> > > > > > > > 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. > > > > given this goal, appropriate options can open. > > a more realistic approach than exact integers or rationals for every > > component with exact elastic collisions of spheres, would be to figure > > out what numerical precision is necessary to preserve all the > > properties of the system. > > ... dropped a concept ... but alternatively other fudges of the system > > (spheres and elasticness) could change to provide for an exact > > representation > > > > > 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. > > i think it's not the approach > but it is hard because there is a tiny part inside my considering that > repeatedly expresses worthlessness-judging of me when i consider it, > and then this negativity is used to stimulate amnesia and cognitive > disruption, around parts in succession > > pattern of ... somebody being seen as having a negative quality as > being a reason to harm them further. very cognitively harmful. > genocidal feedback loop, kind of an amplification of general arbitrary > social injustices (people have less so succeed less and then gain less > in comparison to those with more)
it's hard to confirm that sqrt(B^2-4AC) can't reasonably be constrained to an integer or non-expanding rational because it's a confusing domain of mathematical proofs, which i'm not experienced at. one approach i tried is if B^2 = 8AC, this can appear as if it would work, but i think it likely can't, but i have not quite shown this to myself y
