MattLikesAnalysis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > no, i’m saying the question is worthless. it is a > philosophical question often asked by > mathematicans, but it has no relevance to the real > world whatsoever. like i said, your question is > similar to one like, assuming a 3 second > timeframe, what happens on the 4th second. No question is worthless when it is an honest quest for knowledge. I am neither a mathematican nor a philosopher. I asked because I honestly wanted to know. Sanka’s Mom’s link answered my question quite well. From my perspective, your “answer” was worthless because it did not even attempt to actually answer the question.
Sanka’s Mom Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > higgmond Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Sanka’s Mom Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > > http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/touch/t > > > > > > ouch.html > > > > > > Invalid question. Two items never actually > > > touch, rendering your question moot. > > > I recalled learning this back in physics many > > > years ago. This is a good write-up on it. > > > > > > Now this is an actual answer, although not an > > invalid question. Thanks. > > > Statement withdrawn. Good question, good answer > 
but there is still a point of minimum proximity and thus that is what is considered as “contact”.
if a mathematician gives an answer but there is no one to understand the derivation, does a proof actually exist?
when will you lose v!rg!n!ty?
MattLikesAnalysis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but there is still a point of minimum proximity > and thus that is what is considered as “contact”. No there’s not. The concept of infinity is fairly fascinating. If you haven’t seen it, there’s an accessible blurb about Cantor and the Continuum Hypothesis at the beginning of this BBC documentary on mathematicians: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8492625684649921614#
i’ll have to give it a watch. in my understanding, it is difficult to justify inverse infinity when there must of been a point of origination in order for there to be positive infinity. to conceive negative infinity while believing in positive infinity makes it difficult to understand anything as nothing is of value because all is made from smaller, more simplified atoms/electrons/quanta/things even smaller than quanta. if you believe in negative infinity, there is no reason to believe in science or any discovery of the past. but if you believe that at one point, we will find the subparticle of origination, only then are you able to quantify anything “for sure” (but nothing can be known for sure and we can expect to find even smaller particles based on our “infinite” cycle of looking inward, further and further).
I would ask them if Shia passed L1.
nuppal Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would ask them if Shia passed L1. http://dealbreaker.com/2010/01/shia-labeouf-did-not-take-the.php
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > CFA or MBA? > > > +1 +111111111111
Why is it so common to get the right answer to the wrong question?
Do you have difficulty explaining in words what you see in your mind?