Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
If someone assumes that someone assumes something, what is the chance that they assume that they assume what they assume?
-
- Posts: 1175
- Joined: June 14th, 2014, 5:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Also, if you're trying to prove (x), you're supposed to assume (NOT x), not (x). http://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/pm2.18.html
- testitemqlstudop
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: July 21st, 2016, 11:45 am
- Location: in catagolue
- Contact:
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
If a function's property:
(1) contradicts the welldefinedness of the function, OR
(2) causes the welldefinedness of the contradictiveness of the welldefinedness of the function or property to be illdefined, OR
(3) causes the illdefinedness of the welldefinedness of the contradictiveness of the welldefinedness of the function or property, to be illdefined, or causes this statement itself to be contradictory or illdefined;
the function is not a function under the scope of this question.
This is at least at epsilon_0.
(1) contradicts the welldefinedness of the function, OR
(2) causes the welldefinedness of the contradictiveness of the welldefinedness of the function or property to be illdefined, OR
(3) causes the illdefinedness of the welldefinedness of the contradictiveness of the welldefinedness of the function or property, to be illdefined, or causes this statement itself to be contradictory or illdefined;
the function is not a function under the scope of this question.
This is at least at epsilon_0.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Did you not read what fluffykitty said. (Yes, this a parody of your response to me)testitemqlstudop wrote:If a function's property:
[Arbitrary Exclusions]
the function is not a function under the scope of this question.
This is at least at epsilon_0.
What if a function satisfies the first 2 conditions and the first part of the 3rd condition but makes the welldefinedness of condition 3 illdefined, whilst keeping it noncontradictive? That satisfies all 3 of you conditions!
You do realize that one can continue finding loopholes in your definition, right?
not active here but active on discord
- testitemqlstudop
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: July 21st, 2016, 11:45 am
- Location: in catagolue
- Contact:
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
. = 0 => 0.
I'm purposely trying to forsake language as far as possible so you can't continue.
I'm purposely trying to forsake language as far as possible so you can't continue.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
I'll submit to that iff anyone can figure out what the heck that statement means and I can't find a loophole.testitemqlstudop wrote:. = 0 => 0.
I'm purposely trying to forsake language as far as possible so you can't continue.
not active here but active on discord
- testitemqlstudop
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: July 21st, 2016, 11:45 am
- Location: in catagolue
- Contact:
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
That is a special case of the identity axiom, namely "if statement . is false, then it is false".
Consider why that would be important:
Function f is contradictory against property p.
Consider the statement "property p is ill-defined under the scope of this question". Since the question is under the presumption of NO ill-definedness and NO contradictiveness (here's where you can't say ill-definedness of contradictiveness: because there's no ill-definedness) it is false.
Hence the function is not a function under the scope of this question.
TL;DR: No ill-definedness or contradictiveness of a function.
Consider why that would be important:
Function f is contradictory against property p.
Consider the statement "property p is ill-defined under the scope of this question". Since the question is under the presumption of NO ill-definedness and NO contradictiveness (here's where you can't say ill-definedness of contradictiveness: because there's no ill-definedness) it is false.
Hence the function is not a function under the scope of this question.
TL;DR: No ill-definedness or contradictiveness of a function.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
But what if the ill-definedness or contradictiveness is impossible to find?testitemqlstudop wrote:That is a special case of the identity axiom, namely "if statement . is false, then it is false".
Consider why that would be important:
Function f is contradictory against property p.
Consider the statement "property p is ill-defined under the scope of this question". Since the question is under the presumption of NO ill-definedness and NO contradictiveness (here's where you can't say ill-definedness of contradictiveness: because there's no ill-definedness) it is false.
Hence the function is not a function under the scope of this question.
TL;DR: No ill-definedness or contradictiveness of a function.
You keep modifying your function to exclude arbitrary things I come up with-- can we just agree that your whole thing is rather arbitrary and you are attempting to make a rayo-ish number where every threatening thing is excluded-- no doubt a Sisyphean task.
not active here but active on discord
- testitemqlstudop
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: July 21st, 2016, 11:45 am
- Location: in catagolue
- Contact:
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
I beg pardon? How is that possible?But what if the ill-definedness or contradictiveness is impossible to find?
