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 16 Mar 2007 19:19 On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:13:10 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: > >> >> I don't agree with the notion that lines and straight lines mean the >> same thing, Sam, mainly because we're then at a loss to account for >> curves. > > Geodesic > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Geodesic.html > > "A geodesic is a locally length-minimizing curve. Equivalently, it > is a path that a particle which is not accelerating would follow. > In the plane, the geodesics are straight lines. On the sphere, the > geodesics are great circles (like the equator). The geodesics in > a space depend on the Riemannian metric, which affects the notions > of distance and acceleration". So instead of lines, straight lines, and curves, Sam, now we're discussing geodesics, straight geodesics, and curved geodesics? Pure terminological regression. Not all that much of an improvement. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 16 Mar 2007 19:31 On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 06:19:31 GMT, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >I'll second that. Surprise. Guy can't even take the derivative of a cross product correctly and he's seconding motions already. Go figure. >Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, >meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 16 Mar 2007 19:32 On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 02:21:35 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >I second it! Of course you do. You're a twit. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 16 Mar 2007 19:39 On 16 Mar 2007 00:46:05 -0700, "Brian Chandler" <imaginatorium(a)despammed.com> wrote: >> >hahahahaha you are poor philosopher. >> >> Obviously. That's why I became a mathematician. > >You did? Gosh, congratulations! Yeah, Brian, happened when I wasn't looking. The truth fairy stabbed me in the back. At least she didn't make me a modern mathematiker. >Brian Chandler >http://imaginatorium.org >(just wanting to be part of this golden thread, this irridescent >braid, this) Sure, Brian. Jump in; the water's fine. Transgendered arithmetic couldn't get any worse for wear. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 16 Mar 2007 19:40
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:09:49 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 02:37:12 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Lester Zick wrote: >>> >>>> Look. If you have something to say responsive to my modest little >>>> essay I would hope you could abbreviate it with some kind of non >>>> circular philosophical extract running to oh maybe twenty lines or >>>> less. Obviously you think lines are made up of points. Big deal. So do >>>> most other neoplatonic mathematikers. >>>> >>>> ~v~~ >>> Hey Lester-- >>> >>> Point >>> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Point.html >>> >>> A point 0-dimensional mathematical object, which can be specified in >>> n-dimensional space using n coordinates. Although the notion of a point >>> is intuitively rather clear, the mathematical machinery used to deal >>> with points and point-like objects can be surprisingly slippery. This >>> difficulty was encountered by none other than Euclid himself who, in >>> his Elements, gave the vague definition of a point as "that which has >>> no part." >> >> Not clear what your point is here, Sam. If the so called mathematical >> machinery used to deal with points is nothing but circular regressions >> then I certainly agree that machinery would really be pretty slippery. >> >> ~v~~ > > Here's the point where I reside, Lester: > 15T 0444901m 4653490m 00306m NAD27 Fri Mar 16 04:09:09 UTC 2007 But is it a circular point, Sam? ~v~~ |