## Thomson's Lamp Solution

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

-1-
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

Arising_uk wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:53 pm
I'm just puzzled, is this lamp going to reach the two minute mark or not?
There is no way that the lamp can't reach the two-minute mark. Everything in the known universe hits two minute marks.

What you want to say is that the intervals between switches, can they reach a zero length of time? No, they can't, but still, when reaching the two minute mark, the intervals are reduced to zero.

This is what is impossible to grasp intuitively. That if something does not reach zero, how come it can be reduced to zero.

Well, the wonders of calculus. If you don't like this, you're very human, and you must hate Isaac Newton from here onward. And maybe Liebnitz, too, if you are ambitious.

Arising_uk
Posts: 10664
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

-1- wrote: So the logic stands, while the intuition says differently.
Look up the words "on" and "off" and the phrase "at the same time" then look up "logical contradiction".

Arising_uk
Posts: 10664
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

-1- wrote:There is no way that the lamp can't reach the two-minute mark. Everything in the known universe hits two minute marks. ...
Then what is the result?
What you want to say is that the intervals between switches, can they reach a zero length of time? No, they can't, but still, when reaching the two minute mark, the intervals are reduced to zero. ...
Sounds like logical nonsense to me. What wtf said was that the two-minute mark is not defined in the proposal so the problem is meaningless but what I wondered was that to actually test it you can't use the same timer as that one has to work on seconds so you need another one that may well get very fast.
This is what is impossible to grasp intuitively. That if something does not reach zero, how come it can be reduced to zero.
It can't, at least not outside of our mathematics.
Well, the wonders of calculus. If you don't like this, you're very human, and you must hate Isaac Newton from here onward. And maybe Liebnitz, too, if you are ambitious.
Haven't read Newton, or at least only his Optics, and since I'm not mathematically minded it made small sense but Leibniz I have and his metaphysics seemed as sound as any in matters of the noumena.

-1-
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:09 am
-1- wrote: So the logic stands, while the intuition says differently.
Look up the words "on" and "off" and the phrase "at the same time" then look up "logical contradiction".
You are actually right about that. No doubt.

Except you are using a Strawman fallacy. Because I never claimed what you object to in here.

To not paraphrase, I quote what I claimed:

""""lim (f(x))x-> infinity is equal to zero. This means that the lamp is neither turned on nor turned off at the end of the two minutes; it also means that the lamp is turned on and off without any time spent on the "off" or on the "on" state.""""

What you need to conceptualize is the time interval what calculus calls a "moment". It is a lengthless time interval, much like a point is a lengthless extent of space or of line.

I am not making this up.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

-1- wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:20 am
Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:09 am
-1- wrote: So the logic stands, while the intuition says differently.
Look up the words "on" and "off" and the phrase "at the same time" then look up "logical contradiction".
You are actually right about that. No doubt.

Except you are using a Strawman fallacy. Because I never claimed what you object to in here.

To not paraphrase, I quote what I claimed:

""""lim (f(x))x-> infinity is equal to zero. This means that the lamp is neither turned on nor turned off at the end of the two minutes; it also means that the lamp is turned on and off without any time spent on the "off" or on the "on" state.""""

What you need to conceptualize is the time interval what calculus calls a "moment". It is a lengthless time interval, much like a point is a lengthless extent of space or of line.

I am not making this up.
It is not a contradiction is viewed as neutral or as grades.

-1-
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:25 am
It is not a contradiction is viewed as neutral or as grades.
Word salad. A sentence can't have more than one verb. Please reconstruct your sentence into a semantically and syntactically sound state. I know it's late, and I am not trying to give you a hard time, but you do need to communicate properly.

And what do you refer to with "It". Please name the subject. I can't guess your thought.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

-1- wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:29 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:25 am
It is not a contradiction is viewed as neutral or as grades.
Word salad. A sentence can't have more than one verb.
Actually it can have more than one verb:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=can+a+sen ... =QBRE&sp=1

I have posted reading lessons below for you.

