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 13 Apr 2007 13:17 On 12 Apr 2007 14:48:01 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Apr 12, 12:30 pm, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > >> Yes, Lester, Stephen is exactly right. I am very happy to see this >> response. It follows from the assumptions. Axioms have merit, but >> deserve periodic review. > >YOU can't REview something you've never VIEWED. Look who's talking. Since when have mathematical axioms ever been viewed as true in exhaustive mechanical terms? ~v~~
From: Tony Orlow on 13 Apr 2007 13:21 MoeBlee wrote: > On Apr 12, 12:27 pm, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> MoeBlee wrote: >>> On Mar 31, 5:39 am, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>>> In order to support the notion of aleph_0, one has to discard the basic >>>> notion of subtraction in the infinite case. That seems like an undue >>>> sacrifice to me, for the sake of nonsense. Sorry. >>> For the sake of a formal axiomatization of the theorems of ordinary >>> mathematics in analysis, algebra, topology, etc. >>> But please do let us know when you have such a formal axiomatization >>> but one that does have cardinal subtraction working in the infinite >>> case just as it works in the finite case. >>> MoeBlee >> Sorry, MoeBlee, but when I produce any final product in this area, >> cardinality will be a footnote, and not central to the theory. As I work >> on other things, so do I work on this. > > I really don't care what you work on. My point is that your commentary > in these threads has virtually no formal mathematical import, as it > comes down to a bunch of whining that your personal notions are not > embodied in set theory even though you can't point to a formal system > (either published or of your own, and the gibberish you've posted in > threads and on your own site is not even a corhernt attempt toward a > formal system) that does embody your personal notions and you can't > even HINT at what such a system might be. > > MoeBlee > What does any of your whining have to do with the definition of points? This is tiresome. ToeKnee
From: Lester Zick on 13 Apr 2007 13:29 On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:29:22 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:14:27 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Yeah, "true" and "false" and "or" are kinda ambiguous, eh?" >> >> They are where your demonstrations of their truth are concerned >> because there don't seem to be any. You just trot them out as if they >> were obvious axiomatic assumptions of truth not requiring any >> mechanical basis whatsoever or demonstrations on your part. >> >> ~v~~ > >So, you're not interested in classifying certain propositions as "true" >and others as "false", so each is either true "or" false? I coulda >swored you done said that....oh nebbe mine! It makes no difference how you classify proposition as true or false when you can't demonstrate how it is they're true or false to begin with. Just saying they're true or false is irrelevant unless you can show why and how. That's what I'm trying to point out to you. You seem stuck on merely assuming certain propositions are true or false. ~v~~
From: Tony Orlow on 13 Apr 2007 13:38 MoeBlee wrote: > On Apr 12, 2:36 pm, "MoeBlee" <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Zermelo's motivation was to prove that every set is well ordered. > > Since that phrasing might be misunderstood, I should say that I mean: > Zermelo's motivation was to prove that for every set, there exists a > well ordering on it. > > MoeBlee > I am not sure how the Axiom of Choice demonstrates that. Well Order the Reals! Tony
From: Tony Orlow on 13 Apr 2007 13:40
Lester Zick wrote: > 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~~ I thought you considered the transverse acceleration to vary infinitesimally, but that was a while back... 01oo |