Re: Have you ever wondered.....

From: Kees Roos (croos_at_xs4all.nl)
Date: 12/23/04 

Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:55:34 +0100

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
news:AaCdnTgMy46FVVTcRVn-sw@conversent.net...
>
> "Kees Roos" <croos@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:41c9c145$0$149$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
[snip]
>> However, in order to explain to you how 'space' is just
>> as abstract as 'time', we have to get the concepts
>> 'state', 'process' and 'event' cleared up.
>>
>> So, let's try another approach.
>> Let's go back to our process of 5 seconds, let's say that we
>> morph an elephant into a mouse during this period.
>>
>> First let's define the concept 'state'.
>> The process has two defined states:
>> -Prior to the process the state of the object to morph
>> is 'elephant'.
>> -After the end of the process the state of the morphed
>> object is 'mouse'.
>> States are situations, not the process.
>> Agreed?
>
> Agree.
>
OK

> And the beginning and the end of that process were events of zero
> duration.
>
Let's not mention events as yet. That'll come in due time.

>> Now let's define the concept 'process'.
>> The process is the ongoing thing which takes
>> an elephant and turns it into a mouse in 5 seconds.
>> Agreed?
>
> That's what I've been saying. You're finally getting it.
>
Great!

>> Now let's divide the period of the process into two
>> equally long segments.
>> During each of these time segments, half of the
>> total morphing process takes place.
>
> Let's not take as a given that which is being debated. Each of these
> segments is half the
> period of the process.
>
Sorry, should have avoided the 't' word. Anyway,
you understood what I meant.

>> The first segment morphs the elephant into an
>> moulephant, the second morphs the moulephant
>> into a mouse.
>> One state added: end state of first half process
>> and initial state of second half process:
>> object is moulephant.
>> Both these halves of the process can be regarded as
>> independent processes.
>> Agreed so far?
>
[small snip of emotional content]
>> , yes.
>
Great!

Now, let's recursively go on dividing each of the segments
yielded by the previous step into two equal segments.
With each iteration of this operation we double the number
of subprocesses after n steps to 2^n, and the number
of states to 2^n + 1.
With each iteration the difference between the period of these
subprocesses and zero length halves, and will become ever
more insignificant. Also, no matter how insignificant, it
will always be possible to apply any number more of
iterations of the division operation.
So, any subprocess, no matter how small, consists of any
number of sub-subprocesses and any number plus one of
sub-substates.
Agreed?

[snip] 

-- 
Regards, Kees Roos

Relevant Pages