News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Banach-Tarski paradox by georgeorwell on Sunday December 09, 2012 @06:03PM (#4896564)
Is Banach-Tarski* a valid answer? (Kleene star.)
Re:Banach-Tarski paradox by ColinWright on Sunday December 09, 2012 @06:11PM (#4896582)
No, but (Banach-Tarski)(Banach-Tarski)* would be, or possibly (Banach-Tarski)+ depending on your system. You can't get to zero copies.
Re:Banach-Tarski paradox by georgeorwell on Sunday December 09, 2012 @06:13PM (#4896594)
Wikipedia says you can collapse two balls into one, so doesn't that mean you can cut your ball in half, mold the halves into balls, and then merge those two half-volume balls into one half-volume ball? And if you can do that, can't you get to an infinitely small ball?
Re:Banach-Tarski paradox by ColinWright on Sunday December 09, 2012 @06:16PM (#4896607)
Arbitrarily small, yes, but never zero. You will always have c points, where c is the cardinality of the continuum.
Re:Banach-Tarski paradox by bobinator30 on Monday December 10, 2012 @11:18AM (#4899708)
Xeno would agree!