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 19:08 On 18 Mar 2007 10:36:04 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. Well if not by design a rather peculiar lacuna in any event since you subsequently asked me to repeat my analysis of Michelson-Morley. Curiously I've never had the specific kind of problem you presented in this regard and I think you're being just a little too clever by half. >> 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. I seem to recollect some kind of remarks but nothing I considered substantive. There's a huge difference between posting a reply and addressing the subject itself in terms responsive to those employed. However I have a further notion. I'd assumed when you said you were bored that I'd seen the last of you. If you wish to offer constructive criticism by all means do so. Just please get to the point. Brevity is the soul of wit and at this juncture you're neither. ~v~~
From: Michael Press on 18 Mar 2007 19:14 In article <1174078486.178779.22000(a)l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, "PD" <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] > Blather away, Lester. Constructing a pretty sentence does not make you > look appear any brighter than a charcoal briquet. > > If you find this entertainment, Lester, you have a tad too much time > on your hands and should be letting the occupational therapist show > you how to make yarn potholders. I've grown bored because of your > transparent tactics and hour-to-hour self-contradictory incoherence. A > schizoid that babbles in Shakespearean prose is still a schizoid. LZ is, as are so many other time wasters, a cargo cult arguer. He notes phrases and terms that others use effectively, then strings them together himself in order to feel as if he were competent in some endeavour. He uses technical terms that he does not understand, and cannot define. A South Pacific aboriginal making Micky Mouse dolls. -- Michael Press
From: PD on 18 Mar 2007 22:27 On Mar 18, 6:08 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On 18 Mar 2007 10:36:04 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> 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. > > Well if not by design a rather peculiar lacuna in any event since you > subsequently asked me to repeat my analysis of Michelson-Morley. No, I asked you to do what you *claim* to do about your analysis of M- M. What you did in your "analysis" of M-M was propose (guess) a polarization dependency of the speed of light, which you supposed accounted for the null result. But what you *claim* to do to establish truth of a proposal is to catalog all alternatives and to demonstrate that they are false. This you simply have not done in any explicit manner. If you have all those in your notes somewhere in your bottom drawer, do please draw them out and explicate them. > Curiously I've never had the specific kind of problem you presented in > this regard and I think you're being just a little too clever by half. > > >> 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. > > I seem to recollect some kind of remarks but nothing I considered > substantive. There's a huge difference between posting a reply and > addressing the subject itself in terms responsive to those employed. > > However I have a further notion. I'd assumed when you said you were > bored that I'd seen the last of you. If you wish to offer constructive > criticism by all means do so. Just please get to the point. Brevity is > the soul of wit and at this juncture you're neither. > Brief enough for you? PD
From: Hero on 19 Mar 2007 03:59 Lester Zick wrote: Hero wrote: > >Lester Zick wrote: > >> Hero wrote: > >> > Lester Zick wrote: > >> >> Hero wrote: > > >> >> >PS. I just wonder, if a point relates to the word "pointing"? > > >> >> I'm convinced the phrase "pointing out" is definitely related to > >> >> "point". You can easily enough "point out" an irrational on a straight > >> >> line using rac construction but you can't "point out" a transcendental > >> >> on a straight line at all. > > >> >Using only rac construction ( ruler and compass) results in a > >> >geometric handicap. Already before Euclid Hippias of Elis did his > >> >quadratrix with other tools. > > >> Well to the best of my knowledge rac construction is the only > >> mechanically exhaustive method of construction that actually specifies > >> or defines some point. > > >> >Actually a transcendental, as well as an rational, is a mutual > >> >relation to a one, a measure. A point can live an egocentric life, a > >> >real number ( not natural number) arises out of a minimum of three > >> >points. > > >> Not sure what this comment is in aid of. Transcendentals are defined > >> on curves not straight lines. > > >The quadratrix is defined with two moving straight lines, one with > >constant velocity, the other with constant change of angle, look here: > >http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratrix > > >And having just a line, one can not point at a point and tell, this > >point is transcendental. Mark one point as a zero and another one as > >One, so You have a measure. Now a wheel with radius 1, that is this > >measure, placed with a contact point onto the zero and rolled along > >the line exact one revolution will end up with a contact point on the > >line and measure out a distance, which is in relation to the distance > >between zero and one transcendental. > > Well sure, Hero, this is pretty much what I imagined. The difficulty > is one of dynamic measures. Rac construction is static not dynamic. It > requires motion to set up but none to measure. Your wheel of diameter > one will roll out to an approximation of pi but since the measure is > dynamic it will be affected by dynamic factors such as friction, > temperature fluctuation, stretching, contraction, and so on. > Your rac construction (of two distances in rational or algebraic relation) is exact, a "mechanically exhaustive method of construction" - in Plato's paradise. In Plato's hell a ruler is allowed to move with constant speed. Which gives us still another definition of point, that of a puncture. The puncture of a compass-tip into a solid or through a surface. NB1: When You do a "mechanically exhaustive method of construction" of a circle with a compass, the distance between the tips of the compass, the radius of the circle is of course transcendental, when You regard the length of the circle-perimeter as one [unit]. So now all Your rac- constructions give trascendental length. Two different rooms in Plato's space. NB2: Euclid was not totally a Platonist, he defines solids like cones with a dynamic construction by means of rotation. With friendly greetings Hero
From: SucMucPaProlij on 19 Mar 2007 04:04
"Lester Zick" <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote in message news:29erv29qotk1c65v9mruh7rdjl9biqmf0q(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:07:13 +0100, "�u�Mu�PaProlij" > <mrjohnpauldike2006(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>I have one question regarding sets but I can't find the answer. Maybe someone >>can help me. >> >> >> >>I wonder if sets theory is self describing. >> >>Can you describe sets theory as a set? > > Are you talking about a set of all points or what? > no, "set" as "any set" |