merjet Posted October 1, 2017 Author Share Posted October 1, 2017 7 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: Okay. --Brant hit us with it I already did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 3 hours ago, merjet said: I already did. Please restate it. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 The paradox makes no claims about the paths of any points. The paradox does ask how can those which are not equal be nevertheless equal? What are the "those which"? They are the length of road traversed by the circle and the length of the circumference of the circle. There is no need to introduce new relationships or track complicated movements of individual points, for the paradox can be resolved using just the terms, elements and movements introduced in the first place by the paradox. The paradox suggests the circle performs true rolling on its road, like the wheel. It doesn't. Resolved. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said: The paradox makes no claims about the paths of any points. The paradox does ask how can those which are not equal be nevertheless equal? What are the "those which"? They are the length of road traversed by the circle and the length of the circumference of the circle. There is no need to introduce new relationships or track complicated movements of individual points, for the paradox can be resolved using just the terms, elements and movements introduced in the first place by the paradox. The paradox suggests the circle performs true rolling on its road, like the wheel. It doesn't. Resolved. Exactly. If the simple recognition of differences in the two circles' circumferences is not enough to solve the "paradox," why would the difference in the two cycloids be enough to solve it? A person could be just as stupid in accepting a cycloid "paradox" as he is in accepting the circumference "paradox": "A point on each of two concentric circles, starting in the 6:00 position and traveling one full rotation, results in two different cycloid paths of different lengths, but both points travel the same linear distance on the "road" on which the large wheel rolls freely without skidding or slipping. Therefore there is a paradox, because the points travel different lengths but also the same length." So Merlin's borrowed solution hasn't solved the "paradox." The only solution is to recignize a that there is no actual paradox, but that there are only people who are retarded enough to not grasp the simple physics of what's happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 Indeed, the clue to the paradox is in this sentence of the Wikipedia article: "The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution". It is impossible however that both wheels roll without slipping, as the wheels have different diameters, so when the path of one wheel equals its circumference, the path of the other wheel cannot equal its circumference. Therefore, when one wheel rolls without slipping, the other wheel must be slipping with respect to its rail (or the road). So the path of at most one wheel can have the length of its circumference. You don't need more to solve the paradox. Whether there exists a paradox is rather a matter of semantics. In general, a paradox is an argument that leads to an apparent contradiction, for example by using a fallacious argument or starting from a false premise. In reality there is no contradiction, in this case while the premise that both wheels can simultaneously roll without slipping is false. Solving the paradox is just showing what the error in the argument is. There is no contradiction, and the paradox is just a bad argument. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 12 minutes ago, Max said: Indeed, the clue to the paradox is in this sentence of the Wikipedia article: "The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution". It is impossible however that both wheels roll without slipping, as the wheels have different diameters, so when the path of one wheel equals its circumference, the path of the other wheel cannot equal its circumference. Therefore, when one wheel rolls without slipping, the other wheel must be slipping with respect to its rail (or the road). So the path of at most one wheel can have the length of its circumference. You don't need more to solve the paradox. Whether there exists a paradox is rather a matter of semantics. In general, a paradox is an argument that leads to an apparent contradiction, for example by using a fallacious argument or starting from a false premise. In reality there is no contradiction, in this case while the premise that both wheels can simultaneously roll without slipping is false. Solving the paradox is just showing what the error in the argument is. There is no contradiction, and the paradox is just a bad argument. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 It seems Merlin wants/needs two different realities to make the physics work. One reality for one wheel and another for the other. Each wheel works alone. Then he puts them both together. Viola! But all he has is a wheel and circles. --Brant that dog won't hunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted October 2, 2017 Author Share Posted October 2, 2017 10 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: It seems Merlin wants/needs two different realities to make the physics work. One reality for one wheel and another for the other. Each wheel works alone. Then he puts them both together. Viola! But all he has is a wheel and circles. Hogwash. Yet he's silent when Jonathan contradicts himself and ties himself in knots with metaphors. There is a paradox and there is no paradox, depending on his momentary feelings. Brant hasn't yet realized that Jonathan is one of those people who is "retarded enough to not grasp the simple physics of what's happening" (his words). Brant