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 12 Apr 2007 18:24 On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:12:06 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:31:58 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Lester Zick wrote: >>>> On 30 Mar 2007 10:23:51 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mar 30, 9:39 am, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> They >>>>>> introduce the von Neumann ordinals defined solely by set inclusion, >>>>> By membership, not inclusion. >>>>> >>>>>> and >>>>>> yet, surreptitiously introduce the notion of order by means of this set. >>>>> "Surreptitiously". You don't know an effing thing you're talking >>>>> about. Look at a set theory textbook (such as Suppes's 'Axiomatic Set >>>>> Theory') to see the explicit definitions. >>>> Kinda like Moe(x) huh. >>>> >>>> ~v~~ >>> Welcome back to your mother-effing thread. :) >> >> What's interesting here, Tony, is the sudden explosion of interest in >> a thread you commented only the other day appeared moribund. I mean >> 200+ posts on any given Sunday may well be a record. >> >> I think the trick is that you have to confine posts pretty much to a >> few sentences so mathematikers can read and respond to them whilst >> moving their lips. I often suspected mathematikers only had verbal >> IQ's about room temperature and the retention capacity of orangutans >> and now we have empirical evidence to that effect. Probably why >> they're modern mathematikers to begin with because their intellectual >> skills appear fairly well limited to memorizing and repeating slogans. >> >> ~v~~ > >What may perhaps be more interesting is that, after I disappeared again >for two weeks, the thread petered out again. Oh I readily grant you, Tony, that the mathematikers would rather argue with you than me because you deal in commonly held beliefs mathematikers are used to dealing with whereas I deal in truth which mathematikers are not used to dealing with. > The trickis actually >pursuing a point that exists. :) No idear what you're on about here, Tony. When you find some mathematiker who can read without moving his lips let me know. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 12 Apr 2007 18:25 On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:12:56 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> 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~~ > >If the transverse acceleration varies, then you do not have a circle. Of course not. You do however have a curve. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 12 Apr 2007 18:27 On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:16:11 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> So.. you (correctly) note that there are not a finite "number" of >>> reals in [0,1]. You think this "proves" that there exists an infinite >>> "number". Why? (And, what is your definition of "number")? >> >> And what is your definition of "infinite"? >> >> ~v~~ > >"greater than any finite" I'm not sure that's a big help, Tony. You have yet to show there is any such number. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 12 Apr 2007 18:27 On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:22:10 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <461e7764(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > >> Lester Zick wrote: > >> > And what is your definition of "infinite"? >> > >> > ~v~~ >> >> "greater than any finite" >> > >And is TO's definition of finite "less than infinite"? 46. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 12 Apr 2007 18:28
On 12 Apr 2007 14:04:12 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Apr 12, 11:16 am, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > >> > And what is your definition of "infinite"? > >> "greater than any finite" > >Define 'finite' and 'greater than'. > >Nevermind, you have no primitives anyway to which ANY of your >definitions ultimately revert. Well we certainly have the primitive Moe(x) to which any of your definitions ultimately revert. ~v~~ |