Timeline for Does there exist a shot in ideal pocket billiards?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 18, 2011 at 19:52 | comment | added | smci | @Joseph: well give us an upper bound to the number of table traversals the cue-ball can make? 'Eventually' may not be good enough: 10,000 traversals will be more problematic than 3. | |
| Nov 1, 2010 at 8:49 | history | edited | sleepless in beantown | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
minicow change: bold claim that answer is "no" retracted for now as question allows small mu (from minicow? :))
|
| Nov 1, 2010 at 3:52 | comment | added | Daniel Litt | I don't think this answers the question as it was intended. Another formulation might be: is it always possible to sink some ball other than the cue prior to scratching? This is equivalent because, if so, we can just hit the cue more lightly to avoid scratching. I don't think you've answered this question at all, as far as I can tell. And you don't have to worry about any infinitary issues because there is rolling friction--the cue stops eventually. (Also, you can just hit it more lightly, which seems the same to me.) | |
| Nov 1, 2010 at 2:09 | history | edited | sleepless in beantown | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
The answer is **no**
|
| Nov 1, 2010 at 2:05 | comment | added | Joseph O'Rourke | @sleepless: I added a comment to Daniel's answer: I meant that the rolling friction is small enough to ensure the requisite bounces, but nonzero so that one could stop the cue ball. | |
| Nov 1, 2010 at 1:52 | history | answered | sleepless in beantown | CC BY-SA 2.5 |