Please reconstruct your sentence into a semantically and syntactically sound state. I know it's late, and I am not trying to give you a hard time, but you do need to communicate properly.

And what do you refer to with "It". Please name the subject. I can't guess your thought.
https://www.varsitytutors.com/en/new_yo ... g%20Lesson

"It" in regards to the question of the lamp being on and off at the same time.

-1-
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:35 am
The lamp being on and off at the same time is not a contradiction if viewed as neutral or as grades.
This is what I got from your overly convoluted reply. You must take a rest and have a good night's sleep, is my best advice at this time.

Whether you wanted to express what I constructed and attributing to you as quoted, makes no sense to me. Sorry. No offense meant. I just can't see how a lamp being on and off can be viewed as neutral. And I can't see how a lamp being on and off can be viewed as grades.

Please take a rest and go to sleep. Tomorrow is another day.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

-1- wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:52 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:35 am
The lamp being on and off at the same time is not a contradiction if viewed as neutral or as grades.
This is what I got from your overly convoluted reply. You must take a rest and have a good night's sleep, is my best advice at this time.

Whether you wanted to express what I constructed and attributing to you as quoted, makes no sense to me. Sorry. No offense meant. I just can't see how a lamp being on and off can be viewed as neutral. And I can't see how a lamp being on and off can be viewed as grades.

Please take a rest and go to sleep. Tomorrow is another day.

Simple, put the switch in the middle between on and off and it flickers or has low lighting.

-1-
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:54 am
Simple, put the switch in the middle between on and off and it flickers or has low lighting.
Yeah, but that's not what the postulate said.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

-1- wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:01 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:54 am
Simple, put the switch in the middle between on and off and it flickers or has low lighting.
Yeah, but that's not what the postulate said.
Don't break your own rules now....Which one?

-1-
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:09 am
-1- wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:01 am

Yeah, but that's not what the postulate said.
Don't break your own rules now....Which one?
This one (lest we forget):

Thomson's Lamp Solution

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:59 am

"Consider a lamp with a toggle switch. Flicking the switch once turns the lamp on. Another flick will turn the lamp off. Now suppose that there is a being able to perform the following task: starting a timer, he turns the lamp on. At the end of one minute, he turns it off. At the end of another half minute, he turns it on again. At the end of another quarter of a minute, he turns it off. At the next eighth of a minute, he turns it on again, and he continues thus, flicking the switch each time after waiting exactly one-half the time he waited before flicking it previously.[1] The sum of this infinite series of time intervals is exactly two minutes.[2]

The following question is then considered: Is the lamp on or off at two minutes?[1] Thomson reasoned that this supertask creates a contradiction:

It seems impossible to answer this question. It cannot be on, because I did not ever turn it on without at once turning it off. It cannot be off, because I did in the first place turn it on, and thereafter I never turned it off without at once turning it on. But the lamp must be either on or off. This is a contradiction.[1]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson%27s_lamp

+1- -1/2+ +1/4- -1/8+ +1/16- -1/32+ +1/64- -1/128+ +1/256
60 30 15 7.5 3.75 1.875 .9375 .46875 .234375
60 90 105 112.5 116.25 118.125 119.0625 119.53125 119.765625 .....ad infinitum

At the rate presented the lamp never reaches two minutes, it is a faulty question as the infinite supertask overrides time itself by forming its own seperate time zone.

Considering time is composed strictly of a relation of movements and the relation of the movements of x person expands infinitely in relation to the movements of timer y.

Timer y rings if and only if it reaches two minutes:

∃y ↔ 120

X is a series of movements greater than zero and less than 120 which is equivalent to infinity
x = [0 < a....b < 120] = ∞

X is equivalent to infinite movement, and considering time is movement, x creates a seperate temporal cycle outside of Y.

In one respect: Y never rings, as x is relative to itself as perpetual movement and exists within its own time cycle.

In a seperate respect Y ringing occurs at the lamp being turned on, off, and midway as the "ringing" embodies multiple different respects at the same time.

