> > > > > > > > > > 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
>
> there's possibly a summary of this that likely confirms it's
> unreasonable but very aggressively held with amnesia
>
> long ago built the habit of continuing rather than engaging the
> amnesia-causing. it out-manipulated me longer ago, unsure what to do
# another approach could be to consider t to
have an unincluded analytical component (although it does kind of
'expand' it may stay numerically small)
# the particles could be considered at
integral or rational t that is below the real t. the extra could be
held analytically if needed.
# then the distances between them would
involve squaring that square root, and the rational value that isn't
rooted could be included in the terms.
# it would be very very accurate
