jeffrey
2005-08-16 16:15:10 |
unstoppable force
ive been thinking about a question ive been thinking about and it goes:
what happen when an unstoppable force meets an immoveable object.
then i read a question that went something like this:
one smith made a sword tat could cut trough anything and another made a sheild that couldnt be destroyed and they decided to test there ware agaionst eachother what would happen.
i read a solution that said the sword will cut slower and slower like 100% 50% 25% and so forth well for my questiont that wouldnt work because it woul be negaive an start going backwards but before it would go ino reverse it would have to be at a stop am i rite ? and that would contradict it being unstoppable? |
Federico Kereki
2005-08-16 18:19:36 |
Re: unstoppable force
The idea is that the sword will cut 50% of the shield in the first second; a further 50% of the remaining 50% (that is, 25%) in another second, and will always need one second to cut through 50% the remainder.
This, the sword will be able to cut through the shield (but take an infinite time doing it) and the shield will resist an infinite time.
The second explanation is simpler: saying that there is a sword capable of cutting through anything and a shield that can't be cut is like saying that a man was more than 6' tall, and also less than 6' tall... it's just contradictory. |
owl
2005-08-16 20:36:58 |
Re: unstoppable force
I agree with FK, all of the various versions of this "paradox" have always left me cold. It seems that by definition of "unresistable" and "unmovable", at least one of the adjectives is being incorrectly used. For instance, to point at an object and calling it immovable immediately implies that no force is irresistable. Make sense? |
owl
2005-08-17 11:55:07 |
Re: unstoppable force
And irresistable and immovable things are even worse than those unresistable/unmovable ones!! ;-) |
brianjn
2005-08-17 12:12:03 |
Re: unstoppable force
Boolean? Irresistable * Immovable V Unresistable + Unmovable?
Does 1 * 1 = 1 + 1 ?
Irresistable --- Unresistable
Immovable --- Unmovable
Which stacks up? The maths or the linguistics?
|
Erik O.
2005-08-17 13:57:02 |
Re: unstoppable force
In boolean algebra 1*1 = 1+1.
1 AND 1 = 1 OR 1
also
0 AND 0 = 0 OR 0
but
1 AND 0 <> 1 OR 0 |
owl
2005-08-17 14:11:18 |
Re: unstoppable force
Um ... I wasn't trying to imply any boolean logic ... I was just trying to correct the fact that my "unresistable" is a nonsense word and my "unmovable" is more of an emotional statement than one about really, really, massive rocks :-) |
brianjn
2005-08-17 15:08:37 |
Re: unstoppable force
LOL... lol ....
I really did not Erik O. to give me back the Boolean of my quip about the synonyms presented by owl.
Sorry Erik, I was deliberately playing with the semantics of English rather than Maths.
And owl, this just looked like an unresistable time to attempt to remove an unmovable thread from a Forum.
Thanks for the light repartie (hope you also felt the same). |
Percy
2005-08-18 22:50:21 |
Re: unstoppable force
I think the unmovable object will remain where it is and the unstopable thing will keep on going (strate thro the imovable object.) (I know this isn't a physics site but quantum tunneling explains this and does exist) |
Erik O.
2005-08-19 14:53:51 |
Re: unstoppable force
When galaxies collide... |
