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 19 Mar 2007 19:45 On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:28:46 +0100, "SucMucPaProlij" <mrjohnpauldike2006(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >General problem with this kind of discussions is that people don't want to >accept "alternative truth" or the fact that you don't have to use the same words >to describe same thing. >I do try to understand what other people say and I do try to recognize my >thoughts in other people's words but sometimes I just fool around :)))) No, Suc, the problem with this kind of discussion is mathematikers spend most of their time chasing their tails and blaming everyone else for the fact that they have tails to chase. ~v~~
From: Bob Kolker on 19 Mar 2007 19:58 Tony Orlow wrote:> > > How do you know the conclusions are correct, You mean how do you know conclusions correctly follow from the axioms. You look. Proofs are precisely the evidence that the conclusion follows from the premises. Look any any standard treatise on first order logic for a definiton of proof. Checking to see that a proof indeed shows the desired conclusion follows from the axioms is a purely mechanical algorithmeic proceedure. It does not involve intelligence. -Finding- a proof does. Checking a proof can be done by a trained gorilla or Lester Zick on one of his better days. Bob Kolker
From: Lester Zick on 19 Mar 2007 20:31 On 19 Mar 2007 11:38:03 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mar 19, 12:48 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> On 18 Mar 2007 19:27:45 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >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 >> >> Certainly empirics and mathematikers are no strangers to guessing. > >And neither are you, obviously. When in Rome do as the Romans do and sauce the goose. >> >polarization dependency of the speed of light, which you supposed >> >accounted for the null result. >> >> Surpassing strange but what I thought I'd proposed was that the E >> polarization vector needed to be analyzed in combination with the >> bidirectional average velocity of light relative to Michelson-Morley >> experimental platform in accordance with FLT to determine a net >> dilation in relative c, which would vary with polarization direction. >> >> >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. >> >> Well that's easy enough to do. Einstein's geometric contraction >> postulate and Lorentz's material contraction hypothesis both rely on >> contraction of one type or another. And without the possibility of a >> single uniform contraction factor neither can explain null results. > >Well, this is hardly exhaustive, is it. For example, you haven't >considered and shown false at least two other alternatives: >1) That the Earth is stationary in the ether. >2) That the ether is dragged by the Earth Of course not. I never suggested exhaustion of all other causes. What I suggested was exhaustion of experimental variables. You haven't shown there are other experimental variables than those cited above. Just don't try to pretend the alternatives you suggest are supported by the null results of Michelson-Morley when experimental variables themselves have not been exhaustively analyzed. (It's always amazed me that those who shout the loudest about obersevers and measures are congenitally incapable of supplying any.) Oh and by the way I'm still waiting for those TWO frames of reference required to demonstrate positive results for Michelson-Morley fringe shifts.No doubt I'll have to wait for the second coming of Christ if you're doing the analysis. >Secondly, you apparently do not understand the difference between >"require" (as in prerequisite) and "imply" (as in postrequisite). The >invariance of the speed of light does not *require* contraction, >though it certainly does imply it. Oh goodie. Perhaps you'd just care to explain why? >But let's get back to the strategy. You said you were going to >demonstrate that alternatives were false. So I expect you to AT LEAST >demonstrate that >4) The invariance of the speed of light is false. >5) The geometric contraction of Einstein is false. >6) The material contraction of Lorentz is false. I do that just below if you'd care to read before you write? >> In this regard both require contraction to explain the null results of >> Michelson-Morley in any single frame of reference. However both forms >> of contraction operate over space, Einstein's explicitly in geometric >> terms and Lorentz's to the extent experimental platforms occupy space. >> >> However comparable experiments at different velocities are possible >> interstitially in space overlapping any reference experiment to which >> different contraction factors would have to apply for exactly null >> results to be achieved for all experiments. Thus different contraction >> factors would have to apply to one and the same region of common space >> and it must be concluded that different Michelson-Morley type relative >> motion experiments must succeed to some extent in different but >> spatially overlapping frames of reference. > >Sorry, if this was supposed to be a demonstration that (1)-(5) above >are false, then you'll have to explain the demonstration a little more >clearly. How so? >> Now my recollection of your arguments against this is that you insist >> FLT applies to two frames of reference not one as against which I >> simply noted Michelson-Morley occupies a single frame of reference > >No, it doesn't. Moreover, even in a single data run, there is no FLT >applied in the measurement. Have you even read the paper? Naturally not. I prefer to give you a head start. Lord knows you need it since the whole point of applying FLT to Michelson-Morley was to predict an anticipated firnge shift which it did and you didn't. >> not >> two and the null results of that experiment have to be explained in >> those terms not what you might imagine FLT applies to. >> >> Your second complaint is that there is also an M vector in addition to >> an E polarization vector