Editing 1153: Proof

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 12: Line 12:
 
:'''Arrow paradox:''' At any instant in time, an arrow suspended in mid-air is no different from an arrow in motion. How, then, can motion occur? The lawyer presumably intends to use this argument to prove that his client could not have used the arrow to commit murder. Another possibility was that it is impossible to hit a person in motion.
 
:'''Arrow paradox:''' At any instant in time, an arrow suspended in mid-air is no different from an arrow in motion. How, then, can motion occur? The lawyer presumably intends to use this argument to prove that his client could not have used the arrow to commit murder. Another possibility was that it is impossible to hit a person in motion.
  
βˆ’
:'''Dichotomy paradox:''' Suppose I need to go from point A to point B. First I must walk halfway there: half of the distance between A and B. Then I must walk half the remaining distance, which would bring me to three-quarters of the original distance; then I must again walk half the now-remaining distance to reach a point seven-eighths of the way from point A, and so on. Because I would have to take an infinite number of non-zero steps, I will never reach point B. By the same argument, the lawyer in the comic can get closer and closer to the judge's table, but never reach it.
+
:'''Dichotomy paradox:''' Suppose I need to go from point A to point B. First I must walk halfway there: half of the distance between A and B. Then I must walk half the remaining distance, which would bring me to three-quarters of the original distance; then I must again walk half the now-remaining distance to reach a point seven-eighths of the way from point A, and so on. Because I would have to take an infinite number of non-zero steps, I will never reach point B. By the same argument, the lawyer in the cartoon can get closer and closer to the judge's table, but never reach it.
  
 
There are two possible law vs math/logic puns in the comic, on the words "approach" and "proof." "{{w|Approach the bench}}" is a legal term meaning to have a private conversation with the judge; approach in calculus means an infinite process where a function value gets closer and closer to a {{w|Limit (mathematics)|limit}} value that it never actually reaches, reminiscent of Zeno's paradoxes. "Proof" is also ambiguous with different significations in formal disciplines than in {{w|jurisprudence}}; see {{w|proof (truth)}} and {{mathematical proof}}, for example.
 
There are two possible law vs math/logic puns in the comic, on the words "approach" and "proof." "{{w|Approach the bench}}" is a legal term meaning to have a private conversation with the judge; approach in calculus means an infinite process where a function value gets closer and closer to a {{w|Limit (mathematics)|limit}} value that it never actually reaches, reminiscent of Zeno's paradoxes. "Proof" is also ambiguous with different significations in formal disciplines than in {{w|jurisprudence}}; see {{w|proof (truth)}} and {{mathematical proof}}, for example.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)