Talk:Supertask

message: __TOC__
What about a bouncing ball? In terms of raw physics the ball technically bounces an infinite number of times but because the interval between bounces are increasingly short the total time converges to a finite sum (rather than diverging to infinity which would mean it bounces forever).  This seems to be a supertask that happens all the time in the world.  But if that is so then what does that mean? --Mike (July 24th 2006)
----
An infinite number of people sneezing simultaneously - is this a supertask? By the current definition it is since an infinite number of actions have been performed in a finite space of time. However I'm not sure I would classify this as a supertask and so believe the definition needs refining. Anyone any opinions?? --NoizHed 20:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

message: This article contains a lot of hefty (and obscure) "references" to literature on rather new/contraversial subjects.  Maybe links would be appropriate? - JustinWick 18:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: There seem to be two brief discussions about this. Is this desirable or redundant? —DemonThing talk 05:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomson's lamp 

message: The question of whether supertasks are possible - ie. can exist in the 'real' world (whatever that is) - hinges on whether or not infinite is meaningful in that same world.  I believe that the intuitive answer is the correct one: infinite is not a meaningful term in the real world.
The thought exercises produce logical paradoxes because they are impossible.  String an infinite number of point masses together and what do you have?  A black hole that swallows the universe.  At that stage it becomes rather pointless to consider what happens when you try to move one, doesn't it.
So as fun as it may be to think of these things, it just seems silly to consider them in relation to reality.
3:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of the Zeno paradoxes was to show that these supertasks actually *do* occur in the real world. The ensuing literature from Thomson and Benacerraf concerned the question as to whether this was really a paradox or not. Also a distinction should be made between physically possibility and logical possibility. Many of the experiments are physically impossible yet, the claim is, they are logically possible. --NoizHed 13:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we don't understand nearly enough about our universe to conclusively decide whether or not "infinite" is a meaningful word within it or not, or whether these supertasks actually are occurring or not (consider very-small-scale discrete time/space vs. continuous). -- Ben-Arba 11:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Infinity?? 

message: There still is no link to a definition of supertask re computer science.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.83.14.130 (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comuputer Science and Supertasks 

message: Would anyone object if I added an example from Kafka to the Interesting Examples section? - all his characters seem to be struggling with a supertask of one kind or other, often internal - but one of the clearest examples is from his story 'The Great Wall of China':
:...The messenger started off at once, a powerful, tireless man. Sticking one arm out and then another, he makes his way through the crowd. ... he moves forward easily, unlike anyone else. But the crowd is so huge; its dwelling places are infinite ... If there were an open field, how he would fly along, and soon you would hear the marvelous pounding of his fist on your door. But instead of that, how futile are all his efforts. He is still forcing his way through the private rooms of the innermost palace. He will never win his way through. And if he did manage that, nothing would have been achieved. He would have to fight his way down the steps, and, if he managed to do that, nothing would have been achieved. He would have to stride through the courtyards, and after the courtyards the second palace encircling the first, and, then again, stairs and courtyards, and then, once again, a palace, and so on for thousands of years...
What do you all think? Adambrowne666 09:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, according to the definition a supertask is an infinite sequence of tasks that occurs in a *finite* amount of time. It is implied that Kafka's messenger carries out his tasks for ever. --NoizHed 12:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kafka

message: The section on the Ross-Littlewood paradox is filled with utter nonsense.  Such as:
"Of course, it would be wise to heed Benacerraf’s words that the states of the jars before t = 1 do not logically determine the state at t = 1."   
The following sentence is also unsupported by logic, for there is no reason to believe that this just-change-the-numerical-labels version ought to have the same result as the original problem (or any result at all!!!).
"A bare-naked variation that really goes straight to the heart of all of this goes as follows: at t = 0, there is one marble in the jar with the number 0 scribbled on it. At t = 0.5, the number 0 on the marble gets replaced with the number 1, at t = 0.75, the number gets changed to 2, etc."
Most important, this is not one of those paradoxes that remains ultimately unresolved!  There is only one correct way to think of this, and all the ways of thinking that lead to different conclusions are flawed by reasoning that assumes facts not in evidence regarding infinities.  A fully correct analysis of this paradox was given by Martin Gardner when he described the paradox's resolution in Scientific American.  An erroneous analysis is given in the second edition of the book "Paradoxes from A to Z" by Michael Clark.Daqu (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You really need to explain why you make these statements.  What is Gardner's analysis, and why is that one correct? What is Clark's analysis, and why is that one incorrect? And finally, the bare-naked variation is a variation, so why should one suppose that it should have the same result as the original problem?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.252.86 (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to your last question: The "bare-naked variation" is problematic because the article describes it as one "that really goes straight to the heart of all of this".  But in fact it is only tenuously related, if at all.Daqu (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I will at some point explain why I have made these statements.  But on what basis should *I* need to explain why I make these statements???  The ones who need to explain their statements are those who wrote unsupportable claims in the article (something I have not done).Daqu (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that the state at t=1 is not determined is eminently sensible. Gardner's analysis is fine for supertasks done in a well-ordered manner, but nonsense otherwise. And what "fact in evidence" about infinity allows for only well-ordered supertasks? --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense in section on Ross-Littlewood (infinitely many marbles) paradox 

