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: SucMucPaProlij on 17 Mar 2007 07:19 > > And I think you're making a little too much out of nominal circular > regressions. All you really have to do to define definition is prove > it satisfies it own definition. > 1) Definition for definition: "Definition is anything" 2) All you really have to do to define definition is to prove it satisfies its own definition. "Definition is anything" satisfies itself (it masturbates). Did I miss something? Second attempt 1) Definition is sentence that is always true. 2) Is sentence "Definition is sentence that is always true" always true? For mathematikers definition is sentence that is always true but there are other sentences that are always true ("two is more that one", "it is better to live 100 years as a rich man that one day as a poor woman") and you can hardly called them definitions. What will happened if I define definition as something that is not always true? It changes math altogether. If definition is not always true you can't use definition for point to tell if something is point. Mathematikers are strange liberals. They even give you right to destroy everything they believe in :))))
From: SucMucPaProlij on 17 Mar 2007 07:23 >>How do you define "definition"? > > Well actually this is at least several years old. I don't claim my own > question in that regard was necessarily original but I did raise this > issue at least several years ago and have routinely continued to raise > it. Quite possibly the silliest definition of definition I noted was > David Marcus's comment that a definition is only an abbreviation. > I think that "existence", "definition" and "number one" are equal terms. Proof is based on a fact that you can't tell a difference between them. I don't expect anyone to accept my proof (just as nobody takes you seriously).
From: SucMucPaProlij on 17 Mar 2007 07:34 "Lester Zick" <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote in message news:fdnlv2d3t3vmaht79o2trmqtfq4halm5t8(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:18:53 +0100, "SucMucPaProlij" > <mrjohnpauldike2006(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>"Lester Zick" <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote in message >>news:1ukbv2hq1fo7ucv8971u9qo37b48bj6a5h(a)4ax.com... >>> >>> The Definition of Points >>> ~v~~ >>> >>> In the swansong of modern math lines are composed of points. But then >>> we must ask how points are defined? However I seem to recollect >>> intersections of lines determine points. But if so then we are left to >>> consider the rather peculiar proposition that lines are composed of >>> the intersection of lines. Now I don't claim the foregoing definitions >>> are circular. Only that the ratio of definitional logic to conclusions >>> is a transcendental somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.14159 . . . >>> >>> ~v~~ >> >>Can you prove that non-circular definition of existence exists? > > Well that depends on what you and others mean by "existence exists". > On the face of it the phrase "existence exists" is itself circular and > no more demonstrable than a phrase like "pointing points". It's just a > phrase taken as a root axiomatic assumption of truth by Ayn Rand in my > own personal experience whether others have used it or not I don't > know. > > On the other hand if you're asking whether anything exists and is > capable of being unambiguously defined the answer is yes. I've done > exactly that on more than one occasion first in the root post to the > thread "Epistemology 201: The Science of Science" of two years ago and > more recently in the root post to the thread "Epistemology 401: > Tautological Mechanics" from a month ago. > I think that there is no such thing as "don't exist". It means that everything exists and negation of existence is impossible. Problem is that word "existence" is ambiguous and to explain my theory one must first resolve ambiguousness. Yes, I don't expect anyone to believe me nor to agree with me. > The technique of unambiguous definition and the definition of truth is > simply to show that all possible alternative are false. Empirics and > mathematikers generally prefer to base their definitions on > undemonstrable axiomatic assumptions of truth whereas I prefer to base > definitions of truth on finite mechanical tautological reduction to > self contradictory alternatives. The former technique is a practice in > mystical insight while the latter entails exhaustive analysis and > reduction in purely mechanical terms. > It is interesting but I didn't define my opinion about truth so I choose to say nothing.
From: Bob Kolker on 17 Mar 2007 08:14 SucMucPaProlij wrote: > > I think that there is no such thing as "don't exist". It means that everything > exists and negation of existence is impossible. Problem is that word "existence" > is ambiguous and to explain my theory one must first resolve ambiguousness. Tell us about four sided triangles. Bob Kolker
From: SucMucPaProlij on 17 Mar 2007 09:13
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:5624dnF27a28tU1(a)mid.individual.net... > SucMucPaProlij wrote: >> >> I think that there is no such thing as "don't exist". It means that >> everything exists and negation of existence is impossible. Problem is that >> word "existence" is ambiguous and to explain my theory one must first resolve >> ambiguousness. > > Tell us about four sided triangles. > > Bob Kolker I don't want you to expect too much because this is not mathematical proof, it is philosophical proof (or discussion). This is just the way how I explain things to myself. I don't agree with mathematikers who claim that points don't �really exist� and it all starts with a simple story: if two lines intersect then there is a point (thus it exists), but this point "really doesn't exist". My question is: does this point exist or not? Do I have to choose between math and reality and what math has to do with reality? If math has nothing to do with reality why bother? Mathematikers do claim that math has nothing to do with reality but if it is true you can't use math to prove it because math has nothing to do with reality. It means that there is little possibility that math has some connections with real world. |