The Definition of Points
in [Math]
|
Prev: Guide to presenting Lemma, Theorems and Definitions
Next: Density of the set of all zeroes of a function with givenproperties
From: Lester Zick on 23 Mar 2007 12:57 On 23 Mar 2007 02:28:13 -0700, "Brian Chandler" <imaginatorium(a)despammed.com> wrote: >Cosa? Vuoi dire per caso 'ridete'? Far neinte apparently. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 23 Mar 2007 12:58 On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:03:14 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >True, But, where geometry has to do with sets of atomic points and >measure, well, it has something to say about the infinity of sets. And where geometry has nothing to do with sets of atomic points it doesn't. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 23 Mar 2007 13:11 On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:29:40 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Since TO steadfastly rejects the implications of his own assumptions, he >guarantees that he will never reach that goal. Look who's talking about rejecting the implications of his own assumptions. What a joke unless maybe you consider they aren't even his own assumptions at all but assumptions of those around him. This guy can't even draw a straight line without someone elses assumptions about sets of points and line segments adding up to straight lines. He's an airhead whose only standards of truth are trivial assumptions. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 23 Mar 2007 13:12 On 23 Mar 2007 04:48:36 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Mar 22, 9:03 pm, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> Virgil wrote: >> > Which supposedly richer system is still so poor that it it does not >> > exist. Other than as one of TO's pipe dreams. >> >> Not yet as a complete replacement for ZFC, but that wasn't built i na >> day, or a few years, either. >> > >But, like Rome and unlike TO-matics, the builders could >look around every once in awhile and say "this has grown >since last time I looked." I'm confident Dr. Frankenstein felt the same way. ~v~~
From: Brian Chandler on 23 Mar 2007 13:58
Randy Poe wrote: > On Mar 23, 12:42 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:12:02 -0500, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> > > wrote: > > >Lester Zick wrote: > > >> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:14:38 -0500, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> > > >> wrote: > > >>> Lester Zick wrote: > > >>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:45:54 -0500, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>> Lester Zick wrote: > > >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:17:16 -0500, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> > > >>>>>> wrote: < ... > > > The problem is that approximations to pi reside on straight lines but > > their limit does not. Pi resides on circular arcs or curves.And before > > Randy/Stephen/Virgil can pop in to ask what I mean by "reside" I > > suggest they try to "point out" pi on a straight line whilst I "point > > out" pi on a circle. > > I'm going to ask what you mean by "point out" ... What's the point of that? If entities should not be multiplied without cause, surely the same goes for incoherent babble? I admit that Lester's pontification on "construction", "irrationals" and so on can be amusing sometimes.... Brian Chandler http://imaginatorium.org |