4 ms·
Ah, my mistake, you are correct. That being said, the example has another flaw: it is based on completing an infinite number of finite time tasks in finite time
by mankyd 14y ago
Ah, my mistake, you are correct. That being said, the example has another flaw: it is based on completing an infinite number of finite time tasks in finite time. That is to say, adding and removing an infinite number of balls will take an infinite amount of time, but we're only given an hour to do it in.
Note that this is different from Zeno's paradox, wherein the two racers each have to move an infinite number of ever decreasing distances in ever decreasing time (as opposed to constant amounts of time).
- ColinWright 14y agoThat's covered in the first part, where it defines an infinite sequence of time stamps leading up to midnight. It assumes each task can be completed in half the time of the one before, but if you're going to argue about that then don't bother thinking about infinity at all.