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: nonsense on 17 Mar 2007 13:02 SucMucPaProlij wrote: >>You can develop geometry based purely on real numbers and sets. You need not >>assume any geometrical notions to do the thing. One of the triumphs of >>mathematics in the modern era was to make geometry the child of analysis. >> > > > And it means that lines, planes and points are defined in geometry. > Make up your mind, Bob! No they're not. "The locus of all points...."
From: SucMucPaProlij on 17 Mar 2007 13:05 "Bob Kolker" <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:562hm6F2673reU4(a)mid.individual.net... > SucMucPaProlij wrote: > >> "Bob Kolker" <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >> news:5629arF26ac36U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >>>SucMucPaProlij wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>If it ain't mathematics and it ain't physics, it is bullshit. Philsophy, by >>>and large, is academic style bullshit. >>> >> >> >> Reality check: >> >> If I say "This is math" does it make it math just because I say so? >> If I say "This is physics" does it make it physics just because I say so? >> If I say "This is philosophy" does it make it philosophy just because I say >> so? >> >> How can you tell if something is math, physics or philosophy if you never saw >> this thing I talk about? > > First of all you are talking about abstractions so you cant literally see > them. > if 1 is abstraction, can you see it? 1 ups! here is another 1..... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 > Second if you have learned some geometry or physics you will know it when you > encounter it (as in thinking about it). > Is sentence "you will know when you see it" math, physics or "academic style bullshit"? > > >> >> >> Introduce yourself with Shakespeare! > > Your posts are full of Sound and Fury. A Tale told by an Idiot. > Hahahahahaha Yeah right!
From: SucMucPaProlij on 17 Mar 2007 13:10 <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote in message news:56b33$45fc1e98$4fe72e0$21877(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > SucMucPaProlij wrote: > > >> Can you define a difference between intuitive point and real apple? >> How matematikers handle reality? > > Sometimes even a troll asks a good question. I don't understand. You didn't ask any question. > > A point and an apple are self defining. We only > get to report about them. > good. How do you explain that point exists in math but doesn't exist in real word? Why is that? > Please refer to Clinton's comment about the meaning > of "is". > > >
From: SucMucPaProlij on 17 Mar 2007 13:24 <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote in message news:b71c5$45fc1f22$4fe72e0$21877(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > SucMucPaProlij wrote: > >>>You can develop geometry based purely on real numbers and sets. You need not >>>assume any geometrical notions to do the thing. One of the triumphs of >>>mathematics in the modern era was to make geometry the child of analysis. >>> >> >> >> And it means that lines, planes and points are defined in geometry. >> Make up your mind, Bob! > > No they're not. "The locus of all points...." > > > You can't define points and lines with numbers and sets? Try it. It is not hard.
From: Bob Kolker on 17 Mar 2007 13:47
SucMucPaProlij wrote: > > > Can you define a difference between intuitive point and real apple? > How matematikers handle reality? You can make apple sauce from an apple. You can't make point fritters. Bob Kolker > > |