Subject: RE: [FFML] [FF][Ranma] Roses of Shadow, Part One
From: bastian@enterprise.mathematik.uni-essen.de (Sebastian Weinberg)
Date: 6/30/1997, 5:28 PM
To: RLawson@ci.plymouth.mn.us, sterman@sprynet.com
CC: Fanfiction ML <fanfic@fanfic.com>
Reply-to:
bastian@enterprise.mathematik.uni-essen.de

On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:05:39 -0500 Richard Lawson wrote:

: >1) There are a couple of ways to interpret "physically impossible". When
: >you say this, do you mean that something is impossible *in principle*,
: >that it can never be done no matter what the situation, like exceeding
: >the speed of light?

A-heh, it is possible for an object to have a speed higher than
lightspeed.  Tachyons, for example, do (as is to be expected from
particles, bearing that name).  The impossibility lies in
acceleration from below lightspeed to above it. (Or deceleration
from above to below)


: > Or do you mean that it won't work *in these
: >particular circumstances*?
:
: This reminds me of a debate I got into with my teacher in the eighth
: grade.  The puzzle was to connect a 3 by 3 array of dots using four
: lines, without ever lifting your pencil:
:
: * * *
: * * *
: * * *

Heh, I can do it in one line.  Oh, you mean they have to be
*straight*?  :)


: There is, of course, a solution.  However, the teacher said it was also
: possible with just three lines:  Just draw a line from where you are to
: the north pole, then drop back down to the south pole, then back on up.
:
: I protested:  doing that was physically impossible.  The teacher said
: no, it was possible.  I argued strongly that it wasn't, that you'd never
: be able to draw a straight line for thousands of miles over water, snow,
: etc.  Since I was just a kid, of course, the teacher ignored my
: argument.

And well he did.  Richard, the man was just illustrating a *point*
there.  He was trying to teach you the wonder of lateral thinking;
that by rising above the limited mindset of the person who thought
up the riddle and using *three*-dimensional geometry instead of
two-dimensional, you could simplify the solution even beyond the
requirements.  But, alas, you were a kid and the lesson was lost
on you.  :)


: However, I still believe I was right:  the solution he proposed was
: physically impossible.

No, Richard, you're wrong!  (He hates that, people. Remember that
for later.)

You are committing here, what I consider one of the cardinal sins
of pseudo-scientific thinking:  You are confusing "It is
impossible" with "It can't be done".

If someone told you "Go lift that mountain over there", you would
say "That's impossible", but in fact it is perfectly possible, and
that can be proven.  I merely need to measure the volume of the
mountain, look up what kind of stone it is and it's specific
weight, multiply the two numbers and ask you how high you want it
lifted.  Then I can tell you accurately what amount of force you
need to lift this mountain.  In other words, *it* *is* *possible*!
There is a definite number that gives the required energy to do
it.  Neither you or I can do it, but isn't it the height of
arrogance to conclude from this fact that it is plain impossible?

It's this kind of woolly thinking that prompts hundreds of rookie
mathematics each year to try and square the circle.  Every maths
book worth its salt will tell them that it's impossible, but they
think that just means "Nobody mananaged it yet" - because common
usage (and I know how much store you put in that) has given the
words "It's Impossible" this meaning.  They do not realize that
science does not work this way.  When a mathematician (or a
physicist or, for that matter, any serious scientist) says "It's
impossible", it means exactly that.  There is *proof* that the
circle *cannot* be squared.  No secret trick or ingenious method
can ever be found - it is plainly impossible.  Which does not go
for lifting a mountain or drawing a line from pole to pole.

<dee-e-ep breath>

In conclusion, let me say that as far as I'm concerned, you can
say in your story that it's impossible, and I wouldn't raise a
brow, much less an objection.  Just don't claim that any laws of
physics are involved, and you are right as rain.  If you really
want to base that claim on science, use Biology instead.  Only
that the rest of the continuity would come crashing down around
you, if subjected to such scrutiny...


(Incidentally, Richard, when I was in school, I always *hated*
those kids who turned down wonderfully sneaky solutions like
drawing a line from pole to pole with such boring arguments like
"But you can't *do* that!"  I bet they all grew up to be
accountants with no lives. ;)


Sebastian
--
       <http://enterprise.mathematik.uni-essen.de/~bastian/>
                         Comics reviewed
--
Worse things happen in C.
��������������