# User talk:St.nerol

(→Proof) |
m (→Proof: Zeno) |
||

Line 33: | Line 33: | ||

:Thought experiments in "idealized classical reality" are fun. It's a Cartesian Newtonian universe containing infinite flat planes (optionally frictionless) and perfectly spherical cows. | :Thought experiments in "idealized classical reality" are fun. It's a Cartesian Newtonian universe containing infinite flat planes (optionally frictionless) and perfectly spherical cows. | ||

:Thompson is a bit less "real" than Zeno because it requires infinite acceleration & velocity. But it reminds me of a similar paradox involving an infinitely large ball pit (or jar, or bag, or other container). At every step, you add X balls (arbitrary integer > 1) then remove one of them. At midnight, obviously there should be infinite balls in the pit. However, if the balls are numbered, and you add them in numerical order, then remove them in the same order, it is clear that for every number, you can compute the exact time before midnight that it is removed. In this case, the ball pit is empty at midnight. {{w|Georg Cantor}} for the win! | :Thompson is a bit less "real" than Zeno because it requires infinite acceleration & velocity. But it reminds me of a similar paradox involving an infinitely large ball pit (or jar, or bag, or other container). At every step, you add X balls (arbitrary integer > 1) then remove one of them. At midnight, obviously there should be infinite balls in the pit. However, if the balls are numbered, and you add them in numerical order, then remove them in the same order, it is clear that for every number, you can compute the exact time before midnight that it is removed. In this case, the ball pit is empty at midnight. {{w|Georg Cantor}} for the win! | ||

− | :I will attempt to compose a more balanced approach to Leibniz vs | + | :I will attempt to compose a more balanced approach to Leibniz vs Zeno. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 18:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |

## Revision as of 18:44, 7 January 2013

## We're trying to cut down on new categories

Hello, welcome to the wiki. Thanks for spam fighting. We're using Categories as a broad way of finding related comics. By creating lots of specific categories it limits the number of related comics to just a few. We've decided to not use Categories as a kind of ad-hoc tag cloud, but to help people find possibly related comics. lcarsos_a (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

- Hi! Well, I have actually read your long post about the categories in the portal, and I can't say anything more than that I really agree with you! I think that several of the existing categories feels too specific. (For example, I suspect that we never will find more than two comics related to the "Axiom of Chioce", but on the other hand, Logic and Set theory are two areas related to math that I know Randall is often coming back to.) Flowcharts was probably the most specific I created, and even though I only tagged two (?) I think that there exists at least a handful of them. (One named "Flow Chart" was not yet explained.) I worried instead that maybe some of the categories I created were almost too broad, like "Computers". – St.nerol (
**talk**) 09:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

- Eh, more tags also make it harder to completely tag pages, because there's more to remember. Brains can only process so much when creating new pages.
__Davidy__^{22}`(talk)`09:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

- Eh, more tags also make it harder to completely tag pages, because there's more to remember. Brains can only process so much when creating new pages.

- And some comics will also be borderline cases whether they fit in a certain category or not. So I think we shouldn't have too high expectations on being completely "done". But the way I think, someday I might go through all comics and try to complete for example the Sarcasm and the Language tags. Or the Physics and the Math tags. Or the ones with color. So we're in a progress. --St.nerol (
**talk**) 10:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC) - "Puts on sunglasses", "Windmills", "Wingsuit", "Airships", and "Axiom of Choice" are, I think, superfluous categories. Though there might be more comics on these subjects than I know about, and if somebody finds them useful I don't really mind them being there. :) --St.nerol (
**talk**) 11:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

- And some comics will also be borderline cases whether they fit in a certain category or not. So I think we shouldn't have too high expectations on being completely "done". But the way I think, someday I might go through all comics and try to complete for example the Sarcasm and the Language tags. Or the Physics and the Math tags. Or the ones with color. So we're in a progress. --St.nerol (

Uh. Please, I can barely remember all the categories we have right now. Try to hold back and finish what we already have. __Davidy__^{22}`[talk]` 23:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

- Seconded. Again. lcarsos_a (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed. Do you really think that "Physics", "Music" and "Philosophy" are bad categories, or are you just worried that
*you*won't remember them? Well, maybe I should just leave this and focus more on my studies instead. -St.nerol (**talk**) 08:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

- I'm disappointed. Do you really think that "Physics", "Music" and "Philosophy" are bad categories, or are you just worried that

- There's a lot of categories right now, and I think the wiki would be better served if we finished applying all the categories that we already have. When we're finished polishing what we have off, we can start making new categories.
__Davidy__^{22}`[talk]`10:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

- There's a lot of categories right now, and I think the wiki would be better served if we finished applying all the categories that we already have. When we're finished polishing what we have off, we can start making new categories.

