Difference between revisions of "Talk:Banach-Tarski Paradox"
(→Purpose of Construction: new section) |
(→Purpose of Construction: I think the introduction understates the motivation of the paradox. Wasn't it to illustrate how the AoC, if embraced, can lead to absurd conclusions?) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Whatever the opinions of Banach or Tarski may have been on the validity of the AoC, we can relatively sure they did not develop the Banach-Tarski construction I describe in the article to comment on the AoC, because there was already a very weird AoC-based construction which had been well-known for 19 years prior to Banach and Tarski's publication of their result. The BTP may be used today to illustrate the consequences of the AoC more easily to a layman, but the original purpose of the construction was more involved with group orbits and (perhaps?) representation theory. I hope nobody minds if I make this minor change. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:44, 5 January 2010 (EST) | Whatever the opinions of Banach or Tarski may have been on the validity of the AoC, we can relatively sure they did not develop the Banach-Tarski construction I describe in the article to comment on the AoC, because there was already a very weird AoC-based construction which had been well-known for 19 years prior to Banach and Tarski's publication of their result. The BTP may be used today to illustrate the consequences of the AoC more easily to a layman, but the original purpose of the construction was more involved with group orbits and (perhaps?) representation theory. I hope nobody minds if I make this minor change. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:44, 5 January 2010 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I think the introduction understates the motivation of the paradox. Wasn't it to illustrate how the AoC, if embraced, can lead to absurd conclusions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 5 January 2010 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 03:33, January 6, 2010
Since the article doesn't explain how the sphere is split, we'd better describe it as a claim made by certain parties, much as the claim made by AGW supporters that their global climate models explain or predict anything. Since GCMs have never been explained in any encyclopedia article I've read, I assume they are too esoteric for us laymen to understand (or check). --Ed Poor Talk 19:15, 4 January 2010 (EST)
- Not at all. I can have a complete description of the Banach-Tarski paradox up by tonight which will be accessible to anybody who understands irrational numbers. I'll try and have it up by tonight. JacobB 19:30, 4 January 2010 (EST)
Superb
This is superb! In reply to Ed, I agree that the statement this confirms the multiplication of the loaves is over-the-top, though funny. Thanks for deleting the comedy.--Andy Schlafly 22:53, 4 January 2010 (EST)
- Thanks, Andy! For the record, I didn't add the fish and loaves stuff, that appears to be users named Foxtrot and Aroth. JacobB 00:53, 5 January 2010 (EST)
Purpose of Construction
Whatever the opinions of Banach or Tarski may have been on the validity of the AoC, we can relatively sure they did not develop the Banach-Tarski construction I describe in the article to comment on the AoC, because there was already a very weird AoC-based construction which had been well-known for 19 years prior to Banach and Tarski's publication of their result. The BTP may be used today to illustrate the consequences of the AoC more easily to a layman, but the original purpose of the construction was more involved with group orbits and (perhaps?) representation theory. I hope nobody minds if I make this minor change. JacobB 21:44, 5 January 2010 (EST)
- I think the introduction understates the motivation of the paradox. Wasn't it to illustrate how the AoC, if embraced, can lead to absurd conclusions?--Andy Schlafly 22:33, 5 January 2010 (EST)