message: lol this sentence. very neutral.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.29.178 (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most subsequent philosophers reject Zeno's bold conclusion in favor of common sense. 

message: these supertasks only show that the nature of infinity is potential, not actual...such thought experiments are entertaining as novelties, but vacuous if meant to be taken seriously...
take the case of "guessing the positive integer"...I am thinking of a positive integer, can you guess which one?...let's say you approach this in an orderly way and ask is it 1? is it 2? is it 3? etc... were I thinking of an integer between 1 and 10, there would be an N such that after N "no" answers, the answer would have to be a "yes" answer, i.e. N=9...
but since there are infinite positive integers, in our case there is no such N...in other words, even though it is true that one of the integers is my number, it is also true that for any N, I can logically, without contradicting myself (lying), have given you a series of N "no" answers...put this in the form of a supertask, and at T = 1, you have run through all the positive integers, have not received a "yes" answer, and so have not been able to guess my integer, although it certainly seems as if you should have!
paradoxical results such as this only mean there is a mistake somewhere in our reasoning...the more intractable the paradox, the more subtle the mistake, that's all...and a mistake can be so damned subtle that most thinkers to this point have missed it, or for reasons of their own, chosen to miss it... 24.58.142.63 (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  no actual infinity 

message: since all particles have width, it will be impossible to put infinity of them in a line, and all the particles will all be vibrating, so it is impossible for them to stop completely.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.23.16 (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laraudogoitia’s supertask impossible 

message: The version of the Supertask article edited by user:Quuxplusone at 18:40, May 1, 2013, in the section Davies' super-machine says that the Supertask construction in the Davies paper "Building Infinite Machines" is physically impossible because it requires the infinite divisibility of space and time.  However I just read the Davies paper and it doesn't seem to mention that, nor does the Wikipedia article Atomic theory, cited by that same version of the article. While there are some speculative theories in which space and time are discrete (for example Causal sets), in both General Relativity and the Standard Model, currently the two most widely accepted fundamental theories of physics, space and time are explicitly formulated to be infinitely divisible. In both those theories events in space and time are represented using points in a Differentiable manifold, which is infinitely divisible. I'm going to edit the article to reflect the issues that Davies actually raised in his paper.  
Pmokeefe (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davies' super-machine 

message: "A supertask is a countably infinite sequence of operations that occur sequentially within a finite interval of time."
"Tristram Shandy, the hero of a novel by Laurence Sterne, writes his autobiography so conscientiously that it takes him one year to lay down the events of one day."
Shandy is only doing a finite amount of work (laying down the events of one day) in a finite amount of time (one year), so that is not an example of a supertask.
I'm going to delete the section.
Pmokeefe (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting the section The diary of Tristram Shandy 

message: "In philosophy, a supertask is a countably infinite sequence of operations that occur sequentially within a finite interval of time."
That is simply and fundamentally wrong: beside that "philosophy" proper has little to do with it (or "cardinality" for that matter), a "supertask" is the *limit* of any such sequence, and "time" is totally irrelevant if not as an expository device.
(For example, Achilles does eventually reach the tortoise, but how long it takes is irrelevant, crucial is that it happens in the *limit* of the sequence of steps taken.)
LudovicoVan (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Claims abaout correctness or wrongness of a definition should be supported by references to literature. No definition is inherently right or wrong. A definition is correct if it correctly identifies the meaning of the defined term. Unless otherwise specified the correct meaning is the one most commonly used in the literature. If there is variation in the literature that should be mentioned in the article. 2001:14BB:C3:9C72:5146:A4F2:587B:CD5 (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the idea of backed-up by references, but that is just not all there is to any argument or article and certainly not in a comment: moreover here I should literally reference at least three centuries of mistakes pervading all the literature.  This article does reflect common understanding and even common literature, that doesn't change that fact that it is essentially and fundamentally wrong and in a way that is blatant as I do have in fact explained, for how briefly.  This article should be rewritten from scratch. LudovicoVan (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong definition