= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
benelliott comments on Edward Nelson claims proof of inconsistency in Peano Arithmetic - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (115)
I didn't downvote, but if I had it would have been because you seem to be missing the point a bit.
It may well be the case that we live in a discrete universe without infinities (I assume that's what you meant by integer) but this is not the case for Newtonian Mechanics, which asserts that both space and time remain continuous at every scale. Thomas never claimed to have a paradox in actual physics, only in Newtonian mechanics, so what you are saying is irrelevant to his claim, you might was well bring up GR or QM as a solution.
Appealing to the third law also doesn't help, his whole point is that if you do the calculations one way you get one answer and if you do them another way you get another answer, hence the use of the word paradox.
His point is if you only do some of the calculations, you can come up with the wrong answer. I fail to see how that implies a paradox rather than just sloppiness.
If I can do a calculation and stop and then do another calculation and get a contradiction that's still a contradiction. it doesn't matter that I can do other calculations that would lead to a non-contradiction.
If he put a single equal sign in his 'proof', I would be more charitable. As it is, it's not clear to me that he actually did any calculations or showed any contradictions.
I'm not sure he did, but I have done the calculations and it seems to check out (although I may have made a mistake). The only laws I used were F=ma and F=Gm_1m_2/(r^2), of which the third law should emerge as an immediate consequence rather than needing to be added in on top.
The reason they "check out" is because you calculate the force caused by N+1 particles on N particles. Because your calculation has an external particle, the CoM has an acceleration. This is entirely an artifact of how the limit is taken, and is thus a sign of sloppiness and incompleteness.
If you did the calculations for the system of N particles, then took the limit as N approached infinity, you would get no CoM acceleration. This really has nothing to do with Newtonian physics.
I don't think I do this.
Obviously the problem is with an infinity not taken as a limit. If you had said that, instead of saying other irrelevant things, then I doubt anyone would have objected.
Does your leftmost particle have a rightward acceleration which makes the weighted average of acceleration (i.e. CoM acceleration) 0?
I have edited the ancestral post to say that. Hopefully, the superior articulation will cause its karma to rise into the positives.
Since I wasn't using a limit I didn't have a leftmost particle.
Then you are calculating the force caused by N+1 particles on N particles. For every particle i, you look at the i-1 to the right, add up their gravitational force, and see that it is dwarfed by force from the particle to the left- particle number i+1.
If you have a finite number of particles, the mistake vanishes. If you have an infinite number of particles but you add particles all at once instead of half of i and half of i+1 at once, the mistake vanishes.