Missed it by *that* much

Well, instead of being less than an hour away from touching down in Charlotte, I am sitting here in Lambert International Airport waiting another two hours or so to get off the ground.

I wish that I could say it was because the plane was late, but rather it was the passenger this time. First time I have missed a plane, I must say!

The drive to the airport was horrible. Thanks to this winter storm’s deluging St. Louis with snow, what is normally a less-than-an-hour drive for me took about THREE hours — and three hours through some of the worst road conditions I have ever driven through, at that. I normally like to arrive two hours before my flight (I don’t mind waiting), but this morning I had given myself an extra hour, but even three hours wasn’t enough (missed it by that much…). Consequently, I was able to step up to the ticket counter at nearly the very moment my plane was given permission to leave it’s gate.

Actually, even now as I type this (on my phone), the airport fellow in the gate next to mine is announcing that conditions are so bad that a flight in from Chicago had to abort its landing due to runway conditions and that the people who had just boarded the plane from his gate now had to get back off for further delay. Apparently for some of them this is the third time today they have been through this routine. Pretty bad stuff! Many cancelled and delayed flights today.

I’m not really the type to be nervous about stuff like this. (Of course, if my plane crashes later today, you can put that on my headstone: “He wasn’t the type to be nervous about stuff like this.”) I figure that if it gets too bad they will just cancel.

OK, my thumbs are starting to hurt. Back to my laptop and my scripts. Or, I might take advantage of this time to exaine the interior surfaces of my eyelids and run a diagnostic check on my snore generator. I’ll have to think about which task would be more productive. 🙂

12 thoughts on “Missed it by *that* much

  1. I’m glad that I don’t have to travel as you do. I’ve been on one airplane in thirty years. Any drive longer than 15 miles is a major expedition.

    By the way, zero divided by zero equals zero. Actually, it equals infinity. Working logic equations is one of my hobbies. That zero equals infinity is one of the first principles of logic. (Hey, some people work crossword puzzles, so give me a break).

  2. “He wasn’t the type to get nervous about stuff like this.” Hey, that’s not so bad. Not getting nervous about Death, and such like. Not everyone can say that.

    Certainly it’s better than what Mr. GTA thought would be the worst epitaph a man could have: “He meant well.”

    Have a profitable and safe journey in the Lord.

  3. Jumped online for a quick 120-second diversion to clear my head and had all these great comments sitting out there! Some quick responses:

    Richard: Good catch! Me think me sharp now think — well, hope me.

    Steve: Personally, I enjoy traveling — otherwise, I would certainly be in the wrong business! Though I will admit to being a homebody, as well. Sort of contradictory, I know.

    And I must admit that I don’t really agree with the whole “zero equals infinity” thing. And 0/0=0? Or 0/0 = ∞? I can’t believe I let you post something like that on my website! 🙂

    John: Well, I wish I could say it was being non-nervous about death, but it was just about plane rides in bad weather. But, if you wish to paint me so brave, feel free!

    – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    Take care — may be a couple of days before I can visit again. For now, it’s back to my scripts! Thanks for letting me take a break…

    — Wallace Smith

  4. Sorry, Mr Smith! I was only stating one of the principles of logic – not promoting it!

    Logic cannot define the truth or validity of anything! It can only determine whether or not a conclusion is logical! Not whether or not something is true. For example…

    “All Japanese have blond hair. All people with blond hair have blue eyes.” The logical conclusion is… all Japanese have blue eyes.” What’s wrong with this? The propositions are not factual. Therefore the conclusion – however logical – is also false.

    That’s the problem with evolution. It’s starts with a false proposition, so it produces the same error described above.

    Zero equals infinity? If you have zero limitations, then you have infinite ability. If you are not subject to time, then you are eternal. If you have no flaws, then you are perfect. That’s what “zero equals infinity” means.

    And feel free to delete my comments anytime! I’d probably laugh in friendship between barbequed sirloins!

  5. Howdy, again, Steve, and thanks for the explanation.

    I think where I differ is in the use of the word “equals”. The nitpicky logician/mathematician/actuary in me would have to say that “implies” would be a better word to use there, as in “zero implies infinity” — which, as you state so well, would be a proposition that is entirely dependent on its underlying assumptions.

    For zero to equal infinity, we’d have to change at least one of the commonly understood definitions of either zero, infinity, or equals. However, your point is well explained that if we “cross kinds” at the equals sign then we can say some interesting things. For instance, if the truth of zero limitations equals infinite ability implies the more general statement that 0 = ∞, might the fact that one quart equals two pints imply the more general statement that 1 = 2? 🙂

    And thanks for giving me this chance to cut loose a little bit here in the minutes before I go to the studio! Geeky talk loosens me up a bit, and, believe me, I needed the loosening up!

    Take care (and save one of those sirloins for me),
    Wallace Smith

  6. Ha! OK, Mike, your comment has inspired a quick mini-post, which I will try to get out shortly… (should be the next blog post after the one after this one — or the (the blog post after)² this one)

  7. Uh, I was taught (in high school) that 0 divided by 0 is *undefined* – not “infinity”. I’d love to see Mr. Mathematician’s comment on that: do mathematicians still define it so, or was I misinformed from the start?

    And then there’s the relationship between logic, “truth” and “validity”. I submit that OF COURSE logic can define “truth” – within limits. In deductive logic, if the premises are demonstrably true and the reasoning from them is valid, then the conclusion must be true also. Steve’s syllogism was logically valid, but its premises were factually in error – therefore the conclusion was in error also. But if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have been true also. So yes, Steve, within limits deductive logic can and does define truth.

    It’s when we get into inferential logic that the real fun begins. Then we can only establish something as more or less probable — at best, as beyond reasonable doubt. Even the logical “proof” of God’s existence falls into that category. Yes, we can show through deductive logic that the premises of God’s existence and of what goes along with it lead to demonstrably true conclusions. But so might other premises which are not in fact true. The inference of God’s existence stands on Occam’s Razor – on it being the simplest and most complete (and on most subjects, the only adequate) inference one can make from the facts. It’s just that most people keep on adding untestable assumptions to get around that simplest possible inference from the facts (and end up with anything from paganism to atheism as a result).

    I am not enough of a logician or apologist to explain further *why* human reasoning only makes sense if it *starts* from the premise – the article of faith, in fact – that the God of the Bible exists and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. I only can assert that it does, based on the above principle and the facts I’ve gathered in support of it. And even then, I am still left with a lot of unanswered questions – a real trial for someone like me, who even more than most people (and much like “doubting Thomas”) wants to “know all things” rather than to “believe all things”.

    Have a peaceful Sabbath (שבת שלום),
    John Wheeler (יוחנן רכב)

    P.S.: Two thumbs up – way up – on your latest broadcast re: what Christianity should believe and practice. Not just the content as such, but how you presented it and the physical presence you established were of your most professional caliber yet. We are talking “quantum leap” here. May you keep on letting God use you in this way!

  8. Well, it looks like I stirred up a pot when I intended only a light hearted comment. Should’ve kept my mouth shut.

    The various comments have given me some things to think about. Perhaps I’ll annoy Mr Smith with the subject in a future comment. (Smile).

    I need to apologize. The notations for logic and math are completely different from one another. The “plus” symbol represents one thing to a mathmatician. It represents another thing to a logician. The same holds true of the “equal” symbol. Same symbols; different meanings. I didn’t mention that in my original comment. And I created a mess because of it! Sorry!

    Mr Smith? You can’t cut loose on me anytime you want. My only question is, do you like the sirloin medium rare, or well done.

What are you thinking?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s