A dualism occurs, where:

from X, Y never rings, as x exists outside of Y's time zone considering time for x is measured according to its own movements.

from Y, X manifests all possible degrees of movement at one time in seperate respects. This implies, relative to Y, X is propagating multiple time dimensions and a form of "modal realism" can be observed in which the ringing of the clock observes multiple dimensions relative to each other at one time.

A solution to this dualism, would be Y both ringing and non-ringing as an extension of X and Y exists if and only if X. In these respects, Y is merely a gradation of X as: X/Y with X being the potential of Y.

Summary:
Y can be observed as a deficiency in X and not a thing in itself hence it only rings if and only if X manifests all possible dimensions at one moment.

In order for X to manifest all dimensions at one moment, it must manifest further temporal cycles which relate to eachother through X.

In these respects, multiple time cycles exist relative to Y both ringing and non-ringing.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

-1- wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:18 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:09 am
-1- wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:01 am

Yeah, but that's not what the postulate said.
Don't break your own rules now....Which one?
This one (lest we forget):

Thomson's Lamp Solution

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:59 am

"Consider a lamp with a toggle switch. Flicking the switch once turns the lamp on. Another flick will turn the lamp off. Now suppose that there is a being able to perform the following task: starting a timer, he turns the lamp on. At the end of one minute, he turns it off. At the end of another half minute, he turns it on again. At the end of another quarter of a minute, he turns it off. At the next eighth of a minute, he turns it on again, and he continues thus, flicking the switch each time after waiting exactly one-half the time he waited before flicking it previously.[1] The sum of this infinite series of time intervals is exactly two minutes.[2]

The following question is then considered: Is the lamp on or off at two minutes?[1] Thomson reasoned that this supertask creates a contradiction:

It seems impossible to answer this question. It cannot be on, because I did not ever turn it on without at once turning it off. It cannot be off, because I did in the first place turn it on, and thereafter I never turned it off without at once turning it on. But the lamp must be either on or off. This is a contradiction.[1]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson%27s_lamp

+1- -1/2+ +1/4- -1/8+ +1/16- -1/32+ +1/64- -1/128+ +1/256
60 30 15 7.5 3.75 1.875 .9375 .46875 .234375
60 90 105 112.5 116.25 118.125 119.0625 119.53125 119.765625 .....ad infinitum

At the rate presented the lamp never reaches two minutes, it is a faulty question as the infinite supertask overrides time itself by forming its own seperate time zone.

Considering time is composed strictly of a relation of movements and the relation of the movements of x person expands infinitely in relation to the movements of timer y.

Timer y rings if and only if it reaches two minutes:

∃y ↔ 120

X is a series of movements greater than zero and less than 120 which is equivalent to infinity
x = [0 < a....b < 120] = ∞

X is equivalent to infinite movement, and considering time is movement, x creates a seperate temporal cycle outside of Y.

In one respect: Y never rings, as x is relative to itself as perpetual movement and exists within its own time cycle.

In a seperate respect Y ringing occurs at the lamp being turned on, off, and midway as the "ringing" embodies multiple different respects at the same time.

A dualism occurs, where:

from X, Y never rings, as x exists outside of Y's time zone considering time for x is measured according to its own movements.

from Y, X manifests all possible degrees of movement at one time in seperate respects. This implies, relative to Y, X is propagating multiple time dimensions and a form of "modal realism" can be observed in which the ringing of the clock observes multiple dimensions relative to each other at one time.

A solution to this dualism, would be Y both ringing and non-ringing as an extension of X and Y exists if and only if X. In these respects, Y is merely a gradation of X as: X/Y with X being the potential of Y.

Summary:
Y can be observed as a deficiency in X and not a thing in itself hence it only rings if and only if X manifests all possible dimensions at one moment.

In order for X to manifest all dimensions at one moment, it must manifest further temporal cycles which relate to eachother through X.

In these respects, multiple time cycles exist relative to Y both ringing and non-ringing.

-1-
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

Johndoe, I beg you, please go to sleep.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

-1- wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:24 am
Johndoe, I beg you, please go to sleep.
"1" I beg you to get a lesson in logic:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=free+logi ... 4D21B87377