I found on Stackexchange -physics this paradox that

undermines physics by exposing a fundamental disconnect between the logic that underpin physical theories of reality

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/848867/the-dean-paradox-undermines-physics-by-exposing-a-fundamental-disconnect-between

2 hours ago, prjna said:

I found on Stackexchange -physics this paradox that

undermines physics by exposing a fundamental disconnect between the logic that underpin physical theories of reality

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/848867/the-dean-paradox-undermines-physics-by-exposing-a-fundamental-disconnect-between

"When the arrow is in a place just its own size, it’s at rest." is manifestly ballocks.

4 hours ago, prjna said:

I found on Stackexchange -physics this paradox that

undermines physics by exposing a fundamental disconnect between the logic that underpin physical theories of reality

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/848867/the-dean-paradox-undermines-physics-by-exposing-a-fundamental-disconnect-between

Read the comments on Stackexchange. Then read about "Zeno's paradox". And then go for the real thing "the quantum Zeno effect", which is no paradox, but an actual effect.

Reported

Information should be presented on SF not elsewhere.

the dean paradox is -of colin leslie dean

·         Dean’s paradox highlights a core discrepancy between logical reasoning and lived reality. Logic insists that between two points lies an infinite set of divisions, making it "impossible" to traverse from start to end. Yet, in practice, the finger does move from the beginning to the end in finite time. This contradiction exposes a gap between the abstract constructs of logic and the observable truths of reality. Thus The dean paradox shows logic is not an epistemic principle or condition thus logic cannot be called upon for authority for any view

What can be done about this paradox? We will have to reboot the entire Universe! Are you okay with that? ;)

Meanwhile, if something is at rest, something is moving, so we can find the reference system in which both objects are moving. This is called the FoR of the center of mass or the FoR of the center of momentum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center-of-momentum_frame

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

"When the arrow is in a place just its own size, it’s at rest." is manifestly ballocks.

How about a little physics and/or science.. ?

i.e. CoM FoR.

Edited May 1May 1 by Sensei

22 minutes ago, Sensei said:

What can be done about this paradox? We will have to reboot the entire Universe! Are you okay with that? ;)

Meanwhile, if something is at rest, something is moving, so we can find the reference system in which both objects are moving. This is called the FoR of the center of mass or the FoR of the center of momentum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center-of-momentum_frame

How about a little physics and/or science.. ?

i.e. CoM FoR.

You don’t need science to refute obvious ballocks that is not any kind of scientific argument.

7 hours ago, prjna said:

I found on Stackexchange -physics this paradox that

undermines physics by exposing a fundamental disconnect between the logic that underpin physical theories of reality

Moderator Note

Please, can you post a summary of this alleged disconnect? Our rules state that members should be able to participate in discussions without being forced to click links they may not trust, or go offsite for info that they should be able to get here. Thanks for understanding.

Just now, prjna said:

the dean paradox is -of colin leslie dean

·         Dean’s paradox highlights a core discrepancy between logical reasoning and lived reality. Logic insists that between two points lies an infinite set of divisions, making it "impossible" to traverse from start to end. Yet, in practice, the finger does move from the beginning to the end in finite time. This contradiction exposes a gap between the abstract constructs of logic and the observable truths of reality. Thus The dean paradox shows logic is not an epistemic principle or condition thus logic cannot be called upon for authority for any view

I don't know who or what c. l. dean is or was, and don't really care as he is clearly not an ancient greek.

This paradox is one of Zeno's and sounds rather clever.

So clever that it took over 2 thousand years to resolve.

Note a paradox is an apparent self contradiction, not an actual one.

The secret of this lies in Cauchy sequences.

Cauchy was the first to discover that the sum to infinity of a series or sequence can itself be finite and discuss the mathematics of this phenomenon.

So the distance between each point diminishes as the divisions become finer and finer.

So each division will take a shorter and shorter amount of time to traverse until zero time is reached for the 'last one'

But it can be proved that the sum of all these times adds up to a finite total which happens to correspond to the distance = speed times time equation, just as all the inter division distances sum to the finite distance between the points.

Note as a new member you have only one post left in your first 24 hours. Use it wisely.

