The Warring States of NPF - Zenos' paradox

The Warring States of NPF (http://www.nuklearforums.com/index.php)

- Dead threads (http://www.nuklearforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=91)

- - Zenos' paradox (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=10105)

Did you completely and totally miss all this:

Quote:

Implicit in that is everything I said but no where do you actually come out and state it. That is the power of math and it's weakness. Anyone can do the math with a little training but understanding the logic buried there is another story. So as I said before you introduced time but never said why it had to be there or anything about it not being in the original problem. Basically, you showed how the paradox doesn't work; while I dug in a bit and found the why. You used propieties of numbers, equations, and mathmatical operators basically going outside the problem for the tools that answer the question. My way stays completely with the intrinsic properties of the problem and gives a solid explination of why the math works out and what was missing.

Quote:

It could be that you did notice the lack of time and from there luanched into the math proof with abstract rules. That suggests that you found the logic no quite enough to completely prove the point, which it most certainly does. Math is a powerfull tool for getting answers but the greatest minds have always reasoned their way through a problem. Einstein hated math and because of that we have general relativity, which absurdly enough is unbearably math intensive. Special relativity and relativity in general grew from thought expierments and the math fell into place later. Einstein was simply able to intuitively handle abstract concepts that today we have to simplify into math.

This is all support. Sure you made a trite summary but it lost all my support. For all your conciseness you left out so much of the meat and support.

Quote:

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.

That would be an opinion without any support what so ever and is another example of my centeral point being that being concise usually means cutting out some support or making it harder to dig out.

Edit: and if your time is in such great demand that you can't bear to clearly state your reasoning then you shouldn't even be in a discussion.

I suggest that once again, you go and review my original post with its nice capslock enhanced point about time. I read everything you wrote, and I still think none of it applies, since its obvious that i didn't just randomly apply math. Math was used to support that capslocked statement, not the other way around. Quite frankly, i think you should go back and read my original statement. Using math wasn't a coverup in the slightest, as you seem to think it is, but its used as an explanation as to why the very simple proportionality that distance traveled and time turns out to be so powerful in destroying to so-called paradoxical statement.

In the end...

Quote:

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

is just about as frankly as i can say it, only that i didn't and someone else did.

Oh and one last thing

Quote:

and if your time is in such great demand that you can't bear to clearly state your reasoning then you shouldn't even be in a discussion.

Teachers don't re-answer the same question in class 8 times in a row, so i don't think i'm obliged to do the same.

Quote:

That is one of my major points. Had you actually said that in the beging in addition to doing the math instead of just saying what you did then we wouldn't be discussing this. The burden is on you to show me exactly how and what you are thinking. It's not my job to get inside your head and deduce what you know or don't know. You can look at what you said and see it all in there because you wrote it. I can't because I didn't which is why I favour using more words and less math, which I've said.

Quote:

Teachers don't re-answer the same question in class 8 times in a row, so i don't think i'm obliged to do the same.

The good ones do or they drag the kid aside later and hash it out or the student drags the teacher aside later and asks. No sane person would ask the same question over and over if they understood and were satisified the question. You are not obligated if you don't want but that just means I'll be left wondering what the hell you were talking about.

Quote:

The burden is on you to show me exactly how and what you are thinking. It's not my job to get inside your head and deduce what you know or don't know

actually, the burden is on you to show that my statement isn't the same as yours at all. i don't have to prove anything, since according to me both of our statements say the exact same thing, which is what you don't agree with.

Quote:

You are not obligated if you don't want but that just means I'll be left wondering what the hell you were talking about

means you shouldn't fall asleep in class.

Do you even read half of what I type. I'm not disputing we said basically the same thing. (The fact you seem so hung up on it suggests a need for validation that you got the answer first and therefor must be better and more correct.) I wasn't even talking about our actual argument I was talking about your first statement. At that point it's your burden to fully explain everything your thinking and reasoning in a way anyone can make out. Which has been my entire point.

Quote:

means you shouldn't fall asleep in class.

That's just plain mean. There are legit reasons why a student who is paying attention might not understand. I see it every time I attend a physics lecture. Sure I hate hearing the same thing seven ways because someone can't get their mind around it but it helps them and in the long run everyone else in class.

Quote:

I wasn't even talking about our actual argument

and i clearly was. What's your point?

Quote:

There are legit reasons why a student who is paying attention might not understand.

and there are plenty of reasons why a student who isn't paying attention would try to ask lots of questions to get back to par with the class.

I hope this isn't bursting into an argument and bringing up something inappropriate, but I often wondered something very similar to the lines of this paradox.

Time. 1 second. 1 second is 0.000~ to 1.000~

Then how can a second pass when it has an infinite (never ending) amount of times it has to be before a second is over? How can it even begin, since 0.000~1 isn't a number that can exist (a one at the end of an infinite amount of numbers isn't possible, of course.)

blah. This is quite the thorn in my side, though I suspect the answer is simply 'Time exists. Our idiot decimal system for measuring it creates its own paradoxes what with being so crappy' or something ^^;