Re: infinity
- From: "snapdragon31" <snapdragon31@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 5 Aug 2005 18:31:22 -0700
>
> Noon may be un-reachable in a physical sense, but this is not a physical
> problem. It's a mathematical problem. The question makes perfect sense
> from a mathematical standpoint.
>
> Your final sentence above makes no sense at all. There is no such thing
> as a "last ball". All that is necessary to show that the vase is empty
> is to show that each ball is removed from the vase before noon and is not
> subsequently replaced.
>
> > Assume f(x) is an increasing function and f(0) > 0. Even though f(oo)
> > is undefined but I am quite sure that f(oo) cannot be 0.
>
> Why?
>
> Dave Seaman
Thanks Dave,
This is a paradox because it is not a physical nor a mathematical
problem but rather a logical problem!!!
Physically or mathematical it is not difficult to prove that the vase
is not empty at noon. Mathematically, # of balls in the vase can be
expressed by the equation f(t) = 9+9*log(1/t)/log(2) where t is the
time in minute before noon. 't' can be 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ... 1/OO.
f(1) = 9
f(1/2) = 18
f(1/4) = 27
f(1/8) = 36
Number of balls in the vase at noon is f(0) = OO. Try it :)
The statement: "All that is necessary to show that the vase is empty is
to show that each ball is removed from the vase before noon and is not
subsequently replaced." is a logical argument. Unfortunately, if
infinity gets involved, this statement alone is not sufficient to claim
the vase is empty before noon. The vase can only be claimed to be
empty at a particular time t is when all the balls are removed at that
time. At t = 1, ball 1 is removed but ball 10 (the last ball) is added
to the vase. At t = 1/2, ball 2 is removed but ball 20 (the new last
ball) is in the vase. There is no such time that all balls are
removed. Therefore, the vase cannot be empty.
If the problem is changed to remove the last ball each time then the
argument would be much simplier - ball 1 is always in the base.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: infinity
- From: William Hughes
- Re: infinity
- From: Dave Seaman
- Re: infinity
- References:
- infinity
- From: Theo Jacobs
- Re: infinity
- From: snapdragon31
- Re: infinity
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: infinity
- From: snapdragon31
- Re: infinity
- From: William Hughes
- Re: infinity
- From: snapdragon31
- Re: infinity
- From: Dave Seaman
- infinity
- Prev by Date: Re: I am the poster of I have correct proof of 4-color theorem
- Next by Date: Re: infinity
- Previous by thread: Re: infinity
- Next by thread: Re: infinity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|