> Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > > Herman Jurjus <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > > > >> Apparently there's something wrong with backward > supertasks (and not > >> with ordinary, 'forward' supertasks). But why > should that be? > > > > Well, I'm not at all sure that there's no problem > with forward > > supertasks. Surely, it is not difficult to come up > with a > > problematic case. > > > > For instance, take our favorite example: at each > time t - 1/n, place > > balls 10(n-1) to 10n - 1 in a vase and then remove > ball n. At the end > > the vase is empty. > > > > Now alter the situation slightly. At each step, > again place 10 balls > > into the vase and then remove one ball, but remove > the ball > > *randomly*. At the end, the vase may contain any > number of balls. > > This strikes me as suitably counterintuitive to say > that the forward > > supertask has something wrong with it. Or, > perhaps, with my > > intuitions. > > More conclusive (at least for me): you switch a light > bulb on and off; > after infinitely many steps, is the light on or off? > (Or: you put one > and the same ball in the vase, out of the vase, in > the vase, out of the > vase, etc. What's in the vase/where's the ball after > infinitely many steps?) > If you can't trust supertask-reasoning in this case, > why should you > trust it in other, seemingly less problematic cases? > > For the sake of clarity: I'm not endorsing or > advocating the > backward-supertask paradox as extremely important. > Just wanted to share > it here, because I had never heard of it, and thought > perhaps others > also hadn't. > > -- > Cheers, > Herman Jurjus
i assumed people on sci.math knew about the term.
apparantly i was to optimistic again.
basicly thompsons lamp can be well expressed by ordinary number theory :
lim n -> oo n mod 2 = ???
there is no convergeance , so the answer is not 0 or 1 but ' div ' and in terms of my 3-valued logic : '0' truth value.
btw all these things have been said a billion times on sci.math , both my own comments and analogues of thompsons lamp.
so i wonder why they are posted again , but i will look at the good side ; this gives me an opportunity to give a good reply and a good reminder of my ideas.