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 29 Mar 2007 15:24 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>>>> Um, no, dr/dr=1. Looks like an identity function to me.... >>>> So what. Most identity ratios are. >>>> >>> Right, and they're not terribly significant. >> >> Which takes us right back to derivatives without identity ratios. >> > >Okay, make it interesting.... Mathematics and physics are quite interesting in their own right. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 17:40 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> Those aren't geometrical expressions of addition, but iterative >>> operations expressed linguistically. >> >> Which means what exactly, that they aren't arithmetic axioms forming >> the foundation of modern math? The whole problem is that they don't >> produce straight lines or colinear straight line segments as claimed. >Uh, yeah, 'cause they're not expressed gemoetrically. Well yes. However until you can show geometric expression are point discontinuous I don't see much chance geometric expression will help your case any. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 17:41 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> So, start with the straight line: >> >> How? By assumption? As far as I know the only way to produce straight >> lines is through Newton's method of drawing tangents to curves. That >> means we start with curves and derivatives not straight lines.And that >> means we start with curved surfaces and intersections between them. >> > >Take long string and tie to two sticks, tight. Which doesn't produce straight line segments. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 17:42 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> R exists. >> >> Nice but still an axiomatic assumption of truth. >> > >A declaration as foundation: "Assume A" We can assume lots of things. Doesn't make them true and doesn't make them better or worse than other assumptions. Assumptions are still assumptions. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 17:44
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> Science doesn't prove anything true. >> >> Sure it does. That's the purpose of science. Empiricism and modern >> math don't prove anything true. Mysticism in action. That's why modern >> mathematikers consider themselves neo platonists. They're just divines >> who intuit the truth and what's true and false and go on from there. >Um, same with us Scientifikers...sorry... Not at all. It's the same with empirics. Much better word. Guess and guess again. ~v~~ |