Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 5 at 21:55 UTC
|
|
|
|
Unrelated, but still fun to think about:
Quote: Otherwise known as the "heap paradox", the question regards how one defines a "thing." Is a bale of hay still a bale of hay if you remove one straw? If so, is it still a bale of hay if you remove another straw? If you continue this way, you will eventually deplete the entire bale of hay, and the question is: at what point is it no longer a bale of hay? While this may initially seem like a superficial problem, it penetrates to fundamental issues regarding how we define objects. This is similar to Theseus' paradox.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 5 at 23:10 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
It's a good question, that. I'd say that a heap is, oh, maybe a kilogram and upwards of straw? If you say that's arbitrary, well, it is, but I like answers to questions. In fact, let's go with... about a kilogram. That'll do!
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 5 at 23:23 UTC
|
|
|
|
So if it's .0001 grams under 1 kilogram, it isn't a heap anymore?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 5 at 23:58 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
Ahah, you are sneaky, but notice I said "about" a kilogram. Ha!
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 6 at 00:21 UTC
|
|
|
|
Exactly! The point is that it is almost impossible to specifically define an object like that. "About" a kilogram doesn't cut it.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 6 at 03:39 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
melloyellow582 said: "About" a kilogram doesn't cut it.
Yes it does! A heap is "about" some value. Don't make me go all order-of-magnitude on you.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 6 at 17:48 UTC
|
|
|
|
Quote: Is a bale of hay still a bale of hay if you remove one straw?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 6 at 20:33 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
My problem with all these pages is that they're written by philosophy troopers with nothing better to do. I am a physicist, and I will draw a line. So you say: if you remove a straw from a bale of hay, is it still a bale? I say: depends on how big the bale is ;)
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 6 at 21:23 UTC
— Ed. 2010 Nov 6 at 21:23 UTC
|
|
|
|
So, the smallest bale of hay that fits your "minimum bale" size minus 1 piece of straw is no longer a bale?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 6 at 22:28 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
I'd say no. Why would it be? We've already defined what a bale is. Clearly after removing one unit from it, it's no longer a bale. That's like... If I have a million Kelvin, and it cools by one Kelvin, it's no longer a million Kelvin.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 6 at 22:36 UTC
|
|
|
|
Yes, but the point is that undefined things are... well, hard to define. It's easy to say that 10-1 is not 10 anymore, but with something abstract like a bale of hay or being "late", the line gets a lot less clear.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 6 at 22:47 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
I've not been taking this thread all that seriously, I feel the need to get silly after doing a certain amount of work. Hence my attempts to define a bale of hay. By putting a number to it.
Late's easy though, you stop being late when you're on time.
I am too much a scientist!
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 6 at 22:55 UTC
|
|
|
|
bale - a large bundle bound for storage or transport
I drink to forget but I always remember.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 6 at 22:59 UTC
|
|
|
aaronjer
*****'n Admin
2005 Mar 21 • 5042
1,227 ₧
|
That showed an impressive degree of a lack of understanding of the current conversation, Cloud.
Personally, as far as the heap/bale thing goes there's two responses I might have. The first is that I'd give it an exact mass requirement to be a heap/bale like DR did and would strictly adhere to that measurement. The second, and far more likely, would be that I wouldn't care enough because it's very unimportant whether or not heaps are classified correctly or not.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 7 at 04:49 UTC
|
|
|
|
uhh i mean...ITS A FUCKN BALE O HAY! 
if you guys are ACTUALEY arguing about a bale of hay and the matter of "taking one straw, is it considered, bale?"
what i am saying is a "bale" is irrelevant. you just feed your retarded animals with them
there are somethings that you cannot stick numbers too
I drink to forget but I always remember.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 7 at 06:47 UTC
— Ed. 2010 Nov 7 at 06:53 UTC
|
|
|
|
Yes, that is indeed the point. Thank you for understanding!
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 7 at 09:45 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
I disagree. Is it really so nonsensical to say that a bale minus one straw is no longer a bale?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 7 at 14:19 UTC
|
|
|
|
It shouldn't be, but it sort of is.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 7 at 17:10 UTC
|
|
|
aaronjer
*****'n Admin
2005 Mar 21 • 5042
1,227 ₧
|
aaronjer said: That showed an impressive degree of a lack of understanding of the current conversation, Cloud.
What you said first looked like you were just giving us the dictionary definition of bale, thinking we were wondering what a bale was. If that was not the case then I suppose you're not a dumbass. 
For clarity's sake, I would consider a bale to be not a certain specific mass of hay, but a range. Something like 1000-2000 generic units of hay would be a bale, any fraction above or below that would no longer be a bale. Taking one straw away from a bale would not make it stop being a bale unless it was already at the lowest end of the range.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 8 at 06:06 UTC
— Ed. 2010 Nov 8 at 06:10 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
That's probably the most sensible suggestion in this truck.
Do we solve world hunger now?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 8 at 10:25 UTC
|
|
|
Rockbomb
Dog fucker (but in a good way now)
2009 Nov 14 • 2045
|
Down Rodeo said: Do we solve world hunger now?
Its pretty easy really. Kill everyone = nobody is hungry.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 8 at 16:11 UTC
|
|
|
molkman
Owner of George Washington's Prototype Mittens
2005 May 2 • 2066
404 ₧
|
Problems like the hay-one lose their fascination when they are solved though. Because the awesome lies in their MYSTERY.
I love things like that.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 8 at 19:27 UTC
|
|
|
|
Got a new one for ya.
Quote: The paradox itself states: "If this statement is not a shrimp, then it is a paradox."
What makes this statement untimely confusing is the fact that it is not a shrimp. This would have us conclude that it is a paradox.
What makes this statement a paradox is the fact that it makes perfect logical sense, except for the fact that it makes perfect logical sense.
The initial statement makes sense, as the statement is not a shrimp and is paradox. However, paradoxes do not make sense, so the fact that it makes sense and is a paradox makes no sense, making it a paradox.
It's kind of a dumb catch-22 sort of thing, but still ultimately mind-boggling to me.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 9 at 01:58 UTC
— Ed. 2010 Nov 9 at 01:59 UTC
|
|
|
|
So its like a paradox of a paradox?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 9 at 03:24 UTC
|
|
|
|
