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 1 Apr 2007 18:43 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:47:26 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:04:33 -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: >>>> >>>>>>>> Okay, Tony. You've made it clear you don't care what anyone thinks as >>>>>>>> long as it suits your druthers and philosophical perspective on math. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which is so completely different from you, of course... >>>>>> Difference is that I demonstrate the truth of what I'm talking about >>>>>> in mechanically reduced exhaustive terms whereas what you talk about >>>>>> is just speculative. >>>>> You speculate that it's agreed that not is the universal truth. It's not. >>>> No I don't, Tony. It really is irritating that despite having read >>>> E201 and E401 you call what I've done in those root threads >>>> "speculation". What makes you think it's speculation? I mean if you >>>> didn't understand what I wrote or how it demonstrates what I say then >>>> I'd be happy to revisit the issue. However not questioning the >>>> demonstration and still insisting it's speculation and no different >>>> from what you say is just not okay. >>> I've questioned that assumption all along. We've spoken about it plenty. >> >> What assumption, Tony?You talk as if there is some kind of assumption. >That "not not" is self-contradictory, as if "not" is a statement.... "Not" is a predicate and "not not" is a self contradictory combination of predicates. I don't know what you mean by a "statement". Predicates are statements as far as I can tell. >>>> I don't speculate "it's agreed" or not. I don't really care whether >>>> it's agreed or not and as a practical matter at this juncture I'd have >>>> to say it's much more likely not agreed than agreed. What matters is >>>> whether it's demonstrated and if not why not and not whether it's >>>> agreed or not since agreements and demonstrations of truth are not the >>>> same at all. Agreements require comprehension and comprehension >>>> requires study and time whereas demonstrations of truth only require >>>> logic whether or not there is comprehension. >>>> >>>> ~v~~ >>> Demonstrate what the rules are for producing a valid one of your logical >>> statements from one or more other valid ones of your logical statements, >>> because "not not" and "not a not b" are not standard valid logic >>> statements with known rules of manipulation. What are the mechanics? As >>> far as I can tell, the first is not(not(true))=true and the second is >>> or(not(a),not(b)), or, not(and(a,b)). >> >> Or you could demonstrate why the standard valid logic you cite is >> standard and valid. >> >> ~v~~ > >Okay, I'll take that as a disinclination and failure to comply. You have >the right to remain silent... ;) Well it's certainly a disinclination to comply with your assumptions regarding just whatever "standard valid" logic you consider "standard" and "valid" without being able to demonstrate why it's either one.Just naming things "true" and "false" doesn't make them so and that failure renders your claims nothing more than aribitrary bit manipulations. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 18:45 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:05:25 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >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? What did I say, Tony? Constant linear velocity in combination with transverse acceleration? Or constant transverse acceleration? I mean my reply is right there above yours. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 18:53 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:13:21 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> You talk about lines as if they were made up of points. >In one model of Euclidean geometry that satisfies all of Hilbert's >Axioms the lines are made up of points. Yeah look, Bob, I really don't care about "models" and Hilbert's axioms or about undefined tables and beer bottles. So your contention that lines are made up of points is completely beside the point. > Furthermore it can be shown >Hilbert's Axioms are categorical, so all models are isometric. So a line >is made up of points in -any- model for Hilbert's Axioms. So why didn't you just jump up and say so when that guy asked for a college level citation to support your contention, Bob? I mean if Hilbert's axioms are so all fired critical to the definition of points and lines and their interrelations why didn't he define them himself instead of leaving the job to lesser mortals such as you? I mean no doubt we can all use a good laugh now and again but I don't really feel very comfortable accepting your word as gospel per say. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 19:03 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:15:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:07:44 -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: >>>> >>>>>>> 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~~ >>> What does point discontinuity in geometry have to do with anything I've >>> said? >> >> You talk about lines as if they were made up of points. >> >> ~v~~ > >I do, and the thread is picking up. And, that's not why. :) > >Or, maybe it is. No it's picking up for the reason I cited previously in my collateral reply above. By fragmenting my replies to the preceeding 800+ line message I inadvertently made it possible for mathematikers to read, reply, and lip synch slogans whilst moving their lips commensurate with their somewhat limited mentalities. However I also insulted orangutans in the process for which I sincerely apologize. > No point lies independent of any space, or it's >insignificant. No point is defined except as different in however many >directions are under consideration. Where points are so defined, they >allow for lines. Thanks for the opinion, Tony. I like Bob's better. It's so complicated it almost sounds like he knows what he's talking about for a change. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 19:05
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:15:58 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:08:06 -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: >>>> >>>>>>> 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~~ >>> Yeah huh >> >> Yeah indeed. >> >> ~v~~ > >I meant, "does, too". Except it doesn't even produce decent straight line segments, Tony, much less straight lines. ~v~~ |