On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:21:08 AM UTC-7, sergi o wrote:
> On 5/27/2022 12:38 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 10:23:29 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 2:17:50 PM UTC-7, sergi o wrote:
> >>> On 5/26/2022 3:47 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 1:37:42 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/26/2022 1:25 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/25/2022 11:49 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 5/25/2022 7:21 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:11:22 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:25 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Just because in theory an infinite number of steps is required doesn't
> >>>>>>>>>> mean the limit cannot be reached. Consider Zeno's Paradox where
> >>>>>>>>>> Achilles
> >>>>>>>>>> races a tortoise with a head start. Each time Achilles reaches a point
> >>>>>>>>>> where the tortoise was, the tortoise advances somewhat. When Achilles
> >>>>>>>>>> reaches that point, the tortoise advances more. And so on for an
> >>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. Yet Achilles catches up to the tortoise and
> >>>>>>>>>> passes it and wins the race, despite taking an infinite number of
> >>>>>>>>>> steps
> >>>>>>>>>> to catch up to the tortoise.
> >>>>>>>>> If Achilles strictly plays by the tortoises rules on a step-by-step
> >>>>>>>>> basis:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What are "the tortoise's rules"? The only rules are the tortoise gets a
> >>>>>> head start and both it and Achilles run as fast as they can to the
> >>>>>> finish line, and whoever does so first, wins.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> step 1: tortoise moves one meter; Achilles moves one meter. The
> >>>>>>>>> tortoise
> >>>>>>>>> is ahead because of the head start.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> step 2: tortoise moves one meter; Achilles moves one meter. The
> >>>>>>>>> tortoise
> >>>>>>>>> is still ahead because of the head start.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> on and on. The turtle will cross the finish line before Achilles.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The turtle will never cross the finish line but will always be ahead
> >>>>>>>> of Achilles.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes. True. It gets infinitely closer and closer to the finish line.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That is not Zeno's Paradox. The tortoise gets a head start, at point
> >>>>>> A[1]. The race starts. When Achilles reaches A[1], the tortoise has
> >>>>>> moved ahead somewhat, to what we call A[2]. When Achilles reaches A[2].
> >>>>>> the tortoise has reached A[3], at A[3] the tortoise is at A[4] and so
> >>>>>> forth.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Since Achilles is faster than the tortoise, the distances A[1], A[2],
> >>>>>> [A3], ... get smaller and smaller, since the time it takes Achilles to
> >>>>>> run from the start to A[1] equals the time it takes the slower tortoise
> >>>>>> to run from A[1] to A[2], and so on.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The paradox is, no matter how big n gets, A[n] (Achilles' position) is
> >>>>>> always behind A[n+1] (the tortoise's position), even as n approaches
> >>>>>> infinity. So Achilles can never beat the tortoise, right? But, as long
> >>>>>> as the head start isn't _too_ large, in real life, Achilles passes the
> >>>>>> tortoise and wins, just as you'd expect. So what's wrong with this?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As I said, just because there's an infinite limit, it doesn't mean the
> >>>>>> limit is absolute. In this case, the total time passed also reaches a
> >>>>>> limit (at n=infinity) but that time limit isn't infinite, so what
> >>>>>> happens after the "limit" on time passes? As always, time marches on...
