Prev: ***Re: Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberriesstill worship him
Next: Countable infinities?
From: Androcles on 10 Jun 2010 06:09

"Cwatters" <colin.wattersNOSPAM(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
news:Z7ednbH8ApnHPI3RnZ2dnUVZ7sOdnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk...
|
| "BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:c8c904dd-ea08-45a7-93db-ef719186451f(a)s6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
| > You cannot take away from a quantity more than its absolute value. You
| > canot subtract from zero. The minus sign for a negative number is only
| > real as a subtraction operator.
| >
| > Mitch Raemsch
|
| As I brake for the junction in the road my acceleration is negative. What
| happens if I press the brake harder?
|
You go backwards (relatively to the car braking beside you). All motion
is relative to a frame of reference. The occupant of the car beside you
SEES you go backwards. Yet you still go forward relative to the road.
Thus you go forward and backward simultaneously.





From: Tim BandTech.com on 10 Jun 2010 08:00
On Jun 9, 12:09 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 9:06 pm, Pol Lux <luxp...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 9:01 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 8, 8:36 pm, Pol Lux <luxp...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 8, 6:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 8, 6:25 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 8, 8:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > There is no quantity below the absence of quantity or zero.
> > > > > > Depending on your definition of "quantity" this may be true.
> > > > > > Of course the idea that a number must represent quantity
> > > > > > is silly
> > > > > > - William Hughes
> > > > > Math is defined by quantitative thinking where we use number symbols
> > > > > to express quantities.
> > > > > Numbers are names for quantities.
> > > > > And no one can demonstrate a negative quantity just a subtraction. But
> > > > > even that not below zero.
> > > > > Mitch Raemsch
> > > > Hey Mitch -
> > > > How about you think about zero first? Maybe zero itself doesn't exist,
> > > > right? Negative numbers are too advanced for you, let's start with the
> > > > existence or not of zero: how can nothing be something? Huh? You like
> > > > that?
> > > The number zero quantifies to the empty set. In this sense it is an
> > > abstract idea. But with any base system there must be a zero to
> > > describe numbers to the next diget.
> > > Mitch Raemsch
> > Of course. Does the empty set exist? How can nothing be something?
>
> The number zero and empty set exist but not as a quantity.
> They are the names for the absence of quantity.
>
> Mitch Raemsch

Actually Burt, you are near to defining the one-signed numbers. In
modern thought we mistakenly accept the real number as fundamental. It
is not. While it is true that the complex numbers can be constructed
out of reals, this is not the only way to construct them. If effect I
am suggesting that even the complex numbers ought to be granted a life
of their own side by side, and one dimension up, from the real
numbers. Well, the system you propose of one-signed numbers does not
have any inverse. Subtraction as fundamental is a misnomer.
Superposition, summation, integration; these are the fundamentals. We
exist in a superpositional space, and we don't tend to worry so much
about the integral with an ability to perform subtraction. Instead we
observe that the derivative is a more appropriate inversion. This is
not merely a subtractive procedure, though it is nearby. The point is,
we only need one fundamental. Interestingly calculus does start off
teaching the derivative first. Perhaps this is a lead on a polysign
calculus, where the integral should be first defined. Well, that's
probably going to come out a wash, but back to your initial point
these numbers which do not carry an inverse(I call them P1) are
actually zero dimensional and match the behaviors of time.

Which is more fundamental; the ray or the line?
The ray is, because it is a simpler construction.
I don't believe in any finality of theory, and even if it comes it
should not be because we gave up looking. Instead we are buried in
accumulation at this point with no hope of reading our way out of the
piles of information that are available. This is not healthy in terms
of approaching problems from a fundamental perspective.

Please do reconsider the polysign numbers:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
for they have the ability to change our minds.

- Tim
From: Michael Stemper on 10 Jun 2010 08:46
In article <96c7e604-78d6-4ce8-a122-2a506d336e53(a)42g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> writes:
>On Jun 8, 4:53=A0pm, Pollux <po....(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> (6/8/10 4:48 PM), BURT wrote:> You cannot take away from a quantity more =
>than its absolute value. You
>> > canot subtract from zero. The minus sign for a negative number is only
>> > real as a subtraction operator.
>>
>> Ah yeah, that's right. I heard something about people opposing the
>> existence of negative numbers. Wasn't that in the middle ages?
>
>The existence of negative numbers is that they are absolutes values
>with a minus operator. Their role is simply for subtraction. They are
>not any negative quantity.
>
>There is no quantity below the absence of quantity or zero.
>Please show otherwise.

