Prev: 'Relativistic' "Doppler" shift
Next: Intersection of Complex Submanifolds (Incl. Self-Int.) is positive
From: Pubkeybreaker on 6 Aug 2010 12:38
On Aug 6, 12:24 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> And it will again clearly separate those who are more concerned about
> “who is right and gets credit for it, than what is right and
> contributes to the knowledge base of humanity”
>
> Conrad J Countess

I have seen your posts.

So far, you have contributed nothing except nonsense and gibberish.
From: spudnik on 6 Aug 2010 14:21
I totally agree, but he did start out with a good observation,
if only because I made it, two, a long, long, long time,
ago!

anyway, monsieur Countess,
how do you say that "counting is dimensional?"

do androids dream of dimensional sheep?

> I have seen your posts.

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net

--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com
From: cjcountess on 7 Aug 2010 11:49
Virgil

Thank you for bringing the conversation back to a civil state

The very fact that a so called “pure, dimensionless number”, can be
considered “positive”, is acknowledgment of at least dimension in
positive space.

Spudnik

I am glad that you did not see my observation as totally useless,
although I did not like that dutch remark. But lets not degenerate
again, and I did find something you said interesting

The idea of dimensionless constants might be a good place to start a
comparison with dimensionless numbers.

Vigil and spudnik,

I am going to prepare a more thought out response for you and report
back shortly.

Conrad J Countess
From: Marshall on 7 Aug 2010 13:15
On Aug 7, 8:49 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The very fact that a so called “pure, dimensionless number”, can be
> considered “positive”, is acknowledgment of at least dimension in
> positive space.

The very fact that a so called “pure, dimensionless number”, can be
used to count apples is acknowledgment of at least fruit in a basket.

This idea of trying to tie geometry to numbers is clearly off track;
obviously numbers are about inventory!


Marshall
From: Virgil on 7 Aug 2010 17:27
In article
<62cc4ee3-f901-428d-b064-b88b4dd44707(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
cjcountess <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> Virgil
>
> Thank you for bringing the conversation back to a civil state
>
> The very fact that a so called �pure, dimensionless number�, can be
> considered �positive�, is acknowledgment of at least dimension in
> positive space.

In ZFC, positiveness has nothing to do with dimesionality.

For example using the von Neuman naturals, one has
0 = {}, the empty set and for each natural n, one has n + 1 = {n,{n}}
and one can easily define the usual arithmetic on N inductively
Then in the Cartesian product, NxN one defines the equivalence realtion
(a,b) == (c,d) , for a,b,c,d in N, <==> a+d = b+c as naturals.
The set of equivalence classes for this relation is taken as the set of
integers, Z, and such an integer is negative if and only if each of its
ordered pairs (a,b) has a < b in N.

I see nothing of dimensions in that construction.

Nor in the construction of the set, Q, of rationals from Z, nor from the
constriction of the set, R, of reals from Q.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: 'Relativistic' "Doppler" shift
Next: Intersection of Complex Submanifolds (Incl. Self-Int.) is positive