Ranking
never mind again there is a limit and I used the wrong formula, you could reach it if your step is over half of the total distance to the goal
zy you are thinking of this the wrong way. No matter what your starting speed is, you will eventually make it.
<~Fear> fuck, Pv2Caribou is that you?
<~Fear> you look like you suplex fucking rhinos
Originally Posted by PV2Caribou View Post
zy you are thinking of this the wrong way. No matter what your starting speed is, you will eventually make it.

no you wont, as you take more steps then your speed incredibly rapidly approaches 0, your 30th step will take you .00000000093132257 times as far as your first.
Last edited by Zycosi; Jun 17, 2013 at 01:06 AM.
zy you will never hit 0 mph if your speed is halved. but your steps take up the same distance. it may take millions of years, but you will eventually get there.
<~Fear> fuck, Pv2Caribou is that you?
<~Fear> you look like you suplex fucking rhinos
We should consider that you'll never reach 0 if you keep halving something. As for the distance between you and the goal, also consider the 100 meters, because i think its a reasonable distance for the question to ''work''.
nah man, look at this once you approach how far two full motions would take you then you stop going anywhere meaningful.

also sid 1/2^infinity = zero
Originally Posted by sidvicious View Post
So, this is a thread for you to post paradoxical, mind-blowing questions about anything. Keeping in mind that you must stay on-topic, limiting your posts to either make your own paradox or to deal with a proposed one.

To give it a start, I'll give you one of mine:

If I told you to walk to a certain point (lets say its 100 meters away), in a straight line, provided that, after each and every step you take, your speed is halved, would you ever reach the point I asked you to reach?

EDIT: Hello, sorry for invade. Ok, let's break it down. You're fairy tall guy and you can't have a running start due to you wouldn't be able to slow down fast enough on normal surface.

Let's say first step is 7.2km/h 0.5s/m, next is 3.6km/h 1s/m and step lenghts of first two is 1.3m and 1.1m, next you slow down and take only 0.85m steps (with sneaky leaning back it's possible, I think). now speed is 2s/m and we have 115 of 0.85m steps left to complete. Therefore time to do that would be take basically 2^115 - 1 (first 114 left steps) + 0.823 * 2^115 (last step) and 1.75 (first 2 steps) seconds.
Last edited by JSnuffMARS; Jun 17, 2013 at 01:52 AM.
I think the problem we're having is that I'm halving the distance per step while pv2 is doubling the time between steps and the difference between the two causes problems
^ I think pv2 and me might have more of the right approach, due to you can take sneaky slow steps without falling over by just bending your back leg and leaning back.

So anyway, if we take my step size then basically 1.823 * 2^115 seconds is a long, long time. Longer time that the universe has existed by scientist estimates, I think so we could say it would just take too long time.

that's 1.83 * 41538374868278621028243970633760768 (2^115)... I'm too lazy to calculate and compare to stuffs, sry. :V
Last edited by JSnuffMARS; Jun 17, 2013 at 02:03 AM.
no. the steps take the same distance everytime. Just the speed at which you take the step is halved. and you guys are saying that since its .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000001 mph its zero mph. but EVENTUALLY you will make it there regardless of how long it takes.
<~Fear> fuck, Pv2Caribou is that you?
<~Fear> you look like you suplex fucking rhinos