bungee Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 We all know that Iverson is the answer to all questions. But what of those questions that have no answer? Example, if you believe in the mathematical theory of infinity, and numbers are infinite, then we conclude that fractions can decrease infinitely...1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16..etc, etc, etc...Question is, if you shot an arrow at someone, that arrow should never touch that person. The arrow will travel 1/2 distance to the person, then 1/4, then 1/8..etc to infinity. It should never touch that person. I tried to convince my wife of this, to let me experiment on her but for some reason she doesn't believe me. Am I right, or wrong.------------------Sticks and Stones may break my bones..but..words..can't..hurt..meeeee...so there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rparadox Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 Here's a question with no answer:How does getting shot in the brain with an arrow feel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DINO nYc Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 Ruhrooooooooooooooooooooooooooh, Shaggy?????------------------The only difference between a saint and a sinner is that every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future.....Oscar WildeAIM: DZnyc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics- Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 Originally posted by bungee:We all know that Iverson is the answer to all questions. But what of those questions that have no answer? Example, if you believe in the mathematical theory of infinity, and numbers are infinite, then we conclude that fractions can decrease infinitely...1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16..etc, etc, etc...Question is, if you shot an arrow at someone, that arrow should never touch that person. The arrow will travel 1/2 distance to the person, then 1/4, then 1/8..etc to infinity. It should never touch that person. I tried to convince my wife of this, to let me experiment on her but for some reason she doesn't believe me. Am I right, or wrong.No because when the fraction is less than the size of an atom it will hit the man.------------------I want to go out blazing..not fade away.Trust in the currency of relationships, it's hard to earn but easy to loose - back2basics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 problem is you are fooling yourself with a mathematical series bounded by 0+...sure if you take the recursive serie:x(n+1) = x(n)/2 with say x(0) = 5you will never get x(n) equal to zero as n goes to infiniti...that because the serie is bounded by 0+you can't get it to zero that is correct......the problem is that you are wrong to use a 0+ bounded serie to model the trajectory of a moving object...the arrow will travel 1/2 of the distance to your wife...the thing is that after that, it will not travel half of the remaining distance only...it will travel the whole remaining distance...i.e. the other half...result your wife is right...you are wrong...and she is dead...------------------ AIM: thefrenchbreadYIM: thefrenchbread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 oh and i forgot...like brad pitt said in "twelve monkeys":"fuck the bozos!!!!..."... ------------------ AIM: thefrenchbreadYIM: thefrenchbread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmb1975 Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 OUCCCCCHHHHHH!!!!!!! my head hurts... ------------------The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dale77 Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 Originally posted by cmb1975:OUCCCCCHHHHHH!!!!!!! my head hurts... Aww. Come here and I'll kiss it and make it better.------------------You're only young once Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djmikedr Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 one word answer: symantics------------------DJmikeDR@aol.com aim: DJmikeDR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics- Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 Originally posted by dale77: Originally posted by cmb1975:OUCCCCCHHHHHH!!!!!!! my head hurts... Aww. Come here and I'll kiss it and make it better.Can i watch?------------------I want to go out blazing..not fade away.Trust in the currency of relationships, it's hard to earn but easy to loose - back2basics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungee Posted June 8 Author Report Share Posted June 8 Originally posted by apotheosis:one word answer: symanticsWTF do you mean by symantics? Or do you mean Semantics? Explain yourself he who is owned by half the Board. ------------------Sticks and Stones may break my bones..but..words..can't..hurt..meeeee...so there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 Originally posted by bungee: WTF do you mean by symantics? Or do you mean Semantics? Explain yourself he who is owned by half the Board. ...i have to go with bungee here mikie...what do you mean man?...------------------ AIM: thefrenchbreadYIM: thefrenchbread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungee Posted June 8 Author Report Share Posted June 8 Originally posted by frenchbread:problem is you are fooling yourself with a mathematical series bounded by 0+...sure if you take the recursive serie:x(n+1) = x(n)/2 with say x(0) = 5you will never get x(n) equal to zero as n goes to infiniti...that because the serie is bounded by 0+you can't get it to zero that is correct......the problem is that you are wrong to use a 0+ bounded serie to model the trajectory of a moving object...the arrow will travel 1/2 of the distance to your wife...the thing is that after that, it will not travel half of the remaining distance only...it will travel the whole remaining distance...i.e. the other half...result your wife is right...you are wrong...and she is dead...If I wanted Einstein I would've dug up his old ass and kicked the answer out of him. ------------------Sticks and Stones may break my bones..but..words..can't..hurt..meeeee...so there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 Originally posted by bungee: If I wanted Einstein I would've dug up his old ass and kicked the answer out of him. ...lololol...lmao...------------------ AIM: thefrenchbreadYIM: thefrenchbread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milskiwi Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 and another way of looking at it.....If the distance to your wife is x, it travels half the distance in v/2x time, where v is the velocity of the arrow. For the half of the remaing distance, it takes v/4x. Each time it gets half as close, it takes half the time again. So as the distance of the arrow approaches 1/infinity, the time taken to reach her is v/(2infinity). So the time taken to travel in infitesimal distance by a constant velocity approaches 0 faster than the distance.Her ass is dead dude!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milskiwi Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 i am such a geek (errrnnhhh errrnnnh - that's my geek laugh). *LOL* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrol Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 Originally posted by bungee: WTF do you mean by symantics? Or do you mean Semantics? Explain yourself he who is owned by half the Board. Glass houses here, bungee. Take a look at the titile of your topic: "Questions that has (sic) no answers". Do you mean "Questions that have no answers"? or "Question that has no answers".So, while mikey failed spelling, you failed grammar (oh, and math.)