> > > > here's where i am but you're just going to tell me i'm wrong without > > > > letting me understand it. you don't like my interest in finding what's > > > > possible > > > > > > > > # the collision point is the earliest intersection of > > > > the swept-sphere paths the two spheres travel on > > > > # selfdot(pos1+vel1*t) = rsquared > > > > # selfdot(pos2+vel2*t) = rsquared > > > > # selfdot(touchpt - (pos1 + vel1*t)) = rsquared > > > > # selfdot(touchpt - (pos2 + vel2*t)) = rsquared > > > > # simpler is to compare their distances to the sum of > > > > their radii (inhibition forced us to look up on the internet >( ) > > > > # selfdot(pos1 + vel1*t, pos2 + vel2*t) = 4rsquared > > > > # even simpler is to consider one the reference frame > > > > for the other > > > > # selfdot(pos12+vel12*t) = 4rsquared > > > > # sum(pos12)**2 + sum(pos12*vel12)*t + sum(vel12)**2*t > > > > # it's a quadratic equation where A = sum(vel12)**2, B > > > > = sum(pos12*vel12), and C = sum(pos12) > > > > # the quadratic equation is (-B +- sqrt(B^2-4AC))/(2A) > > > > # so it's immediately rational from A, meanwhile you'd > > > > need B^2-4AC to be a square number or a rational of square numbers > > > > > > i'm starting to understand myself around it a little > > > it looks like it's not reasonable to make B^2-4AC a square number, and > > > very hard to make it a rational of square numbers in a way that > > > doesn't cause precision explosion > > > and that's really similar to something being impossible, and contains > > > a space where it's possible that it's impossible > > > and impossibility is a huge projected/introjected inhibition i have, > > > associated with hopelessness and worthlessness and suicide and harm to > > > my loved ones and stuff > > > so i try not to develop concepts of impossibility. it's been quite > > > nice to have reversed that > > > > of course what slave boss says is that it's impossible for me to > > succeed at anything at all, roughly > > > > which is different from mathematical impossibility, it's more value > > and perspective oriented. it seems much stronger really! > > are there logical impossibilities? _yes_, _if we allow for sufficient > constraints_, especialyl constraints that expand as holes in meaning > are engaged so as to defend the existence of impossibility > > for example among the set of [1,2] it is impossible to find a 3 _if_ > you consider the definition of that set to be one that specifically > never contains a 3, > such that > - situations where 3 == 1 or 3 == 2 are excluded > - meanings of set that have other members than those listed are excluded > - addition is excluded from routes for "find"ing > etc etc
so we could find integers and rationals that satisfy this [[[but most of the easy to find approaches for this leave the intended domain
