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: Bob Kolker on 31 Mar 2007 18:47 Tony Orlow wrote: > > No, Bob, that's a Muslim lie, perpetrated by the Jews as a joke on the > xtians. Are you aware the Cantor was a Lutheran? Probably not. His arch enemy Kroeniker was Jewish. Bob Kolker
From: Tony Orlow on 31 Mar 2007 18:48 Lester Zick wrote: > On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:50:10 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> > wrote: > >>> And the only way we can address >>> relations between zeroes and in-finites is through L'Hospital's rule >>> where derivatives are not zero or in-finite. And all I see you doing >>> is sketching a series of rules you imagine are obeyed by some of the >>> things you talk about without however integrating them mechanically >>> with others of the things you and others talk about. It really doesn't >>> matter whether you put them within the interval 0-1 instead of at the >>> end of the number line if there are conflicting mechanical properties >>> preventing them from lying together on any straight line segment. >>> >>> ~v~~ >> Well, if you actually paid attention to any of my ideas, you'd see they >> are indeed mostly mechanically related to each other, but you don't seem >> interested in discussing the possibly useful mechanics employed therein. > > Only because you don't seem interested in discussing the mechanics on > which the possibly useful mechanics employed therein are based, Tony. But I am. I've asked that you fill in those true/false entries in the table I gave you, so we can see what relation you're employing. That's an effort in "discussing" the "mechanics". > I'm less interested in discussing one "possibly useful mechanics" over > another when there is no demonstrable mechanical basis for the > "possibly useful mechanics" to begin with. You claim they're "mostly > mechanically" related but not the mechanics through which they're > "mostly mechanically related" except various ambiguous claims per say. > > ~v~~ Pro say, to be exact. How many inputs, how many outputs, and what mapping, what relation? Them's mechanics. So, expliculate. 01oo
From: Tony Orlow on 31 Mar 2007 19:04 Virgil wrote: > In article <460e56a5(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > >> Virgil wrote: > >>> But all other mathematical objects are equally fantastic, having no >>> physical reality, but existing only in the imagination. So any statement >>> of mathematical existence is always relative to something like a system >>> of axioms. >> Sure, but the question is whether any such assumption of existence >> introduces nonsense into your system. > > It has in each of TO's suggested systems so far. > If thou so sayest, Sire. >> With the very basic assumption >> that subtracting a positive amount from anything makes it less > > That presumes at least a definition of "positive" and a definition of > "amount" and a definition of "subtraction" and a definition of "less" > before it makes any sense at all. Yes, it does. I think we all know basically what those terms mean. But, let's say we don't. We have a system where x<y and y<z implies x<z. We define 0, and say if x<0, then y+x<y, and if x>0 then y+x>y, and of course, if x=0, then y+x=y. y+x=z <-> z-y=x and z-x=y. x<y means y is in the "positive" direction from x. x is the distance from 0, positive if to the right of 0, negative if to the left, and we move that distance in the opposite direction from any point to subtract x from it, and determine the poit indicating the result. If we start at one point, and move a nonzero distance, do we not end up on another point, different from the first? Tony (I notice you never sign your posts, so, while I kind of like to mirror the signing styles of various posters in my responses, with you, I got nuthin' to work with. So, I'll just sign, Tony, and then maybe, you'll start signing, Evrett, or whatever your name "actually" is. :))
From: Tony Orlow on 31 Mar 2007 19:05 Lester Zick wrote: > On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:06:42 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> > wrote: > >> Lester Zick wrote: >>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> You might be surprised at how it relates to science. Where does mass >>>>>> come from, anyway? >>>>> Not from number rings and real number lines that's for sure. >>>>> >>>> Are you sure? >>> Yes. >>> >>>> What thoughts have you given to cyclical processes? >>> Plenty. Everything in physical nature represents cyclical processes. >>> So what? What difference does that make? We can describe cyclical >>> processes quite adequately without assuming there is a real number >>> line or number rings. In fact we can describe cyclical processes even >>> if there is no real number line and number ring. They're irrelevant. >>> >>> ~v~~ >> Oh. What causes them? > > Constant linear velocity in combination with transverse acceleration. > > ~v~~ Constant transverse acceleration? 01oo
From: Virgil on 31 Mar 2007 19:05
In article <460edc26(a)news2.lightlink.com>, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > Bob Kolker wrote: > > Tony Orlow wrote: > >> > >> As I said to Brian, it's provably the size of the set of finite > >> natural numbers greater than or equal to 1. No, there is no last > >> finite natural, and no, there is no "size" for N. Aleph_0 is a phantom. > > > > No. It is the cardinality of the set of integers. > > No, Bob, that's a Muslim lie, perpetrated by the Jews as a joke on the > xtians. And does TO pretend to have a mathematically valid proof of that claim? |