bothered to do that. Your reluctance to discuss further means either you're lazy, sorry about that, or you're so set in your ways you fear what might come of changing them. Oh and I'm not worked up at all. If I was worked up I'd be knocking on your door with a bat and not typing, bad temper and all.

It's always good to know that Nuklear Power forums's intellectuals consider to knock before solving an argument with a bat.

As for phrasing, I couldn't care less if you did it all in spanish, with egyptian runes for numerical digits.

do you honestly think that i don't know where preference comes from? i know there are facts and reasoning behind it, but quite frankly, since this isn't a thread about whether or not you prefer to use calculus or if you prefer to use half a page to describe the same thing that dx/dt does, i don't feel like i really have to go that indepth about why i prefer using a tiny amount of space to describe the so-called paradoxical motion. If you want to make a thread entitled:

"THE MERITS OF DX/DT VERSUS LONG REAMS OF TEXT SAYING THE SAME THING"

then by all means, do so. The paradox, i.e. the topic of this thread, is done with. Its gone, we killed it.

I find it funny, however, that when i DO refute your statements of logic leading to preference you don't take up the slack and counter refute. In light of that, i'm done (again) with this thread. I have interest in flogging dead horses.

Amen.

I forget what movie it was in, but this paradox was used as a threat, from someone stupid against someone smart. The stupid guy summed it up as "So, if I shoot you, this bullet will never reach you, is that right? Still think you're smarter than me?" Cracked me up.

Back to your regularly scheduled paradox.

There is no holy rule that says we can't take a thread whose orignal topic has been exhausted and change it a bit. It's how most normal threads stay alive. It also keeps the boards somewhat cleaner by cutting down on the number of half used threads. If there were still another discussion going on I'd say we should move on but as this is the only one going I see no need. We are discussing solving paradoxs in general with a concentration on the disproof of the one Zeno came up with. That is a perfectly good topic to segway into to keep a thread going and not have to start a new one. I am, however, now of topic.

Because you didn't. You repeatedly stated we said the same thing. Or said that your math proved the same thing so any difference was irrelevent. That's not a logical refutation. Those are statments of opinion and inherently undebatable unless you give some reasoning behind them. Which you didn't do. Aside from saying they say the same thing so who cares.

If you knew that then why did you say this:
Because clearly while opinions and preferences can't be used to persuade and debate they are often the subject of debates. They can be the subject of debates because their foundation lies in fact in one way or another. Your two statments are self contridictory. (That by the way is a refutation.)

So it's NOT just me that SithDarth latches on to and tries to beat into the ground! I feel so much better about myself.

perhaps the shoddiest refutation ever. Your argument only makes sense if preference has an absolute base in fact, which it most certainly doesn't. Your position is ENTIRELY based on your preference; you think that your explanation was clearer and cut right to the heart of the issue.

Awesome.

My explanation does the EXACT SAME THING, only you didn't like the fact that i used math. Am i going to debate the semantics of this again and again? are you seriously not catching on to my reasoning, which i've let slip out in little nice phrases for you to look at? i think every single post i've made has refered to your explanation as long, as compared with my concise answer:

I like math because it takes very little room to show something in this case; you like text because you feel its not "abstract" like math is.

Wow, i just argued the entire discussion in 2 lines.

oh, but i did.

Yes it is. I set out to prove theorem X, i find 2 ways to do it, both say the same thing about the theorem in question (i.e. that its true).

happy?

I'm sorry if it offends you put I don't like being misunderstood or misunderstanding someone else. So I always make the effort to try and clear up any percieved misunderstandings.

Doesn't offend me in the least: it just wastes my time when the issue is so pedantic and trivial. If we were talking about some complex geopolitical issue, fine, but this just doesn't fit that category.