4 ms·
Absolutely, this is a pretty solid explanation and HN (and similar places) always have the bizarre take on explaining of paradoxes to shout "It's not a paradox!
by tgb 6y ago
Absolutely, this is a pretty solid explanation and HN (and similar places) always have the bizarre take on explaining of paradoxes to shout "It's not a paradox!" Paradoxes are about appearing, at first thought, to be impossible, not it being literally impossible. In this case, it's the two observations:
1) A mirror is rotationally symmetric so should treat left/right the same as up/down.
2) A piece of paper with writing held up to a mirror reads right-to-left instead of left-to-right. But it does not read bottom-to-top.
This asks for an explanation - one that the article gives. Why do so many here feel the need to say that since this has an explanation, it is not a paradox? Outside of fiction, every paradox has an explanation and, moreover, we're discussing an article that gives that explanation.
But: a mirror does flip something, it flips in-and-out. Mirror images are not the same.
- plorkyeran 6y agoThe (perhaps overly) charitable take on "It's not a paradox!" responses is that it's something which didn't appear impossible or weird to that responder, and the article failed to make the case for why there's even something that needs an explanation.
- tedunangst 6y agoI'm curious to know what percentage of commenters who know exactly how mirrors work can perform simple tasks like assembling a puzzle with the same speed only looking through a mirror.
- kroltan 6y agoI don't think that would prove anything at all, since knowing how something works doesn't mean you can use it in place of your usual behaviour. You also have to unlearn manipualting things in non-mirror space. Smarter Every Day actually has a video demonstrating a similar thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0
- kortilla 6y agoI know how a blindfold works and I can’t assemble a puzzle with a blindfold on. Is that curious?
- bigbubba 6y ago> Paradoxes are about appearing, at first thought, to be impossible, not it being literally impossible. That's not true, or at least it's not the whole truth. Real paradoxes do exist: A barber shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves, who shaves the barber? So if true paradoxes do exist, it seems fair to call out alleged paradoxes for not truly being paradoxes.
- prower 6y ago> Real paradoxes do exist: A barber shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves, who shaves the barber? I'm clearly missing something but how is that a paradox?
- crowbahr 6y agoBetter paradox: This statement is false.
- justincredible 6y ago/s/better/simpler/
- bigbubba 6y agoIf the barber doesn't shave himself, then he must shave himself because he shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves. But he only shaves those that don't shave themselves, so he cannot shave himself.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox
- sumtechguy 6y agoOr there is a second barber and they shave each other? If there is only one barber then it is a paradox.
- bigbubba 6y agoThere is only one barber and he's not bald or otherwise excluded from the 'everybody' in "he shaves everybody who doesn't shave themselves." It's not a lateral thinking problem, or a matter of thinking outside the box. The scenario described is simply impossible. Everybody, including the barber, is either shaved by the barber or [XOR] shaves themselves, which is impossible in the case of the barber. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox