Re: nonsensical rule about pivot and in and out of bounds (warning: math geek post)

"Bob Koca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<SNIP>
> >See, you're confusing a spot with a point. Don't feel bad, Bob--it's a
> >common mistake. While a point has no real dimension, a spot is much,
> >much bigger and is circular in shape. In this case then, the disc is
> >put in play at the closest spot on the playing field that is
> >tangential to the sideline (or endline in the event that the disc is
> >caught after going out the back) such that a line passing through the
> >center point of said spot and the point at which the disc was caught
> >is perpendicular to the sideline. This spot is unique.
>
> >I'm just glad that you brought this to the attention of the ultimate
> >community at large, as this is a prime example of why I'm in strong
> >support of the inclusion of "Spot" in the definitions section of the
> >11th edition
>
>     Ok, that distinction between spot and point clarifies things. The
> spot would be unique once you say how large it is.
>
> ,Bob Koca

Would it? But wouldn't a spot tangential to the sideline, i.e. touching a
sideline, mean that you haven't established an "inbounds spot", since any
part of the line makes you out of bounds? So I would argue that it is
still impossible to find this "spot" for the same reasons as you argued
for the lack of a point.

However, perhaps the "spot" itself is an open set? Then I almost think
it is possible. I don't know. Are the intervals [0,1) and [1,2] tangential?
(I don't know if you talk about tangential intervals, but you get the idea.)