<http://img2.photographersdirect.com/img/91/wm/pd277877.jpg>
<http://static-p4.fotolia.com/jpg/00/12/68/71/400_F_12687168_cMzIEof53GzkxAMNCHFRm1mZoRfmWnTy.jpg>

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Always use apostrophe's and "quotation marks" properly.
From: Danny73 on 10 Jun 2010 11:15
On Jun 8, 7:48 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> You cannot take away from a quantity more than its absolute value. You
> canot subtract from zero. The minus sign for a negative number is only
> real as a subtraction operator.
>
> Mitch Raemsch

Mitch,

A warehouse has 10,000 widgets in stock and there reorder
point is <500. No previous one order ever exceeded 20 widgets.
At one point the stock is @ 505 widgets and an order of 10 widgets
is initiated thus flagging a reorder.
There is a 5 day difference allowed for restocking but a problem
with the trucking company puts it up too 10 days before restocking.
Meanwhile the ordering on widgets is higher than normal and now
there is a negative inventory on widgets to cover all orders
out of this warehouse so their computer stock status program shows a
negative number of widgets in stock.

This is just one way to express a negative value for a physical item.

The moral of this story is, positive is always better than
negative! ;-)

Dan
From: BURT on 10 Jun 2010 14:57
On Jun 10, 5:00 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 12:09 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 9:06 pm, Pol Lux <luxp...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 8, 9:01 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 8, 8:36 pm, Pol Lux <luxp...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 8, 6:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 8, 6:25 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jun 8, 8:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > There is no quantity below the absence of quantity or zero.
> > > > > > > Depending on your definition of "quantity" this may be true.
> > > > > > > Of course the idea that a number must represent quantity
> > > > > > > is silly
> > > > > > >                     - William Hughes
> > > > > > Math is defined by quantitative thinking where we use number symbols
> > > > > > to express quantities.
> > > > > > Numbers are names for quantities.
> > > > > > And no one can demonstrate a negative quantity just a subtraction. But
> > > > > > even that not below zero.
> > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
> > > > > Hey Mitch -
> > > > > How about you think about zero first? Maybe zero itself doesn't exist,
> > > > > right? Negative numbers are too advanced for you, let's start with the
> > > > > existence or not of zero: how can nothing be something? Huh? You like
> > > > > that?
> > > > The number zero quantifies to the empty set. In this sense it is an
> > > > abstract idea. But with any base system there must be a zero to
> > > > describe numbers to the next diget.
> > > > Mitch Raemsch
> > > Of course. Does the empty set exist? How can nothing be something?
>
> > The number zero and empty set exist but not as a quantity.
> > They are the names for the absence of quantity.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> Actually Burt, you are near to defining the one-signed numbers. In
> modern thought we mistakenly accept the real number as fundamental. It
> is not.

NO.Imaginary quantities do not exist. Only

The next time you use the complex plane you can equally well plug in 1
for i.

All you are doing is moving the i symble around. The order for i comes
from its coefficient. I is equavalent to one. But people think when
they move the i around in the complex plane that they are doing
something mathematically. They are not.

Imaginary quantities are just that: imaginary.

Mitch Raemsch

> While it is true that the complex numbers can be constructed
> out of reals, this is not the only way to construct them. If effect I
> am suggesting that even the complex numbers ought to be granted a life
> of their own side by side, and one dimension up, from the real
> numbers. Well, the system you propose of one-signed numbers does not
> have any inverse. Subtraction as fundamental is a misnomer.
> Superposition, summation, integration; these are the fundamentals. We
> exist in a superpositional space, and we don't tend to worry so much
> about the integral with an ability to perform subtraction. Instead we
> observe that the derivative is a more appropriate inversion. This is
> not merely a subtractive procedure, though it is nearby. The point is,
> we only need one fundamental. Interestingly calculus does start off
> teaching the derivative first. Perhaps this is a lead on a polysign
> calculus, where the integral should be first defined. Well, that's
> probably going to come out a wash, but back to your initial point
> these numbers which do not carry an inverse(I call them P1) are
> actually zero dimensional and match the behaviors of time.
>
> Which is more fundamental; the ray or the line?
> The ray is, because it is a simpler construction.
> I don't believe in any finality of theory, and even if it comes it
> should not be because we  gave up looking. Instead we are buried in
> accumulation at this point with no hope of reading our way out of the
> piles of information that are available. This is not healthy in terms
> of approaching problems from a fundamental perspective.
>
> Please do reconsider the polysign numbers:
>    http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
> for they have the ability to change our minds.
>
>  - Tim- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: ***Re: Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberriesstill worship him
Next: Countable infinities?