- I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression the messages above were triggered by the Julia Stiles category, which, indeed, is too specialized at the moment. On the other hand, there is no need for a single editor to be able to know all categoies by heart. The wiki way is "progressive enhancement" and comics will
*eventually*be tagged by editors if they notice a missing category. Besides, there's a list of categories precisely for that, as well as several other category-related special pages. But regardless of the outcome of such opinion differences, let's not let such disagreements discourage either side. We are very few and every helping hand is precious. --Waldir (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

- I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression the messages above were triggered by the Julia Stiles category, which, indeed, is too specialized at the moment. On the other hand, there is no need for a single editor to be able to know all categoies by heart. The wiki way is "progressive enhancement" and comics will

- I've never heard about Julia Stiles. I think it was triggered by the Philosophy category. I
*have*been working a lot on applying the categories we have. It's when I do this that I sometimes see a category wanting. I think it saves some effort if I can create the category while I'm at it, instead of having to wait and later go through the comics again. --St.nerol (**talk**) 23:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

- I've never heard about Julia Stiles. I think it was triggered by the Philosophy category. I

## Proof

Nerol, you are espousing a minority view. http://www.google.com/search?q=zeno+arrow+instantaneous+derivative - Frankie (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

- The derivative can be written as dx/dt. This presupposes an (arbitrarily) small time interval. The definition of the derivative involves taking a limit. And we can talk about the limit value. We get the velocity. Honestly I think the greeks knew about "velocity" too. But in the paradox: could dt in dx/dt actually be zero? -- St.nerol (
**talk**) 11:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)- Yes. That's the whole point of limits and derivatives. If values arbitrarily close to a point are convergent, then the derivative exactly at the point is equal to the limit. That's why dx/dt is called instantaneous velocity.
- The articles in that search also cover infinite steps in finite time. Majority views of science consider Zeno's paradoxes resolved, and the explanation should reflect that. - Frankie (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- An example: you don't need modern mathematics to calculate
*exactly*when Achilles overtakes the tortoise. And you don't need a rigorous formulation of limits to make sense of the concept of velocity. Math here is an excelent*tool*, but it*describes*motion, it doesn't*explain*it. (Heck, if anyone could even explain to me how it can be that a formal intellectual game so wonderfully relates to the physical world.) Also, it seems to be an open problem whether space-time is fundamentally continuous or discrete. If it is discrete, a calculus description becomes purely nonsensical at small enough time intervals. -- St.nerol (**talk**) 15:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)- If we were relying on physical reality for this argument, then Zeno's paradoxes are trivially disproven by counterexample. Motion exists, things get hit by arrows, and the article should baldly mock him for claiming otherwise.
- Therefore, I assumed we were sticking to the realm of theory, where time and space are uniform, flat, and infinitely divisible. In that realm, infinitesimal calculus is generally considered superior to Zeno, and the article should reflect that. - Frankie (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- p.s. Limit discussion to Zeno vs Leibniz (vs Law), because that's what's in the comic.
- Yes, that was a sidtrack. (though quantum theory is very theory-heavy) My strong understanding is that calculus splendidly
*describes*physical reality, but not so well*explains*metaphysical concerns. I'm a student in both these diciplines, though by far yet an expert, and very interested in the intersection between physics and philosophy. And I agree that the analogy with the infinite sum adds interesting input. On the other hand, "derivative" would in the context be rather excangeable for "velocity", which I'm sure the greeks had a word for. I don't feel that it adds any perspective. Others do, so I hesitated in removing that sentence, but I also felt it was a bit confusing. Please add a reasonable sentence about the derivative if you want to. - Lastly, one can easily find that professional and other opinions about the paradoxes show a vast variation. (Btw, Wikipedia just taught me an tough variation on the paradoxes: Thomson's lamp. There are several proposed solutions to them, but the question is by far settled, and there is no academical consensus. The explanation surely does reflect that? -- St.nerol (
**talk**) 19:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

- Yes, that was a sidtrack. (though quantum theory is very theory-heavy) My strong understanding is that calculus splendidly

- An example: you don't need modern mathematics to calculate

- (resetting indentation because too many colons)
- Thought experiments in "idealized classical reality" are fun. It's a Cartesian Newtonian universe containing infinite flat planes (optionally frictionless) and perfectly spherical cows.
- Thompson is a bit less "real" than Zeno because it requires infinite acceleration & velocity. But it reminds me of a similar paradox involving an infinitely large ball pit (or jar, or bag, or other container). At every step, you add X balls (arbitrary integer > 1) then remove one of them. At midnight, obviously there should be infinite balls in the pit. However, if the balls are numbered, and you add them in numerical order, then remove them in the same order, it is clear that for every number, you can compute the exact time before midnight that it is removed. In this case, the ball pit is empty at midnight. Georg Cantor for the win!
- I will attempt to compose a more balanced approach to Leibniz vs Zeno. - Frankie (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)