Here's my last attempt to convince you. After this, we'll agree to disagree:
I see. If I choose semantic accuracy, you will simply declare yourself "right", take your marbles, and go home, eh?
You have yet to address the substantive problem with your quibble-cook; will this post be any different?
What you're getting hung up on (missing actually) is that coin-tossing is a time-based process.
Oh, well, it was a small hope, at best.
The thing that you are being dishonest about is hidden in your construction.
It does not matter if coin-tossing is temporaneous, instantaneous, or multi-gol-darn-dangeous. Let's look at your "scenario", and (ignoring physics and reality), see if you have the capacity to spot the inherent error:
That means any scenario involving coin tosses can be divided up into segments of time. So that:
At T1, X is a two-headed coin.
At T2, X is flipped
At T3 X is changed into a two-tailed coin
Did you see it? Right there, when the bell rang? When the part of the audeince that believes in fairies, clapped their hands?
You said it yourself:
At T3 X is changed into a two-tailed coin
The flaw in your "reasoning" is not that it depends upon undemonstrated physical effects, but that (wait for it)
At T3 X is changed into a two-tailed coin
At any instantaneous moment
after "T3", there is no longer a "two-headed coin" at all. Fud, you yourself said that it had been "...changed into a two-tailed coin..."
You may agree to be wrong from now until the end of peanut-butter season; that will not change the fact that
whatever it is that lands, showing "tails";
however it was "changed" (voudun, eldrich physicks, miracle, magic, or prestidigitation); it is not, when it lands, a "two-headed coin".
How many "tails" can a coin have,and still be a "two-headed coin"?
ANS: not "almost none", but, in fact, none
...which, by your act of will, has been "...changed into a two-tailedtwo-headed coin" and is not a "two-headed copin", at all, but a "...two tailed coin..."
...lands on the table, tails
From the above it follows that a two-headed coin can land tails.
No, Fud. Your own words demonstrate that what lands, showing "tails", in your fantasy scenario, is not a "two-headed coin", but a "...two-tailed coin..."
Do you read your own posts, Fud?
Consider: X is a bachelor. Therefore, X is an unmarried man. It logically follows, right? However, X isn't engaged in a time based process.
Now consider: Can a bachelor BECOME a married man? Sure, DURING the marriage the bachelor changes into a married man. That doesn't mean he was never a bachelor. It takes the same form as the coin:
At T1, X is a bachelor
At T2, X gets married
At T3, X is not a bachelor.
Therefore, it's logically possible for a bachelor to become a non-bachelor.
Instead of the word "land", use the word "become":
Can a two-headed coin become a two-tailed coin? Yes. Therefore, a two-headed coin can land tails, since it can become a two-tailed coin before it lands.
And that's as far as I'll go with it.
But I am right.
Keep
claiming that you are "right"; it's all you have left.
Read your own scenario, Fud.
If the bachelor leaps out of an airplane and is legally joined in free-fall wedlock to the partner of his dreams by the sky-diving Elvis impersonator, does he
land a bachelor?
(NTM, the process by which a bachelor can be
changed into a married man in midair can be explained and conceptualized; which is not true of your fantasy process by which your "two-headed coin" might be changed into a "..two-tailed coin..."
However, you have my permission to continue to ignore reality.
Naetheless, Fud, a "two-headed coin" cannot land showing "tails".
Epur habet duo capita.
