World's best suggested paradox

[IMakeIce]

How long will it take you to cross a crosswalk if with each step, you cut the distance you walked with the prior step by half?

That is pretty much a known paradox presented by Zeno of Elea called "Achilles and the tortoise"

Which can be represented mathematically as the geometric series: 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8.....which converges absolutely to 1

The question is worded poorly, but the answer is it will take you an infinite amount of time to reach the other side of the crosswalk (assuming the first step is half the distance), but you _will_ reach the other side (time between steps doesn't matter).

Similarly, Achilles will meet the Tortoise, given an infinite amount of time, but will never overtake him.


OT: Is the answer to this question "no"?

 

[SilverUchiha]

If purple is the combination of Red and Blue... what is Red or Blue the combination of?

Red and Blue aren't combinations of anything, they are two of the three primary colours which combine to give every other colour.

So does that mean that Red and Blue get away with the same excuse that God does in that they create everything but they just existed from the beginning and nothing actually made them? I don't buy that.

 

[ThatFanBoyGuy]

A favorite paradox from the kids book "Math Curse":

You're sitting at the dinner table with your parents. Your mother says, "Whatever your father says is always true." Your father says, "Whatever your mother says is always false."

Have fun with that one

 

[someonehairy-ish]

You can't divide by zero. Yes you fucking can. I have two apples, I don't divide by anything so I still have two apples. The mathematicians just don't want to admit defeat.

Nope. If you still have two apples, then you've divided them by one, not zero. (You've split them between yourself and no one else = 1)

Dividing by zero is a bit like pouring water into buckets which are infinitely small in size. They are so small that they effectively don't exist. Therefore the water could fill an infinite number of those buckets; hence anything divided by zero = infinity.

But I haven't divided by anything, so they still exist as a pair of apples! Mind. Blown. Like I said, they just don't want to admit defeat. This is why I do literature and not maths.

You're mixed up between just not doing anything to the apples and dividing them by zero -.- going back to the apples. Lets say that we measure their 'value' by how many people they will feed. If one apple feeds a person, then the value of an apple = 1. Now imagine that the apples don't have to feed anyone. They are effectively being divided by 'zero people.' Those apples can feed those 'zero' people an infinity times over... because an apple is not used up at all each time it 'feeds' those zero people. Its a stretch of the imagination but its the best i can do atm.
Or.. lets say the apple only has to feed a single cell from a person. (The closest thing you can get to 'zero' people.) The apple will feed a person- which means that it effectively feeds every cell in their body. It can feed the cell literally billions of times of over, because they are such a tiny fraction of the overall person. So make that fraction even smaller somehow, and the number gets bigger. The logical limit of 'smallness' is simply for their not to actually be anything there.
Hmm.
Believe me when I say the explanation for it is sound.

PS. I do both

 

[marginal]

I say it again what's

1. The
2. Smallest
3. Number
4. Not
5. Nameable
6. In
7. Under
8. Ten
9. Words?

one million one hundred and one thousand one hundred and one.

Smallest one I can come up with.

You can't divide by zero. Yes you fucking can. I have two apples, I don't divide by anything so I still have two apples. The mathematicians just don't want to admit defeat.

Nope. If you still have two apples, then you've divided them by one, not zero. (You've split them between yourself and no one else = 1)

Dividing by zero is a bit like pouring water into buckets which are infinitely small in size. They are so small that they effectively don't exist. Therefore the water could fill an infinite number of those buckets; hence anything divided by zero = infinity.

But I haven't divided by anything, so they still exist as a pair of apples! Mind. Blown. Like I said, they just don't want to admit defeat. This is why I do literature and not maths.

Think of this this way. When you divide by 2 you divide something into 2 equal pieces. When you divide by 1 you divide into one piece. Dividing by zero divides it into zero pieces, or no pieces at all. Therefore, 2 apples divided by 2 will equal 1. 2 apples divided by 1 equals 2. 2 apples divided by zero equals zero apples.

Munch.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

If purple is the combination of Red and Blue... what is Red or Blue the combination of?

Red and Blue aren't combinations of anything, they are two of the three primary colours which combine to give every other colour.

So does that mean that Red and Blue get away with the same excuse that God does in that they create everything but they just existed from the beginning and nothing actually made them? I don't buy that.

Hmm. Would you buy that they are differences in the way your eye interprets different frequencies of light within the colour spectrum.
Because that would be my answer xD

 

[KEM10]

That one I enjoy, and the ham sandwich.
Nothing it better than eternal happiness.
A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
Therefore, by the transitive property, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.
QED

Yes there is.
Bacon.

Just realized what happened.
Bacon, in and of itself, is not eternal. It can be a cause of happiness, but its limited time frame in eternity means that it is only a small portion (if one at all).