If the ill-definedness or contradictiveness is contradictive against something it's illegal;
if the ill-definedness or contradictiveness is ill-defined against something it's also illegal.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Yes, but it may be impossible to find, in which case it wouldn't be ill-defined or contradictive.testitemqlstudop wrote:I beg pardon? How is that possible?But what if the ill-definedness or contradictiveness is impossible to find?
If the ill-definedness or contradictiveness is contradictive against something it's illegal;
if the ill-definedness or contradictiveness is ill-defined against something it's also illegal.
not active here but active on discord
- testitemqlstudop
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: July 21st, 2016, 11:45 am
- Location: in catagolue
- Contact:
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
How would it be impossible to find?
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
It would be unprovable whether it is illdefined or not, like how godel's (I forget whether this is the first or second) incompleteness theorem demonstrates that no system of math can show that it's consistent.testitemqlstudop wrote:How would it be impossible to find?
not active here but active on discord
- testitemqlstudop
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: July 21st, 2016, 11:45 am
- Location: in catagolue
- Contact:
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
All right then, I will make a case that encompasses all your nitpicks:
If the statement "Function F works under the scope of this question" is RESOLUTE (i.e. not ill-defined, contradictory, impossible to resolve, etc.) and is TRUE (i.e. not false) then the function is eligible.
If the statement "Function F works under the scope of this question" is RESOLUTE (i.e. not ill-defined, contradictory, impossible to resolve, etc.) and is TRUE (i.e. not false) then the function is eligible.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
What if we cannot determine whether it's resolute?testitemqlstudop wrote:All right then, I will make a case that encompasses all your nitpicks:
If the statement "Function F works under the scope of this question" is RESOLUTE (i.e. not ill-defined, contradictory, impossible to resolve, etc.) and is TRUE (i.e. not false) then the function is eligible.
not active here but active on discord
- testitemqlstudop
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: July 21st, 2016, 11:45 am
- Location: in catagolue
- Contact:
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
That's impossible.
Is it impossible to determine ill-definedness? No, since it violates the restriction on "impossible to resolve".
Is it impossible to determine contradictiveness? No, since it violates the restriction on "impossible to resolve".
Is it impossible to determine if it's impossible to resolve? No, since it violates it's own restriction.
Is it impossible to determine ill-definedness? No, since it violates the restriction on "impossible to resolve".
Is it impossible to determine contradictiveness? No, since it violates the restriction on "impossible to resolve".
Is it impossible to determine if it's impossible to resolve? No, since it violates it's own restriction.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Hey, just making sure you clarifiedtestitemqlstudop wrote:That's impossible.
Is it impossible to determine ill-definedness? No, since it violates the restriction on "impossible to resolve".
Is it impossible to determine contradictiveness? No, since it violates the restriction on "impossible to resolve".
Is it impossible to determine if it's impossible to resolve? No, since it violates it's own restriction.
I guess doing this isn't worth my time anymore-- someone else can figure out how to thwart you or demonstrate that you finally created a function whose arbitrary exclusions work
not active here but active on discord
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
What if we attached a massive light sail, say the diameter of the moon, to the equator? Assume the light sail and the supports and attachments etc. are indestructible and ignore the logistics and things to actually make said light sail (Lets say it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.). Would it affect the spin of the Earth? What if we make it the diameter of Mars? How about as large as the Earth itself?
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
The mass of a body is proportional to the cube of its radius, whereas the surface area is proportional to its square. Hence the effectiveness of a light sail is inversely proportional to the radius. So although I haven't done any calculations I'm reasonably sure that an Earth sized light sail would have only a negligible effect.Saka wrote:What if we attached a massive light sail, say the diameter of the moon, to the equator? Assume the light sail and the supports and attachments etc. are indestructible and ignore the logistics and things to actually make said light sail (Lets say it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.). Would it affect the spin of the Earth? What if we make it the diameter of Mars? How about as large as the Earth itself?
