10 = 2

[QWERTYman]

Albatross wrote:

Yes it can. If x = 0...

But if x = 0, then you're dividing by 0, which is again fallacious.

[Albatross]

Precisely! However, the equation in itself has a solution for x.

-Albatross

[QWERTYman]

The original equation does, yes. x=2x -is- valid for x = 0.

x=2x is, thusly, in an infinitesimal number of cases (1/infinity), not a fallacy.

[chrisname]

"What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object"
Now, I personally dislike the question -- you can't "stop" gravity, but you can overcome it. And I don't think there's such thing as an immovable object. But, minor details aside, what do you think?

I'm inclined to think that either the force (having no mass) passes through the object, so the force keeps moving and the object stays stationary.

[hamsterman]

Force cannot 'move'. Force is only a vector, while to move you have to have global coordinates..
Every object is immovable in it's own coordinate system, and at the same time no object is immovable in any other coordinate system. So the question makes absolutely no sense.

[helios]

I'm inclined to think that either the force (having no mass) passes through the object, so the force keeps moving and the object stays stationary.

The question says "irresistible", not "unstoppable". "Unstoppable" seems to imply that either the force has free will, or that what
can't be done is shut down its source.
Force, such as gravity (which isn't really a force, but whatever), doesn't "pass through things" as though it was a beam or some kind of object. It exists as a field, and everything in it is affected by it.

Force cannot 'move'.

I think the question is assuming that there's no other force affecting the object. In that scenario, it would be impossible to cancel the force, and so it would be irresistible. So, if you want it more verbose: "what happens when, in a universe where nothing else exists, a force is applied to an object that is immovable relative to the origin of the force?"

while to move you have to have global coordinates.

Huh? There's no such thing.

In any case, that's a paradox, not a fallacy.

[hamsterman]

There are no immovable objects. The concept of such object contradicts the laws of classical mechanics. Therefore the question is a misconception.

Sorry about global coordinates. I meant position..

[helios]

You're looking at it the wrong way. The question is not about physics, but about... order of evaluation. If a force that can move anything and an object that cannot be moved meet, what happens?
If you don't like the physical terms, they can be replaced. An older version of the question said:
A traveling merchant was once on the side of the road advertising his products: a spear that could pierce anything and a shield that could deflect anything. When a man asked him what would happen if someone used the spear against the shield, the merchant couldn't answer.

[Albatross]

Aw, helios, that's easy! The spear would piece partway through the shield, and then bounce off.

-Albatross

[helios]

For something to be pierced, there has to be an entry hole and an exit hole. If the piercing object is deflected before it manages to come out the other side, then no piercing has taken place.
If a shield is pierced, then it has failed to deflect.

[Albatross]

Added details!

Considering the new conditions, if someone tried to use the spear against the shield, the spear might duplicate itself in space, bouncing off the shield while simultaneously piercing it.

Without the merging of certain aspects of parallel universes, I'm not sure if it's possible that both succeed without both failing as well.

-Albatross

[chrisname]

Assuming that either object could plausibly exist, I think that both of them would be destroyed.

hamsterman wrote:

There are no immovable objects.

I know:

I wrote:

And I don't think there's such thing as an immovable object.

[hamsterman]

I absolutely agree that this has nothing to do with physics.
For example, statement '1 = 2' is valid under assumption that we can divide by 0. However it is not so, therefore it's a fallacy.
Question "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" (and all similar questions) is only valid under assumption that there can be an unstoppable force and immovable object. However, in every case, this assumption is false, so the question is invalid and can have no answer.

[Duthomhas]

One I think really stupid is "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?". It causes people to think about a lot of stuff besides trees though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest

One I do like is "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

[QWERTYman]

Duoas wrote:

One I do like is "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

Fap, I believe it is.

As for the tree, it's "It makes a sound, but no noise."

[Duthomhas]

I don't know. I perceive that it makes noise, whether or not I hear it.
;-)

[chrisname]

@QWERTYman,
Ffs.

@Duoas,
<opinion>
That depends. You can only be certain it happened if you can see (Edit: or hear or otherwise sense) it because only what you experience at a given moment is certain to exist (I "know" there's no-one standing behind me, but it isn't certain). So while it likely did happen you can't be completely certain.
</opinion>

[Albatross]

It's amazing that Disch hasn't posted here yet saying something along the lines of "Oh no, Albatross, not again". Anyways.

@chrisname
Even that's not certain, but that's deviating toward fallibilism.

EDIT: I'm late.

-Albatross

[chrisname]

Actually I believe it's called Fallibilism.

Wikipedia wrote:

Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken.

[m4ster r0shi]

There's a village in which there's a barber who shaves those men of the village that don't shave themselves, and only them. Does this barber shave himself?