 

[Denamic]

I always lie.

 

[SilverUchiha]

If purple is the combination of Red and Blue... what is Red or Blue the combination of?

Red and Blue aren't combinations of anything, they are two of the three primary colours which combine to give every other colour.

So does that mean that Red and Blue get away with the same excuse that God does in that they create everything but they just existed from the beginning and nothing actually made them? I don't buy that.

Hmm. Would you buy that they are differences in the way your eye interprets different frequencies of light within the colour spectrum.
Because that would be my answer xD

Hmm... that conveniently also aids in explaining color blindness... so I guess I'll take it.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

You can't divide by zero. Yes you fucking can. I have two apples, I don't divide by anything so I still have two apples. The mathematicians just don't want to admit defeat.

Nope. If you still have two apples, then you've divided them by one, not zero. (You've split them between yourself and no one else = 1)

Dividing by zero is a bit like pouring water into buckets which are infinitely small in size. They are so small that they effectively don't exist. Therefore the water could fill an infinite number of those buckets; hence anything divided by zero = infinity.

But I haven't divided by anything, so they still exist as a pair of apples! Mind. Blown. Like I said, they just don't want to admit defeat. This is why I do literature and not maths.

Think of this this way. When you divide by 2 you divide something into 2 equal pieces. When you divide by 1 you divide into one piece. Dividing by zero divides it into zero pieces, or no pieces at all. Therefore, 2 apples divided by 2 will equal 1. 2 apples divided by 1 equals 2. 2 apples divided by zero equals zero apples.

Munch.

Nope. You're mistaking 'an' apple for 'all' of the apples. In your example, you say that by dividing by zero you make it so that the apples are not split into any pieces at all. But you've forgotten that the apples themselves are already split into seperate pieces before you actually cut an individual piece. This is what we understand to mean by 'an' apple, rather than labelling as a collective. Having them so that they are all one piece would mean collecting together every apple in existence. Its a flawed explanation but its the best i can explain it.
Cut and apple in half. 1 = 2x 0.5
Cut it into quarters. 1 = 4 x0.25
Cut into billionths 1 = 0.000,000,000,0001 x a billion
But divide it by half? 1 = 0.5 x2. You end up with 2.
Your telling me that if you divide by half, you get a half. once you get to dividing by numbers smaler than 1, it no longer works like that.

 

[No-Superman10]

what happens when an unstoppable force hits an unmovable object?

The Immovable object would break (But still remain unmoved) and the the unstobbable object would continue on it's path.

 

[Geekosaurus]

You're mixed up between just not doing anything to the apples and dividing them by zero

I can't see the difference between those. No matter now many times it's explained to me.

 

[Denamic]

If purple is the combination of Red and Blue... what is Red or Blue the combination of?

Purple is not a combination of red and blue.
Purple is a wavelength of light.
Which answers your question.
Red and blue are wavelengths of light.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

what happens when an unstoppable force hits an unmovable object?

The Immovable object would break (But still remain unmoved) and the the unstobbable object would continue on it's path.

or theyd bounce off each other? No-one said they unstoppable force couldnt change direction, just that it can't stop xD
this is one that does have me fairly stumped though :/

 

[eggy32]

You can't divide by zero. Yes you fucking can. I have two apples, I don't divide by anything so I still have two apples. The mathematicians just don't want to admit defeat.

Well done for proving yourself wrong. You tried to prove you can divide something by not dividing something. It's almost a paradox in itself.

 

[Soxafloppin]

God can do anything, For example create a bar-bell so heavy that even he cannont bench press it.

 

[Geekosaurus]

You can't divide by zero. Yes you fucking can. I have two apples, I don't divide by anything so I still have two apples. The mathematicians just don't want to admit defeat.

Well done for proving yourself wrong. You tried to prove you can divide something by not dividing something. It's almost a paradox in itself.

If you think about it, we're both right.

 

[kirbyoung]

I like part of the Assassins moto in Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, and probably the others as well, "Nothing is true."

 

[Megawizard]

What happens when the unstoppable force hits the immovable object?

 

[Maze1125]

NOTE: 0.9 recurring does not equal 1! There are different sizes of infinity!

Yes it does, please see my proof here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.252127-Poll-0-999-1?page=18#9367421].
And if that one is too complicated, there are many simpler ones in that thread.

I say it again what's

1. The
2. Smallest
3. Number
4. Not
5. Nameable
6. In
7. Under
8. Ten
9. Words?

one million one hundred and one thousand one hundred and one.

Smallest one I can come up with.

Assuming that is the smallest, you can now name it by calling it "The smallest number not nameable in under ten words."
Which is a name for it in less than ten words.