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 18 Mar 2007 13:33 On 17 Mar 2007 11:29:29 -0700, "VK" <schools_ring(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Mar 16, 2:26 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> >> I believe Lester is asking whether a line is a composite object or an >> >> atomic primitive. >> >> >That is one of things and the most easy one. I believe I already gave >> >the answer but not sure that he will ever accept it >> >> Oh I accept it all right. I just don't understand it. > >So you don't understand that a abstraction - having no exact >equivalence in the perceived world - may be defined in different >ways? Oh I don't actually disagree; I just can't tell exactly what all these qualifications amount to and mean. You've got "abstraction" and "perception" and "equivalence" and all sorts of terms mixed up in here that make me suspect none of us including you knows exactly what you're talking about in mechanically exhaustive terms. >Let me ask a question then if you don't mind. Given a few definition >of the abstraction in question: > >1) a point is what doesn't have sides >2) a point is n intersection of two lines >3) a point is to ti en einai of infinity >... >n) a point is a reversed infinity > >where between 3 and n feel free to place whatever is missing in any >amount. > >So given this set of definitions: would you agree that only one >definition is possibly true among all given ones? Would you agree that >for any abstraction among all possible definitions there is one and >only one which is correct? So the task is not to define an abstraction >in a custom and possibly erroneous way - but the task it to find that >pre-existing true definition among all possible ones? Well maybe that would be true if your initial predicates had any specific and exhaustive value. But lots of things may be true of points without being essential to their definition. I don't understand what "ti en einai of infinity" is supposed to mean nor a "reversed infinity". >Three questions in total but really only one as promised, just making >myself as clear as possible. It is also not a rhetoric question with a >"proper" answer implied, I'm really asking you: yes or no? The primary task in scientific definition is an exhaustive reduction of terms. Your observations read more like philosophy than science. So I can't really answer your questions one way or the other. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 18 Mar 2007 13:33 On 17 Mar 2007 13:15:42 -0700, "Math1723" <anonym1723(a)aol.com> wrote: >On Mar 13, 5:44 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> On 13 Mar 2007 11:20:47 -0700, "Ross A.Finlayson" >> >> >You should ask me. >> >> Why? > >Perhaps he could use a good laugh? I'm sure we all could. Is that it? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 18 Mar 2007 13:35 On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:26:40 +0100, "SucMucPaProlij" <mrjohnpauldike2006(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >"Lester Zick" <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote in message >news:s6tov2l53bupjlkr2fjdr82me2l8eo6q9m(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:23:28 +0100, "SucMucPaProlij" >> <mrjohnpauldike2006(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>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. >> >> So what? No one cares what you think. They may or may not care what >> you can prove. >> >>>Proof is based on a fact that you can't tell a difference between them. >> >> Obviously you can't. >> >>>I don't expect anyone to accept my proof (just as nobody takes you seriously). >> >> What proof? >> > > >After I've refactored my "great theory" I realized that it is just a sets >theory - nothing more, nothing less. > >In sets theory existence, definition and "number one" are the same things. > >Whey you say A is element of set S then: > >1) You say that A exists. > >2) You say that A is defined. >If A is undefined then you will say "I know that something is element of S but I >can't remeber what" >If A can be more that one thing then A is a set. If A is set then you must >define it. If A is not defined then you can't say that A is set, right? >If A can be anything then A is universal set. > >3) In sets theory there can be only one A. A is unique if it exists and >everything that doesn't exist is just nothing and it is not part of sets theory. > > >I'm just chasing my tail. It is fun. Now I understand why dogs do it. Then by all means have at it. ~v~~
