If the joint between fragments can be broken, the machine is not truly unbreakable. The breaking of the machine would involve the breakage of its joints.

(July 16, 2013 at 5:32 am)Consilius Wrote: If the joint between fragments can be broken, the machine is not truly unbreakable. The breaking of the machine would involve the breakage of its joints.

What joints?

The joints that join unbreakable metal fragment and unbreakable metal fragment.

(July 16, 2013 at 6:36 am)Consilius Wrote: The joints that join unbreakable metal fragment and unbreakable metal fragment.

I didn't put any.

Well, the machine needs to be composed of something, which involves something joining these things together.

(July 16, 2013 at 7:13 am)Consilius Wrote: Well, the machine needs to be composed of something, which involves something joining these things together.

It is composed of those unbreakable fragments - with nothing joining them together.

If they are fragments they can't be solid (joined together).

This thread is like pulling teeth

(July 16, 2013 at 7:32 am)fr0d0 Wrote: If they are fragments they can't be solid (joined together).

This thread is like pulling teeth

So?

(July 16, 2013 at 7:16 am)genkaus Wrote:

(July 16, 2013 at 7:13 am)Consilius Wrote: Well, the machine needs to be composed of something, which involves something joining these things together.

It is composed of those unbreakable fragments - with nothing joining them together.

The machine would not stand or function—it would not be a machine. It is not a whole if the parts don't work in synergy.

(July 16, 2013 at 7:43 am)Consilius Wrote: The machine would not stand or function—it would not be a machine. It is not a whole if the parts don't work in synergy.

Don't be ridiculous. Ofcourse it'd still be a machine - a non-standing, non-functioning one, sure - but still a machine. And parts don't need to work to make a whole - they just need to be put together.