36 ms·
This is similar to Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenos_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise http://en.wikipedia.org/w
by augustl 16y ago
This is similar to Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenos_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenos_paradoxes#Achilles_and_th...
The paradox lies in "infinity" and "never". Achilles will overtake the tortoise when he's one atom away from the tortoise, and similarly at one point your corner removal will reach the atom level, where you can no longer reduce it and maintain a square shape.
At atom level, when your squares consist of three atoms in a L pattern, you can't reduce it further without distorting the squares
Assuming, of course, that atoms are the smallest particles.
- kd0amg 16y agoThere is no smallest nonzero distance in Euclidean geometry.
- augustl 16y agoMy comment was regarding physics in general, not a subset of math/geometry. Are you saying my comparison to the Zeno paradox is wrong?
- JeremyBanks 16y agoI think the analogy is flawed. Using limits we can resolve Zeno's arrow paradox. For the situation described here limits cannot solve the problem because it turns out that it is not an accurate model of a circle.