Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.c > #18066

Re: C language paradox

From James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: C language paradox
Date 2012-02-29 07:18 -0500
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <jil51r$m86$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References <jijh7o$i5c$1@speranza.aioe.org> <20120228141402.747@kylheku.com> <44022e73-8fa0-4a9d-bac7-59728cc3ff7c@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw


On 02/29/2012 04:34 AM, Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Feb 28, 10:16�pm, Kaz Kylheku <k...@kylheku.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-02-28, pembed2012 <o...@was.enough.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> I continue to read about optimization in C.
> 
> [...]
> 
>> 2. A difference between what you "saw" (whatever that means,
>> � �probably "read on some silly web page") and what you observed in an
>> � �experiment is not a "paradox". �A paradox is an apparent contradiction which
>> � �is actually true.
> 
> really? I thought a paradox was unresolvable contradiction
> 
> "All Cretans are liars" or better "this statement is false"

Strictly speaking, you're correct; but it's common usage to use the term
to refer to seemingly contradictory combinations of statements where
there isn't really a contradiction, due to the use of incorrect
premises, defective logic, or word play.

> Something like the so-called Relativity "Twin Paradox" isn't a paradox
> at all but  a simple mismatch between common sense and experiment (or
> theoretical predication anyway).

Re: "anyway": strictly speaking, no pair of human twins have had
sufficiently large differences in their travelling speeds to produce a
detectable effect. However, for pairs of identical sub-atomic particles,
the experiment has been conducted and did produce results matching the
theory, rather than "common sense". Particles which naturally decay into
smaller particles take much longer to do so when accelerated to
relativistic velocities. It's difficult to accelerate anything much
larger than an entire molecule to high enough speeds to make the effect
measurable.
-- 
James Kuyper

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

C language paradox pembed2012 <once@was.enough.invalid> - 2012-02-28 21:33 +0000
  Re: C language paradox Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-02-28 21:41 +0000
  Re: C language paradox Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-29 10:44 +1300
  Re: C language paradox Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-02-28 16:51 -0500
  Re: C language paradox Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-28 22:16 +0000
    Re: C language paradox Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-29 01:34 -0800
      Re: C language paradox James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-29 07:18 -0500
        Re: C language paradox "Scott Fluhrer" <sfluhrer@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-02-29 13:39 -0500
          Re: C language paradox Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-03-03 16:23 -0500
            Re: C language paradox James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-03-03 19:47 -0500
              Re: C language paradox Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-03-03 18:05 -0800
                Re: C language paradox Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-03-05 15:41 -0500
                Re: C language paradox Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> - 2012-04-14 00:26 -0500
  Re: C language paradox James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-28 17:38 -0500
    Re: C language paradox Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-02-28 18:52 -0600
      Re: C language paradox James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-28 22:14 -0500
  Re: C language paradox James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-28 15:08 -0800
    Re: C language paradox "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-02-29 03:42 +0100
    Re: C language paradox Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-29 01:37 -0800
      Re: C language paradox jgharston <jgh@arcade.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-03 16:17 -0800
        Re: C language paradox nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-03-04 02:54 -0800
          Re: C language paradox "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-03-04 11:43 +0000
          Re: C language paradox Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-03-04 04:01 -0800
            Re: C language paradox Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-04 14:34 +0100
        Re: C language paradox Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-03-04 17:01 +0000
          Re: C language paradox Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-03-05 15:45 -0500
  Re: C language paradox Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-28 17:45 -0800
    Re: C language paradox army1987 <army1987@ask-for-it.invalid> - 2012-03-05 10:42 +0000
      Re: C language paradox army1987 <army1987@ask-for-it.invalid> - 2012-03-05 10:48 +0000
        Re: C language paradox Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-03-05 09:35 -0800
          Re: C language paradox 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-16 13:01 -0700
      Re: C language paradox China Blue Water Navy <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-05 04:24 -0800
      Re: C language paradox Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-03-05 07:49 -0500
  Re: C language paradox "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-02-29 03:42 +0100
  Re: C language paradox Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-02-28 21:46 -0500

csiph-web