|
|
In article <453912ec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> David Marcus wrote:
> > Tony Orlow wrote:
> >> David Marcus wrote:
> >>> Tony Orlow wrote:
> >>>> Virgil wrote:
> >>>>> In article <4533d315@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >>>>> Tony Orlow <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Then let us put all the balls in at once before the first is removed
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> then remove them according to the original time schedule.
> >>>>>> Great! You changed the problem and got a different conclusion. How
> >>>>>> very....like you.
> >>>>> Does TO claim that putting balls in earlier but taking them out as in
> >>>>> the original will result in fewer balls at the end?
> >>>> If the two are separate events, sure.
> >>> Not sure what you mean by "separate events". Suppose we put all the
> >>> balls in at one minute before noon and take them out according to the
> >>> original schedule. How many balls are in the vase at noon?
> >> empty.
> >
> > Why?
> >
>
> Because of the infinite rate of removal without insertions at noon.
Except that no balls are removed "at noon", so the rate of removal
"at noon" is zero. What TO is trying to say is that the set of rates of
removal near noon (in any neighborhood of noon) are unbounded.
|
|