"If a person loses a single hair, can they still be considered bald?"
Intuitively, losing a single hair is not enough for someone to be considered bald. However, if we continue reasoning this way, with gradual hair loss, is there a specific hair loss that transitions someone from not being bald to being bald? In other words, is there a threshold such that before it, a person is not considered bald, but after it, they are?
The core of this paradox lies in the difficulty of finding a clear definition or standard to distinguish between bald and non-bald. It touches on issues of vagueness and boundary problems, sparking discussions on classification and definitions. This paradox can also be used to explore similar boundary issues and the ambiguity of concepts in other fields.
If I plagiarize Harry Potter but change a single word, is it considered innovation or plagiarism? However, if we continue reasoning in this manner, in the process of innovation, is there a point where modifying a single word makes the work go from plagiarism to innovation? Logically, if you keep altering the words in the work, there will eventually be a word change that transforms the work from plagiarism to innovation. This becomes a problem that cannot be clearly defined by law.