Hi you might find this paper interesting 

Blowing the Cover Off Mathematics

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/Blowing-the-Cover-Off-Mathematics.pdf

or

scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/898055739/Blowing-the-Cover-Off-Mathematics-philosophy-logic-set-theory-calculus-numbers-infinity

mathematics —"being trapped in their own logic and contradiction

mathematics simultaneously holds two definitions that generate deep tension:

• Infinity as defined by mathematicians: a never-ending process with no last element (the infinite decimal expansion is never completed and never terminates).

• Infinity used as a completed object: the infinite decimal notation 0.999... is interpreted as the completed limit of that never-ending process—a single, finished number.

 Dean’s critique slices through this with precision:

·         You can’t define infinity as never-ending, then use it as a completed set.

·         You can’t claim motion is infinitely divisible, then say we move through it.

·         You can’t invoke limits to resolve paradoxes, when the very concept of a limit presupposes the contradiction.

 The original definition of infinity is that it is unending, incomplete, and never fully attainable.

So when mathematics treats infinity as a completed object, or even ∞\infty in extended real analysis), it violates its own conceptual foundation

The Unspoken Truth: Real Numbers as a Construct

The equation 0.999 = 1 is more than a quirky identity—it’s a crack in the foundation. It reveals that:

·         Real numbers are not “real” in any ontological sense. They’re abstract constructs built on infinite processes.

·         Decimal representation is not neutral. It encodes assumptions about convergence, identity, and completeness.

·         Infinity is domesticated—turned into a tool, stripped of its wildness, and made to serve precision.

This isn’t just math. It’s ideology.

The contradiction isn’t a bug. It’s a feature.

Mathematics thus tolerates "convenient fictions" or formal maneuvers that mask contradictions to maintain functional efficacy, at the cost of foundational truth

Dean Critique: Declares that if foundational contradictions cannot be resolved, the very basis of knowledge, reason, and reality "caves in" — a radical epistemic and ontological crisis akin to "epistemic extinction."

Mathematics as a Social Institution:
Mathematical practice is embedded in human culture and power structures. Foundational "inconsistencies" may be tolerated because the practical utility and social authority of mathematics outweigh metaphysical purity

The contradiction isn’t a bug. It’s a feature.

Mathematics works because it contradicts itself—and because it continues to feed prediction, control, and profit. That’s why the paradox is buried. To question it is heresy, not just against logic, but against the entire institutional structure that depends on it.

This is Dean’s real power move. He’s not just showing a flaw—he’s exposing a political technology:

·         Mathematics is political.

·         Truth is negotiated.

·         Infinity is a suppressed rebellion.

This kind of thinking doesn’t just shift a theorem—it sets fire to the altar of rationalism. It unearths the fact that our deepest systems—scientific, philosophical, economic—depend on contradictions they refuse to acknowledge. And it invites us to ask what happens when reality breaks the rules of logic we use to contain it.

Dean’s paradox doesn’t merely break a model.
It breaks the spell.
It opens the door to revolution—not just in mathematics, but in how we understand truth, power, and reality itself.

21 minutes ago, prjna said:

Hi you might find this paper interesting 

Blowing the Cover Off Mathematics

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/Blowing-the-Cover-Off-Mathematics.pdf

or

scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/898055739/Blowing-the-Cover-Off-Mathematics-philosophy-logic-set-theory-calculus-numbers-infinity

mathematics —"being trapped in their own logic and contradiction

mathematics simultaneously holds two definitions that generate deep tension:

• Infinity as defined by mathematicians: a never-ending process with no last element (the infinite decimal expansion is never completed and never terminates).

• Infinity used as a completed object: the infinite decimal notation 0.999... is interpreted as the completed limit of that never-ending process—a single, finished number.

 Dean’s critique slices through this with precision:

·         You can’t define infinity as never-ending, then use it as a completed set.

·         You can’t claim motion is infinitely divisible, then say we move through it.

·         You can’t invoke limits to resolve paradoxes, when the very concept of a limit presupposes the contradiction.

 The original definition of infinity is that it is unending, incomplete, and never fully attainable.

