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