associated with beams of light and why not >> apply FLT to both instead of just the E vector? To which I replied the >> E vector actually has motion along it associated with the generation >> of light since we know of E monopoles but we know of no M monopoles. > >And? The wave equation arises from the case where there is *no source* >(either E or M monopoles) in the volume being considered. The curl >equation for the electric field has the time-dependence of the >magnetic field as the *sole* source, and the curl equation for the >magnetic field has the time-dependence of the electric field as the >*sole* source. I'm shocked -- SHOCKED, I tell you -- that you did not >know that. How did you learn electrodynamics? And I'm shocked that you act as if you're shocked. "In the volume being considered". What the hell is that supposed to mean? "No source"? Any chance velocity dependent changes in the E vector are sources? >Moreover, your arguments FOR the plausibility of your mechanism do >*nothing* to address your self-avowed strategy of determing the truth >of a proposition by considering all alternatives and demonstrating >their falsity. I don't determine their falsity. I determine the probative relation of experimental variables and the null and putative positive results for Michelson-Morley. >> To which I should have added there is no motion along the M vector >> since it is just a nominal polar vector reflecting E vector dynamics. >> >> And a third complaint I've certainly heard at least from others is >> that Einstein's posutlate doesn't require geometric contraction at all >> which is probably about the most bizarre objection I can imagine since >> geometric contraction as the result a second order velocity dependent >> temporal anisometry is the only possible explanation for Einstein's >> postulate in the context of single frames of reference. > >Why no, no it's not. It may be the only thing that makes sense to YOU, >but then again, not much makes sense to you. Your apprehensions by no >means should be taken as a measure of what is possible and what is >not. Well you talk a lot but observe and measure very nothing at all. >> To which I can imagine we should add a further generalized anxiety >> objection that I just don't know what I'm talking about in the context >> of SR because I decline to talk about it in the same terms sycophants >> insist on, which seems to be the most common complaint to my line of >> reasoning and to which I'm happy to plead guilty as charged. >> > >Well, as usual Lester, if you only want to talk with yourself, you >could do better. And I could do a lot worse by talking to you. You haven't produced anything you claim. > You could invent a whole new language or even a new >alphabet, perfectly tailored to the expression of your mental >processes. However, if your aim is communication, then there is an >implicit bargain of coming to terms on certain things. There are those >who think that money is generally a bad idea and do not wish to >participate in the same processes that fiscal sycophants do, and >that's fine as long as they are able to grow all their own food and >provide their own services. However, you seem nevertheless interested >in commerce, and in the commerce of ideas no less, and to use ascii >text as a medium of exchange. In words that perhaps you can >understand, "you can't have your fitzbold and greeble it too." Yadayadayada whatever. More psychological and philsophical bullshit. Talk you do; produce you don't. ~v~~
From: Virgil on 19 Mar 2007 21:24 In article <45ff1bdf(a)news2.lightlink.com>, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > > > Do you have any idea what I'm saying? I'm saying that a > > model is just a model. The properties of the model do not cause > > the thing it's modeling to have those properties. > > > > - Randy > > > > Oh. Then your syntactical definitions also may exhibit properties that > do not pertain to the naturals they model, eh? Look, either the > definitions and the model are one, or they are different things. Devise > THE model, and the properties are apparent. There is no good reason to > say something applies to the real number line, but not the real numbers, > or any subset thereof. > - Tony The set of real numbers form a compete Archimedean ordered field, which the real number line does not. Two real lines can have exactly one element in common, but there is only one (up to isomorphism) real field, so that two of them contain any elements not common to both are disjoint and if they have contain any elements in common they are identical.
From: Virgil on 20 Mar 2007 01:48
In article <45ff1d67$1(a)news2.lightlink.com>, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > Virgil wrote: > > In article <45feac8a(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > > > >> Bob Kolker wrote: > >>> Tony Orlow wrote: > >>> > >>>> One may express them algebraically, but their truth is derived and > >>>> justified geometrically. > >>> At an intuitive level, but not at a logical level. The essentials of > >>> geometry can be developed without any geometric interpretations or > >>> references. > >> But how do you know they are essentials of anything without a reference > >> to that to which they refer? > > > > If a system isolated from those references allows one to produce exactly > > the same set of theorems as one can get using those references, then the > > the references themselves are irrelevant to the theory. > > How do you know the conclusions are correct, if not by comparing them > with what one would expect from the original context? When analytic geometry was invented, in which all geometric ideas were replaced by algebraic ones, it turned out that one could prove purely algebraically what had previously only been provable geometrically. > You don't even have the symbolic language you so treasure, without > geometric differences between symbols. There have been blind mathematicians, whose symbols, whatever they may have been, were not geometric. There have even been blind geometers, such as Lev Pontryagin. |