You agreed that in my example choosing 1/2 was "mathematically possible", now you agree that choosing 1/2 has probability 0. My point is proven.

Remember what you said:

"mathematically possible" means that the chance of something happening is greater than 0.

We have agreed upon two things which must lead us to conclude that the statement above is wrong. That is all that I was arguing.

Remember how my example was "flawed" because you didn't understand simple concepts? Now you think it's flawed for a different reason (even though it has been used to make you disagree with your original claim).

I knew the argument of "practicality" was coming - it's just a shame I had to school you on basic mathematics before you got to this point.

Firstly, I am justified in bringing up mathematics. You were talking about what is "mathematically possible". You invoked probability theory by talking about "chances" being "greater than 0".

Second, how would you assign "chances" to any event, practically? You can't assign probability 1/2 to the probability of getting a 'head' in a coin flip - the coin might be unfairly weighted, or even worse - the way it's flipped will determine how it lands. Is there any way to pick between two objects uniformly at random? What does "chance" even mean?

We could argue about whether the universe is deterministic or not, and about what maths actually is and how it relates to the real world, but why bother? I made the point I wanted to make and you can't accept it. If I schooled you more, you'd just squirm harder.

By the way, I don't think you should be talking about Planck length or physics, given your shameful lack of knowledge of maths.