------------------...and in a mystery to be(when time from time shall set us free)forgetting me, remember me -e. e. cummingsAOL IM: petrol01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungee Posted June 8 Author Report Share Posted June 8 Originally posted by petrol: Glass houses here, bungee. Take a look at the titile of your topic: "Questions that has (sic) no answers". Do you mean "Questions that have no answers"? or "Question that has no answers".So, while mikey failed spelling, you failed grammar (oh, and math.)Actually, it is a common source of confusion, sYmantics is an actual word and has similar meaning to sEmantics. Dup up this Website 'www.linguistlist.com' and found this excerpt from linguists. Just wanted clarification, not picking on his spelling. Believe it or not, I am not that petty. Anyhows, I copied and pasted this excerpt. And yes, it is a slow and boring day at work. Here is the excerpt;Bryan Livingston <bryan@cooltext.com> asks: > I am constantly getting syntax and symantics confused. One is the words> and the other is the typical format of the words. Could you tell me> some kind of neumonic for remembering which is which and clear up the> defanitions for me?Well, ...Maybe. Let's get a couple other things straight first. o It's sEmantics, not sYmantics. That may be one thing that's causing your confusion -- they don't actually start the same way. o You're right that syntax is 'the typical format of the words'. In fact, that's a better definition than some linguistic ones. o You're not right that semantics is 'the words'. It's the MEANING of the words, and of the phrases, clauses, and sentences they appear in. Lots more complicated. o And, while I'm getting things clear, it's spelled MNEmonic, not NEUmonic. That's a good guess for the spelling -- they'd be pronounced the same -- but the word 'mnemonic' has to do with memory (Greek 'mnemos'), not breath (Greek 'pneuma'). They both have silent first letters in English, though not in Greek.OK, now some mnemonics. Pick and choose what you like. 1) Syntax has an 'X' and a 'Y' in it. X and Y are used in algebra to graph things and show their shape. It's formal and it's like mathematics and it's a way to format things. 2) Semantics has a 'man' in it. That is, a human being. Meaning is something that is very human and requires a human being in circuit to work. 3) SynTAX is to semantics as tax is to income -- it's formal, and hard to understand the instructions, and not much fun for most people, but you feel wonderful when it's done, and what's left after tax has a lot of meaning for you.Hope these help.Cheers,-John Lawler http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/ Michigan Linguistics --------------------------------------------------------------------------"Language is the most massive and inclusive art we know, a - Edward Sapir mountainous and anonymous work of unconscious generations." Language (1921)------------------Sticks and Stones may break my bones..but..words..can't..hurt..meeeee...so there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silente Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 Wouldn't you have to take the width of the arrow into account? True, the theoretical distance between the arrow and your wife could decrease infinitely. But since the fineness of the arrow doesn't increase accordingly, wouldn't it hit her anyway? Because of the physical limitations of the objects?------------------It's pretty weird in here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eggmok Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 the most intriguing thing about this thread is that bungee has a wife . . .------------------Life is too short to be small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics- Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 Originally posted by eggmok:the most intriguing thing about this thread is that bungee has a wife . . .LOL ------------------I want to go out blazing..not fade away.Trust in the currency of relationships, it's hard to earn but easy to loose - back2basics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thughes Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 <geek hat on>This is a well known paradox called Euclid's Paradox (I think). The answer to the paradox is that although there is an infinite number of fractions in the series, they have a finite sum.<geek hat off><walks away slightly embarrassed)seeeeeeyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrol Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 Thank you for the clarification. I enjoy the chance to learn. From context, i have to assume that mikey meant 'semantics'.I'm a study of linguistic anthropology and have never seen that word before (go figure).Now, this discussion isn't really a semantic one... but from the sounds of it, it may just be symantic.Either, the chick ends up dead... And I say that based on the body of evidence which preceeds your experiment. We know arrows hit the target regardless of our exercises in division.------------------I'm in search of myself. If you find me before I arrive, please have me wait.AOL IM: petrol01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungee Posted June 9 Author Report Share Posted June 9 Originally posted by back2basics-: No because when the fraction is less than the size of an atom it will hit the man.I always knew B2B had half a brain. HOWEVER. Can an infinitely decreasing fraction be less that the size of an atom? Keep in mind that in order for the arrow to hit my wife, the distance would have to equal zero. An infinitely decreasing fraction would NEVER equal zero. Therefore I am right. That arrow would never hit her. She keeps saying that it would, but can't support it with facts. I believe that I am right. ------------------Sticks and Stones may break my bones..but..words..can't..hurt..meeeee...so there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics- Posted June 9 Report Share Posted June 9 Originally posted by bungee: I always knew B2B had half a brain. HOWEVER. Can an infinitely decreasing fraction be less that the size of an atom? Keep in mind that in order for the arrow to hit my wife, the distance would have to equal zero. An infinitely decreasing fraction would NEVER equal zero. Therefore I am right. That arrow would never hit her. She keeps saying that it would, but can't support it with facts. I believe that I am right. The fraction would never equal zero but the size of an atom is quantifiable.So if the size of an atom is 0.001 of an inch, and we pick this up at 1 inch.10.50.250.1250.06250.031250.0156250.00781250.003906250.0019531250.0009765625 splatAs for the half a brain, i reckon i have 0.00234567 of a brain left after too many years of abuse, that's if all this alchohol kills brain cells is true ------------------I want to go out blazing..not fade away.Trust in the currency of relationships, it's hard to earn but easy to loose - back2basics [This message has been edited by back2basics- (edited 06-08-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.