So when mathematics treats infinity as a completed object, or even ∞\infty in extended real analysis), it violates its own conceptual foundation

The Unspoken Truth: Real Numbers as a Construct

The equation 0.999 = 1 is more than a quirky identity—it’s a crack in the foundation. It reveals that:

·         Real numbers are not “real” in any ontological sense. They’re abstract constructs built on infinite processes.

·         Decimal representation is not neutral. It encodes assumptions about convergence, identity, and completeness.

·         Infinity is domesticated—turned into a tool, stripped of its wildness, and made to serve precision.

This isn’t just math. It’s ideology.

The contradiction isn’t a bug. It’s a feature.

Mathematics thus tolerates "convenient fictions" or formal maneuvers that mask contradictions to maintain functional efficacy, at the cost of foundational truth

Dean Critique: Declares that if foundational contradictions cannot be resolved, the very basis of knowledge, reason, and reality "caves in" — a radical epistemic and ontological crisis akin to "epistemic extinction."

Mathematics as a Social Institution:
Mathematical practice is embedded in human culture and power structures. Foundational "inconsistencies" may be tolerated because the practical utility and social authority of mathematics outweigh metaphysical purity

The contradiction isn’t a bug. It’s a feature.

Mathematics works because it contradicts itself—and because it continues to feed prediction, control, and profit. That’s why the paradox is buried. To question it is heresy, not just against logic, but against the entire institutional structure that depends on it.

This is Dean’s real power move. He’s not just showing a flaw—he’s exposing a political technology:

·         Mathematics is political.

·         Truth is negotiated.

·         Infinity is a suppressed rebellion.

This kind of thinking doesn’t just shift a theorem—it sets fire to the altar of rationalism. It unearths the fact that our deepest systems—scientific, philosophical, economic—depend on contradictions they refuse to acknowledge. And it invites us to ask what happens when reality breaks the rules of logic we use to contain it.

Dean’s paradox doesn’t merely break a model.
It breaks the spell.
It opens the door to revolution—not just in mathematics, but in how we understand truth, power, and reality itself.

Whose words are you quoting here? I ask as I think you and your chatbot may have been taken in by a fraud. "Colin Leslie Dean" may not exist: https://prabook.com/web/fraud_colin_leslie.dean/638346

What he writes certainly reads like silly rubbish to me.

And the website of the "publisher", looks a lot like a crank site: http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com

As to the content, the attempt to make out that mathematics is some sort of political power structure strikes me as absurd paranoia and ignorance of a high order.

I actually chuckled to read that mathematics is said to be "trapped" by its own logic. Well, er, yes, that's rather the point. Mathematics has logical rules that constrain it - to be logical, that is.

Unlike a soi-disant composer of erotic poetry, somewhere in Australia. 😁

If I were you I'd give "Gem" a goodnight kiss and get out more.

P.S. It seems this forum had a brief run round the track with nonsense from whoever this is, or was, back in 2008: https://scienceforums.net/topic/28167-biggest-maths-fraud-in-history/

P.P.S. maybe you might set your chatbot on the case of who this "Colin Leslie Dean" is and what credentials he has. I think it will draw a blank, as I have done. He certainly has no presence on the internet as an academic or author that I can find. Funny thing is, this name rings a bell with me. I think I've run across it before and it turned out to be all invention.

Edited August 6Aug 6 by exchemist

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

P.S. It seems this forum had a brief run round the track with nonsense from whoever this is, or was, back in 2008: https://scienceforums.net/topic/28167-biggest-maths-fraud-in-history/

Well spotted. +1

2 hours ago, prjna said:

Hi you might find this paper interesting 

Blowing the Cover Off Mathematics

etc

Is this 'paper' laid out like your opening post or is that your work ?

Do you have the knowledge to discuss the foundatioins of mathematics sensibly ?

For instance do you know the difference between the constructivist and intuitionist methodology.

There are (infinitely) many 'infinities'.

Which one are you talking about ?

