The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: SucMucPaProlij on 18 Mar 2007 13:12 > I'm an E.T. from another planet inside of a perfectly symmetrical > cabin. There is only door behind me and in front of me - symmetrical > against the door - there are two buttons. Left side button is broken > and will explode the cabin. Right side button will send me back to my > planet. Alas the words "left" and "right" are not known to me. Your > task is by using radio (but no video communication) to instruct me to > press the right (in both sense) button. I'm very smart and can draw > whatever you will tell me, I just don't know what the hey "left" and > "right" is. Care to try to send me to my planet? > > You can tell him to flush a toilette. Water in toilette will spin in one direction. Maybe this can help. I just want him to live!
From: Lester Zick on 18 Mar 2007 13:23 On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:21:43 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 03:05:26 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Lester Zick wrote: >>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:05:59 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Lester Zick wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:21:19 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Bob Kolker wrote: >>>>>>>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hey Lester-- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Point >>>>>>>>> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Point.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A point 0-dimensional mathematical object, which can be specified in >>>>>>>>> n-dimensional space using n coordinates. Although the notion of a point >>>>>>>>> is intuitively rather clear, the mathematical machinery used to deal >>>>>>>>> with points and point-like objects can be surprisingly slippery. This >>>>>>>>> difficulty was encountered by none other than Euclid himself who, in >>>>>>>>> his Elements, gave the vague definition of a point as "that which has >>>>>>>>> no part." >>>>>>>> That really is not a definition in the species-genus sense. It is a >>>>>>>> -notion- expressing an intuition. At no point is that "definition" ever >>>>>>>> used in a proof. Check it out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Many of Euclid's "definitions" were not proper definitions. Some where. >>>>>>>> The only things that count are the list of undefined terms, definitions >>>>>>>> grounded on the undefined terms and the axioms/postulates that endow the >>>>>>>> undefined terms with properties that can be used in proofs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bob Kolker >>>>>>> Give me something better, Bob, or are you arguing there isn't a better >>>>>>> definition (if you can call it that). >>>>>> Well we can always pretend there is something better but that doesn't >>>>>> necessarily make it so. I think modern mathematikers have done such a >>>>>> first rate job at the pretense that it's become a doctrinal catechism. >>>>>> >>>>>> ~v~~ >>>>> What's your formal education in mathemaitcs, Lester? >>>> U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD. 1966 BSME. I'm sure they can >>>> provide cv's to such worthy souls.Finished playing trivial pursuit now >>>> and may we return to discussing the problem at hand or would you >>>> prefer further essays on educational effluvia? >>>> >>>> ~v~~ >>> Engineers should know better! >> >> Engineers know better. That's exactly why they're reluctant to accept >> mystic explanations for Michelson-Morley etc. Are you aware Albert >> Michelson was a graduate of the academy? Maybe that's partly why he >> had the only sensible to comment on this experiment I've ever read: to >> wit "maybe we need to understand the phenomena better before we try >> these kinds of experiments.". An engineer's perspective not an >> empiric's. >> >> ~v~~ > > Michelson just wouldn't believe what the data was telling him... it > happens... and it might be happening to you Lester! Problem is, Sam, data doesn't tell us anything. It's just data. What's happening to me is I'm trying to explain Michelson's data in context of Kenndy-Thorndike (KT) and Ives-Stilwell (IS) data. Which is a pretty straightforward mechanical and engineering problem. SR on the other hand just tells us there are no data to be had. And I've never found a general denial of data a very satisfying substitute for data. ~v~~
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~~ |