> >>>>>> At that point Achilles passes the tortoise and remains ahead for the
> >>>>>> rest of the race, and the infinite series no longer applies.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Now, if Achilles tells the tortoise to f-off and just starts
> >>>>>>>>> running, he
> >>>>>>>>> will quickly pass the tortoise...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In real life, yes, but in Zeno's Paradox, no.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ;^)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Extra credit: Given the speeds of Achilles S1 and the tortoise S2
> >>>>>> (S1>S2), and the head start distance A1, how long does it take for
> >>>>>> Achilles to pass the tortoise? :-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I did some equations on this a while back:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/UKBgW2IOZkI/m/6tr-_qY-3DgJ
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here are my comments:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Iirc, scale was speed:
> >>>>> ____________________________
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> Ahhhh, now this is a direct formula:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> n = iteration count
> >>>>> d = distance
> >>>>> s = scale
> >>>>>
> >>>>> r_[n] = (d / s^n) * (s^n - (s-1)^n)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> just might work for finding the total distance
> >>>>> traveled at a given iteration count of the following
> >>>>> iterated equation:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> r_[n+1] = r_[n] + (d - r_[n]) / s
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here is the sequence for d = 10 and s = 4 using the
> >>>>> iterative formula:
> >>>>> __________________________________
> >>>>> r_[0] = 0
> >>>>> r_[1] = 0 + (10 - 0) / 4 = 2.5
> >>>>> r_[2] = 2.5 + (10 - 2.5) / 4 = 4.375
> >>>>> r_[3] = 4.375 + (10 - 4.375) / 4 = 5.78125
> >>>>> r_[4] = 5.78125 + (10 - 5.78125) / 4 = 6.8359375
> >>>>> __________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And here is the sequence for d = 10 and s = 4 using
> >>>>> the direct formula:
> >>>>> __________________________________
> >>>>> r_[0] = 10 / 1 * 0 = 0
> >>>>> r_[1] = 10 / 4 * 1 = 2.5
> >>>>> r_[2] = 10 / 16 * 7 = 4.375
> >>>>> r_[3] = 10 / 64 * 37 = 5.78125
> >>>>> r_[4] = 10 / 256 * 175 = 6.8359375
> >>>>> __________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As you can see, they are identical!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Humm...
> >>>>> ____________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here is another post:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/UKBgW2IOZkI/m/ysjxQWu9URMJ
> >>>>> ____________________________
> >>>>> I think I found a way to find the handicap of a
> >>>>> runner in an infinite race on a finite track...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How about something like:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> d = total distance in track
> >>>>> s = scale, which relates to speed
> >>>>> n = integer iteration count, which relates to time
> >>>>> r_h = a runners starting handicap
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here is the iterative equation for finding the
> >>>>> distance a runner is down the track that I posted
> >>>>> up thread:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> r_[n + 1] = r_[n] + (d - r_[n]) / s
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The handicap of the runner is equal to r_[0]
> >>>>> because n = 0 is the starting position of every
> >>>>> runner.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The goal is to find the handicap of a runner with
> >>>>> a given distance, iteration count, total distance
> >>>>> of the track, and a scale or speed. AFAICT, the
> >>>>> following formula solves for the handicap of a
> >>>>> runner using that information:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> r_h = ((s-1) / s)^(-n) * ( (d * (s-1)^n * s^(-n) - d + r)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here is output of a racer using the iterative equation
> >>>>> with the following attributes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> d = 10
> >>>>> s = 4
> >>>>> r_h = 6.8
> >>>>> _______________________________________
> >>>>> r_[0] = 6.8
> >>>>> r_[1] = 6.8 + (10 - 6.8) / 4 = 7.6
> >>>>> r_[2] = 7.6 + (10 - 7.6) / 4 = 8.2
> >>>>> r_[3] = 8.2 + (10 - 8.2) / 4 = 8.65
> >>>>> r_[4] = 8.65 + (10 - 8.65) / 4 = 8.9875
> >>>>> _______________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As we can see this runner has a head start of 6.8 out
> >>>>> of 10. Also, in the third frame, the runner r_[2] has
> >>>>> traveled 8.2 out of a possible 10.0.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given that information alone, we can plug it all into
> >>>>> the formula for finding the handicap, and get:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> r_h = ((4-1) / 4)^(-2) * ((10 * (4-1)^2 * 4^(-2) - 10 + 8.2) = 6.8
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bingo! We now know that the handicap for the runner
> >>>>> is 6.8 at n = 0 by information reaped in a later moment
> >>>>> in time when n = 2... Three frames later.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is this Kosher?!?!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> :^o
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ____________________________
> >>>>
> >>>> If you add zero to .999 repeating you still get .999 repeating.
> >>>> Add the infinitely small and you get 1 instead.
> >>> .999 repeating = 1.000 repeating anyway
> >> Mitch, for that ".999... is add infinitesimal", just first
> >> have it that "1 minus infinitesimal, is, .999..., lesser".
> >
> > .999 is lesser than one by the infinitely small not zero.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> if you add an infinitesimal to 1 you get 1.000... repeating

No. You get above 1 by the infinitely small.

Mitchell Raemsch