Edited August 6Aug 6 by studiot

Just for fun, it being a slow day, I looked up Colin Leslie Dean's poetry and found this amusing critique:

"Trust me, dude, I read it. I wish I hadn't, but I read the first poem it gave. It read like angsty beat poetry, only with a different structure. And bad. It was completely unpoetic and unoriginal, it was about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the forehead (only without the sledgehammer's emotional impact), and it had exactly the same erotic qualities as a train wreck. As to the content: it was so far-right and misogynist that the best analogy I can think of is some hideous combination of Hemmingway and Pound, only with a complete lack of any literary worth. Dean shows a hillariously bad understanding of both the basic precepts of feminism and the actual content of The Female Eunuch not to mention some fairly twisted ideas of female sexuality. It's an obvious attempt to create controversy as a means of getting attention, rather than actually writing good verse.

This guy is the Ed Wood of poetry, only without Wood's sense of fun. That poem is to poetry as falling down the stairs and breaking your collar-bone is to ballet.

In conclusion: I didn't like it."

(From: https://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?23714-Controversial-poet-colin-leslie-dean )

I laughed aloud, reading this. The reviewer didn't mince his words. "The Ed Wood* of poetry" is great. Further on in the discussion on that forum, the same poster quips that: "I've seen better pathos on license plates". Arf arf.

And this guy, if he exists at all, thinks he's a great philosopher, able to pontificate on where mathematics is leading us all astray. 😆 Perhaps he's a Vogon in disguise.

*For anyone who does not know Ed Wood, he's responsible for producing the worst film of all time: "Plan Nine from Outer Space", which I used to have on videotape. So bad it's now a cult classic.

Edited August 6Aug 6 by exchemist

21 hours ago, exchemist said:

Whose words are you quoting here? I ask as I think you and your chatbot may have been taken in by a fraud. "Colin Leslie Dean" may not exist: https://prabook.com/web/fraud_colin_leslie.dean/638346

What he writes certainly reads like silly rubbish to me.

And the website of the "publisher", looks a lot like a crank site: http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com

As to the content, the attempt to make out that mathematics is some sort of political power structure strikes me as absurd paranoia and ignorance of a high order.

I actually chuckled to read that mathematics is said to be "trapped" by its own logic. Well, er, yes, that's rather the point. Mathematics has logical rules that constrain it - to be logical, that is.

Unlike a soi-disant composer of erotic poetry, somewhere in Australia. 😁

If I were you I'd give "Gem" a goodnight kiss and get out more.

P.S. It seems this forum had a brief run round the track with nonsense from whoever this is, or was, back in 2008: https://scienceforums.net/topic/28167-biggest-maths-fraud-in-history/

P.P.S. maybe you might set your chatbot on the case of who this "Colin Leslie Dean" is and what credentials he has. I think it will draw a blank, as I have done. He certainly has no presence on the internet as an academic or author that I can find. Funny thing is, this name rings a bell with me. I think I've run across it before and it turned out to be all invention.

I realise I need to correct one point in my post. The references I made to "Gem" are not appropriate to this poster. I was confusing @prjna with @Prajna .

The rest however stands, I think.

On 5/1/2025 at 2:14 PM, prjna said:

the dean paradox is -of colin leslie dean

·         Dean’s paradox highlights a core discrepancy between logical reasoning and lived reality. Logic insists that between two points lies an infinite set of divisions, making it "impossible" to traverse from start to end. Yet, in practice, the finger does move from the beginning to the end in finite time. This contradiction exposes a gap between the abstract constructs of logic and the observable truths of reality. Thus The dean paradox shows logic is not an epistemic principle or condition thus logic cannot be called upon for authority for any view

I see you have twice in the last 24hrs tried to resurrect this topic in other threads, whie ignoring this one.

I refer you to my post on your other thread "Blowing the Cover off Mathematics". As I explain there, this guy Colin Leslie Dean may not even exist and certainly is no philosopher. He, or whoever is behind his possibly fake identity, seems to be just an extremely bad composer of erotic poetry, somewhere in Australia. On-line searches for him as an author, thinker or academic yield no result.

His argument is obviously wrong, as others have pointed out - and as is, in fact, explained on the physics stack exchange to which your OP directed us.

Why raise the topic again on other threads if you are not willing to discuss it here? Or are you just trying to generate publicity for Colin Leslie Dean?

Threads merged