> > > > > 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
we can include that intention in a question for truth value here, i'm trying to make the behaviors of the components of the system and its overall result are precisely correct. so although i could use discrete position advancing and skip timesteps without integer solutions, this would not only provide for no workable timesteps but also avoid a precisely correct solution if it let particles pass over each other similarly if you are asking "how many siblings do i have" the intent is to figure out if they are all there (none dead, any new births would be of note), figure out how many places to set at a table, plan how many thank you cards to purchase, etc etc some of these change! for example if a sibling marries, you may need an extra thank you card and an extra table setting. but we're talking about an intended, kind of the mode of the available scenarios, concerning the meaning. this is hard to formalize but is what people actually mean.