From: PD on 18 Mar 2007 13:36 On Mar 16, 6:16 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On 15 Mar 2007 15:58:05 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >But to provide him with some prurient prose by which to diddle > > >> You know, sport, if you were even half as witty as I am that might > >> indeed make you a half wit. However in this instance you're trying too > >> hard and you wind up appearing more trying than witty. > > >> >further, let's toss him the idea that we can clearly cleave a line in > >> >two by picking a point (either on the line or part of the line, take > >> >your pick) and assigning one direction to one semi-infinite segment > >> >and the other direction to the other semi-infinite segment -- > >> >sometimes called rays. One can then take one of those rays and cleave > >> >it again, and one of the results will be a line segment, which is > >> >distinguished by having two end *points*. Now the interesting question > >> >is whether those end points are ON the line segment or part OF the > >> >line segment. > > >> Neither. The end points contain the line segment. That's how the line > >> segment is defined. > > >And where did those points come from? > > Magic. Ah. The very thing you find detestable. Lovely to see you participate in it. Lovely also that when someone asks YOU to answer a series of questions about your claims, you bail. It's no wonder you've gotten nowhere with your methods of investigation. > > > Did we have to bring them in > >from Points Depot or PointsMart? Or were they already there when we > >cleaved the line? Or did they just suddenly appear, created in the act > >of cleaving? Or did they fall of the line they were resting on? > > Something like that. > > >> > One way to answer this is to take the geometric limit of > >> >one end point approaching the other end point, > > >> Of course another way to answer this is to ask what defines the line > >> segment to begin with. > > >Well, that would be a question, not an answer. Perhaps there is an > >answer to the question. Oh yes, those two points at the end. Where did > >they come from again? > > Harmony of the crystal spheres I daresay. Another fine answer. When you have a real answer, get back to me, ok? Until you do, your questions that you pose are nothing but obvious trolls. > > >> > and ask what the limit > >> >of the line segment is. > > >> When it gets to zero do be sure to let us know. > > >Gee, and I was thinking of a geometric limit, not a numerical limit. I > >don't recall any measure being introduced so far. > > So was I thinking of a geometric limit. I rather expect when the > geometric limit reaches zero the line segment and distinct points > disappear. What is zero in geometry? What is "1" in geometry? > > >> > That should either settle it or send Lester > >> >into an orgasmic frenzy. > > >> Gee with another swell foop you might actually get to the calculus. Of > >> course Newton and Leibniz and probably a thousand other wannabe's are > >> waiting in the wings ahead of you and the other neomathematikers. > > >Nicely done, there, Lester. Spend a good chunk of your reply talking > >about anything (mostly your evaluation of me, which I don't find > >relevant to anything) other than the subject matter of your original > >post. > > All of a sudden you want to talk about original posts? I mean like the > original post where in response to your specific questions I spell out > the combined vector analysis pertinent to Michelson-Morley and you > just ignore it but subsequently pretend there is no combined vector > analysis relevant to Michelson-Morley? Actually, no, I didn't ignore it. Others could see my posts, but you (and to all evidence) you alone said you could not. Then you claimed that I was "channeling" through someone else, who plainly could see my posts and was responding to them. You, of course, assumed that the problem was not yours, and that whatever was happening was by my choice or design. > Or the original post wherein I > point out that points making up lines and the interesection of lines > defining point is circular logic? Do tell which original posts exactly > did you have in mind? > Yes, I believe I answered that post as well. In fact, mine was the first response. Your memory is apparently dismal. PD
From: Tony Lance on 18 Mar 2007 13:46
Big Bertha Thing proton Cosmic Ray Series Possible Real World System Constructs http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/proton.html Access page JPG 55K Image Astrophysics net ring access site Newsgroup Reviews including soc.history.medieval Round photographic plates. Caption;- A pair of tracks, apparently arising simultaneously, from a common point, outside the field of view. The particles responsible for these tracks, have been ejected, when a cosmic ray was absorbed. The thinner track is that of a 120 MeV electron. The more dense track is that of a 130 MeV proton. This photograph was taken with a field of 17,000 oersteds. From a book by J.D.Stranathan Ph.D., Professor of Physics and Chairman of Department, University of Kansas. The "Particles" of Modern Physics. (C) Copyright The Blakston Co. 1942 Big Bertha Thing laundry My beautiful laundrette only had two machines, so I asked my customers, if they would bring there own in. Now we have seven machines and it is very nice. Once we get the water pipes and electricity laid, it will be magnificent. For water read data and electricity read documentation. Pastures was released on OUSA Classical Particle conf., on 5th November 1997(Bonfire Night UK) (C) Copyright Tony Lance 1997. To comply with my copyright, please distribute complete copies, free of charge. Tony Lance judemarie(a)bigberthathing.co.uk Big Bertha Thing galios Nobody understood a thing he said, when he was alive. After he was dead, they decided that he had done a good job. The Galios Theory branch of mathematics bears his name. Now they are trying to teach me, what he did in the first place. Do you think that the penny will drop, before it becomes posthumous? |