 | | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) I think I'm guilty of an imprecision here. I meant that the path of the laser is effectively infinite, not that it would traverse an endlessly new part of the sphere's surface. Also, as long as we're talking about two dimensions instead of (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Yes, and I can sit in my swivel chair and spin from now until "the end of time", never stopping the spin (excluding such contingencies as death and parts on chair wearing out) but, again, that only works 'on paper'. IN real world applications, (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) I dunno, baseballs seem to have no problem moving in differential calculus using dv's and dt's... but of course that is continuum mechanics. Some Lugnet physics guru is going to have to speak up about quantum mechanics with the Planck scales (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Like I said, Zeno's Paradox. But 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32... equals 1. Additionally, your formulation demands that space be infinitely divisible, which it is not. (...) "Apt" is yet to be determined, but I admit that it's clever! (...) (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Christian historians, too: How many saxons on the head of a pin? -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) It is a variant of the one Dave K mentioned earlier. Before moving any distance X, the distance 1/2X must be covered. Before moving distance 1/2X, 1/4X distance must be moved, etc. Since there will always be a distance smaller than the one to (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) So that's what Christian mathematicians argue about! ;-) JOHN (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) True, but your formulation of this example is incorrect. The ink line is not made of an infinite number of infinitely small "points" of ink; rather, the line is made of a finite (but quite large) number of very small (but quite finite) (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) :) (...) And I agree with many of your assessments, which is why I'm having 'issue' with the 'Church Proper' right now. It was clearly illuminated when I read that cute story about the answer to the question "Is Hell exothermic or endotheric". (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Infinity *does* exist, and it's in lots of places all around us. Find the terminus (in two dimensions) of the surface of a sphere, for one example. The duplicity of Dubya, for another (I hope that this one is merely a jest, though I'm not yet (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Infinity may exist. Finite minds can grasp theories and ideas regarding infinite, but cannot encompass what infinite really is due to the very nature of finite minds If finite minds cannot encompass infinite, infinite cannot exist? That's the (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Does the "writ of Wesayso" trump the writ of Habeas Corpus?
|
|
The Bush administration wants the power to imprison anyone (US citizen or not), anywhere (whether taken from US soil or not, whether held on US soil or not), anytime, for an indefinate duration, without access to counsel, without even being charged (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) You can, but your logic would be faulty. Present your argument for review, if you'd like. (...) This is that wordplay I cautioned against! (...) Which God? The Christian God? You'll likely disagree, but I find God to be logically impossible on (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Are you being secured? (or ...TSA? no: TIA! )
|
|
(...) Here's another one (URL) Even the TSA's own internal investigator doesn't think they're doing a good job at securing things. I'll give them this, they do a great job of hassling people for no good reason though. (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | art of resistance
|
|
(URL) May offend>, but I suppose art often does. In yesterday’s (URL), there was another Mosaic of Bush (made from the mug-shots of US troops killed in Iraq), but I can’t find a picture on the web ;( Scott A (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) OK, I buy that. Heck, I've always said your god wasn't very logical anyway. But your god didn't make the assertion above about relationships between happiness and god proximity, though... *you* did. (unless you assert that you were speaking in (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) ...but my Queen claims to be my servant... just as Bush should be your's! Does that make Bush a god? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Or that he is existentially at peace with living an emphemoral life. Most people want to believe that there is something more to life than this existence. (...) Well, whether Jesus was or wasn't the Suffering Servant isn't the point; the point (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) It's unsatisfactory to a logical mind. Logic is a tool, but not the end all of inquiry. It has its limitations. Heck, I can use logic to prove that movement is impossible (ask). Applying logic to God is like trying to measure the volume of an (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote: (snip) (...) That's how I was taking it (literally)-- it reminded me of this one: "What do you call a women without an A**hole?" "Single" Ahh, the fine art of menbashing.... FUTOT.F JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