hasn't yet realized that Jonathan is all bark, no bite, and no teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted October 2, 2017 Author Share Posted October 2, 2017 10 hours ago, Max said: Indeed, the clue to the paradox is in this sentence of the Wikipedia article: "The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution". It is impossible however that both wheels roll without slipping, as the wheels have different diameters, so when the path of one wheel equals its circumference, the path of the other wheel cannot equal its circumference. Therefore, when one wheel rolls without slipping, the other wheel must be slipping with respect to its rail (or the road). Apparently Max failed to grasp the first sentence of the Wikipedia page: "This article's factual accuracy is disputed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 24 minutes ago, merjet said: Apparently Max failed to grasp the first sentence of the Wikipedia page: "This article's factual accuracy is disputed." Oh, I thought this was the reference you gave for your original question. I can't remember that you said that the problem was there incorrectly stated, but I'll admit that I didn't read the whole thread. That the factual accuracy is disputed doesn't necessarily mean that it is incorrect. I read the talk page, but I wasn't impressed by the quality of the comments there. But if the description is not correct, perhaps you can give us then the correct version of Aristotle's wheel paradox? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 He still does not grasp what is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted October 2, 2017 Author Share Posted October 2, 2017 2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said: He still does not grasp what is going on. Your mind-reading ability has much room for improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 Multiple people have requested a simple restatement of your resolution. Silence. Max has asked for a correct statement of the paradox, given your assertion that wiki has it wrong. Silence. You are full of shit, you can't think straight, you can't grasp the paradox and you lie about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted October 2, 2017 Author Share Posted October 2, 2017 16 hours ago, Jon Letendre said: Multiple people have requested a simple restatement of your resolution. Silence. Max has asked for a correct statement of the paradox, given your assertion that wiki has it wrong. Silence. You are full of shit, you can't think straight, you can't grasp the paradox and you lie about it. I gave it. Open your eyes. Max has no claim on my time. He can look into the matter w/o me. Ditto to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 You do not grasp what is going on in the paradox and you do not posses the honesty to admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 Max has made no claim on your time. You volunteered a stupid comment about his thoughtful and correct contribution. Every time you talk about the paradox, you broadcast loadly your failure to grasp it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted October 2, 2017 Author Share Posted October 2, 2017 42 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: You do not grasp what is going on in the paradox and you do not posses the honesty to admit it. 39 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: Every time you talk about the paradox, you broadcast loadly your failure to grasp it. "Therefore, no paradox" (link). "Thus there is no paradox" (link). When are you going to stop contradicting yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 8 minutes ago, merjet said: "Therefore, no paradox" (link). "Thus there is no paradox" (link). When are you going to stop contradicting yourself? Thank you, Merlin for again showing how stupid and confused you are. Please keep going... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 You deflect and lie to avoid listening and learning from people who understand something you do not yet. Thats a serious character flaw and you broadcast it over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 17 hours ago, merjet said: Hogwash. Yet he's silent when Jonathan contradicts himself and ties himself in knots with metaphors. There is a paradox and there is no paradox, depending on his momentary feelings. Brant hasn't yet realized that Jonathan is one of those people who is "retarded enough to not grasp the simple physics of what's happening" (his words). Brant hasn't yet realized that Jonathan is all bark, no bite, and no teeth. Sad. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 Merlin has gone full retard, and he's not coming back. One doesn't recover from balls to the wall full retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted October 3, 2017 Author Share Posted October 3, 2017 4 hours ago, Jonathan said: Merlin has gone full retard, and he's not coming back. One doesn't recover from balls to the wall full retard. Wow. J is so deluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 5 minutes ago, merjet said: Wow. J is so deluded. Merlin the idiot, still unwilling to discuss his "resolution." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted October 3, 2017 Author Share Posted October 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: Merlin the idiot, still unwilling to discuss his "resolution." Proceed. Start the discussion. Tell me what's wrong with it. Or are just going to blank out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 11 minutes ago, merjet said: Proceed. Start the discussion. Tell me what's wrong with it. Or are just going to blank out? It notes interesting things about cycloid-drawing points on a rolling wheel, but does not directly address the alleged equality that the paradox is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now