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
If I collected cubes of particles from the standard model, assuming I can confine the quarks (presumably in an x-antix meson), what cube of particles would be the worst problem?
not active here but active on discord
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Given an indestructible material to make the light sail out of, it can be made arbitrarily big without increasing its thickness. Therefore it's mass would also be proportional to it's radius. Even so, and also without doing any calculations, I'm inclined to agree with Macbi that the effect would be negligible -because the angular momentum of the Earth is enormous compared to the light pressure exerted on the whole Earth by sunlight incident on it.Macbi wrote:The mass of a body is proportional to the cube of its radius, whereas the surface area is proportional to its square. Hence the effectiveness of a light sail is inversely proportional to the radius. So although I haven't done any calculations I'm reasonably sure that an Earth sized light sail would have only a negligible effect.Saka wrote:What if we attached a massive light sail, say the diameter of the moon, to the equator? Assume the light sail and the supports and attachments etc. are indestructible and ignore the logistics and things to actually make said light sail (Lets say it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.). Would it affect the spin of the Earth? What if we make it the diameter of Mars? How about as large as the Earth itself?
The 5S project (Smallest Spaceships Supporting Specific Speeds) is now maintained by AforAmpere. The latest collection is hosted on GitHub and contains well over 1,000,000 spaceships.
Semi-active here - recovering from a severe case of LWTDS.
Semi-active here - recovering from a severe case of LWTDS.
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Then what would be the best way to affect the spin of the Earth that we can do currently? Say the entire human race's goal is to affect the Earth's spin as much as possible. What's the most effective way with today's technology?
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Perhaps adjust the orbit of an asteroid so that it falls out of the belt and hits the Earth's surface obliquely?Saka wrote:Then what would be the best way to affect the spin of the Earth that we can do currently? Say the entire human race's goal is to affect the Earth's spin as much as possible. What's the most effective way with today's technology?
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
According to xkcd, anything with more than a negligible effect would probably kill all life on the planet
https://what-if.xkcd.com/26/
Edit: and I'm guessing anything even close to that is well beyond humanities capability. Sorry for not actually answering your question, but I have no idea.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/26/
Edit: and I'm guessing anything even close to that is well beyond humanities capability. Sorry for not actually answering your question, but I have no idea.
The 5S project (Smallest Spaceships Supporting Specific Speeds) is now maintained by AforAmpere. The latest collection is hosted on GitHub and contains well over 1,000,000 spaceships.
Semi-active here - recovering from a severe case of LWTDS.
Semi-active here - recovering from a severe case of LWTDS.
- testitemqlstudop
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: July 21st, 2016, 11:45 am
- Location: in catagolue
- Contact:
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Im the movie "The Wandering Earth" many engines (which apparently fuses rocks for fuel) are installed in the equator to slow down the Earth's rotation to a halt.Macbi wrote: ↑October 1st, 2019, 10:54 amPerhaps adjust the orbit of an asteroid so that it falls out of the belt and hits the Earth's surface obliquely?Saka wrote:Then what would be the best way to affect the spin of the Earth that we can do currently? Say the entire human race's goal is to affect the Earth's spin as much as possible. What's the most effective way with today's technology?
(This actually works because the engines are installed at an angle opposite of the Earth's spin.)
Re: Thread for your ridiculously absurd questions
Unless those engines eject material into orbit (or preferably at > escape velocity) the effect will be to cause enormous equatorial winds, temporarily dumping enormous amounts of energy into the atmosphere, and after some time much of that energy will be transferred back into the Earth's spin due to drag, the rest being lost to catastrophic global heatingtestitemqlstudop wrote: ↑ Im the movie "The Wandering Earth" many engines (which apparently fuses rocks for fuel) are installed in the equator to slow down the Earth's rotation to a halt.
(This actually works because the engines are installed at an angle opposite of the Earth's spin.)
The 5S project (Smallest Spaceships Supporting Specific Speeds) is now maintained by AforAmpere. The latest collection is hosted on GitHub and contains well over 1,000,000 spaceships.
Semi-active here - recovering from a severe case of LWTDS.
Semi-active here - recovering from a severe case of LWTDS.