TirithRR wrote:
There's a reason why you didn't reply to my second example which also took into account that interpretation of the "B is closer to A than C".
Edited, Oct 27th 2012 8:08am by TirithRR
Edited, Oct 27th 2012 8:08am by TirithRR
That was an obvious typo...
Quote:
Even if we go this route:
B-----A------C
A-----B
A------C
B is closer to A than C is.
A------C
A is close to C
B--------------C
B is not close to C (No matter how you choose to define "close" you can always move them to make B and C outside that range.)
B-----A------C
A-----B
A------C
B is closer to A than C is.
A------C
A is close to C
B--------------C
B is not close to C (No matter how you choose to define "close" you can always move them to make B and C outside that range.)
Wrong in 2 accounts.
1. Subjectivity:
In order for B not be close to C, you would have to subjectively be biased. If the distance from A to C is considered "close", then you're saying that the distance is negligible. So, if you were to move "A" further away at a distance LESS than the distance between "A" and "C", it is sill close because that amount is even more negligible than the original distance between the two. It wouldn't go from "close" to "far".
2. Objectively: The fact that you can "move" around means that you can move B next to A, (i.e. replace A), which will be close to C, hence why the original comparison used "=" and not "closed by". I simply changed "=" to "close by" because we're talking about concepts and not physical things. There is no absolute objective way of measuring "close by", but you can objectively determine equality. If you subscribe to the belief that the distance between two objects is negligible ( the difference between miscegenation laws and SSM laws), then you are essentially saying that they are the same, in other words, equal. Which brings me back to my original comparison, If A = B and A = C, how does B not equal c?
Edited, Oct 27th 2012 4:04pm by Almalieque
Edited, Oct 27th 2012 4:04pm by Almalieque