Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 2 Sep 2006 06:22 MoeBlee wrote: > Aatu Koskensilta wrote: >> MoeBlee's answer might be considered somewhat more obfuscated than >> necessary. > > My purpose was not to give just an informal explanation, but also to > explain that, and how, this is formalized. Why? Do you think the formalism will help Zick? -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)xortec.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Manny Feld on 2 Sep 2006 12:57 Lester Zick wrote: > On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:43:35 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >>In article <1lugf2hnqivjk9jpitvd0k062hhihq77hb(a)4ax.com>, >>Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> >> >>>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:08:10 GMT, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Winter(a)cwi.nl> >>>wrote: >> >>In an axiom system anything deducible from those axioms, including the >>axioms themselves, is deemed "true in that system", but not necessarily >>true outside it. > > > Then they're not true. > > >>>The problem is that they're routinely assumed true >> >>Only with in some system of axioms, but not outside that system. > > > Then they aren't true. Nor are they false. In an axiomatic (or postulational) system you show that a subset of the possible formulas or statements of the system follow from the basic assumptions by way of agreed upon rules of inference. For example: Is it true or false that a geodesic between two points of a space is a Euclidean straight line connecting the points? Answer. It depends on the space. On the surface of sphere the geodisic is an arc of a great circle. One a plane it is a line segmnt of a Euclidean straight line. The the assumption that the shortest distance between two points is a straight (Euclidean) line is neither absolutely true or false. It is contingent on the nature of the space being discussed. In an axiomatic or formal system the question is NOT what is true, but what follows from the assumptions. Manny Feld
From: Manny Feld on 2 Sep 2006 13:07 Virgil wrote: > > Zick seems to care enough to keep him posting. Zick's positings are like grafitti scrawled over the accomplishments of others. Zick is essentially an intellectual vandal. Unable to create anything of worth or value, he attempts to deface the work and value of his betters. And that is all I have to say about Mr. Zick. Manny Feld
From: Lester Zick on 2 Sep 2006 13:40 On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 12:07:24 -0500, Manny Feld <Manny.Feldl(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Virgil wrote: > >> >> Zick seems to care enough to keep him posting. > >Zick's positings are like grafitti scrawled over the accomplishments of >others. Zick is essentially an intellectual vandal. Unable to create >anything of worth or value, he attempts to deface the work and value of >his betters. And that is all I have to say about Mr. Zick. Well thanks so much for sharing your opinion on the subject. Now perhaps you'd care to tell us exactly how big infinity is? That is if you're not too busy casting aspersions on the intellectual talent of other who can? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 2 Sep 2006 13:46
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 11:57:57 -0500, Manny Feld <Manny.Feldl(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: > >> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:43:35 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >>>In article <1lugf2hnqivjk9jpitvd0k062hhihq77hb(a)4ax.com>, >>>Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:08:10 GMT, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Winter(a)cwi.nl> >>>>wrote: >>> >>>In an axiom system anything deducible from those axioms, including the >>>axioms themselves, is deemed "true in that system", but not necessarily >>>true outside it. >> >> >> Then they're not true. >> >> >>>>The problem is that they're routinely assumed true >>> >>>Only with in some system of axioms, but not outside that system. >> >> >> Then they aren't true. > >Nor are they false. In an axiomatic (or postulational) system you show >that a subset of the possible formulas or statements of the system >follow from the basic assumptions by way of agreed upon rules of inference. Well thanks so much again for your opinion on the subject, Manny. Not that it matters very much. >For example: Is it true or false that a geodesic between two points of a >space is a Euclidean straight line connecting the points? The only thing defined between points are straight line segments, sport. > Answer. It >depends on the space. Between your ears. > On the surface of sphere the geodisic is an arc of >a great circle. One a plane it is a line segmnt of a Euclidean straight >line. I see a great future for you in pretentious neomathematiker pidgin. >The the assumption that the shortest distance between two points is a >straight (Euclidean) line is neither absolutely true or false. It is >contingent on the nature of the space being discussed. Actually it's more contingent on the nature of the points being discussed. >In an axiomatic or formal system the question is NOT what is true, but >what follows from the assumptions. So in modern mathspeak you have no interest in what is true? Fair enough. ~v~~ |