The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
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: Lester Zick on 18 Mar 2007 14:01 On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:57:02 -0700, Bob Cain <arcane(a)arcanemethods.com> wrote: >Sam Wormley wrote: > >> May I suggest: >> >> "Newton's Principia for the Common Reader" by S. Chandrasekhar (1995) >> Clarendon Press . Oxford >> ISBN 0 19 851744 0 > >Yikes! $114 new and $82 used in paperback from Amazon. Wonder what >he means by common. Is that the Latin edition? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 18 Mar 2007 14:04 On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:40:51 -0500, Wolf <ElLoboViejo(a)ruddy.moss> wrote: >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. >>> >> >> Isaak Newton: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica >> >> or "academic style bullshit" >> >> >> Think first, reply latter, Bob! >> >> > > >In those days, "philosophy" meant what we now mean by "science." Well I'd agree with you here, Wolf, except it's never really been clear what science is supposed to be. The only thing really even close in ancient times was Aristotle's organon or syllogism. ~v~~
From: VK on 18 Mar 2007 14:12 On Mar 18, 8:33 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > 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. If anyone of rivals (mathematics, philosophy, religion) would knew one day "in mechanically exhaustive terms" what is a "thing without sides" or say what is "infinity" - wow, the rest would come begging to clean their shoos :-) <snip> > 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". That was not a question which one of definition is correct, neither "in mechanically exhaustive terms" nor even by some intuitive feeling; well probably neither one. I was asking: do you believe that there is one and only one correct definition of the point (a point on a line) implied by the very nature of this entity? The fact that maybe no one can bring it in some mechanically exhaustive terms right in this second does not change anything in the question. After all there is a number of unresolved problems not because they don't have any solution but simply because they are not solved yet due to different obstacles. But as long as we arrived to such entities as "point", "line", "infinite set", "natural number", "real number", "irrational number" etc. - as long that: do you believe that each of them there is one and only one proper mechanically exhaustive definition to find - coming from the very nature of these entities? So once found we may expect them universally correct, so even for some civilization from another star they will be necessary either the same or wrong (so the said civilization did not find the proper definition yet)?
From: Lester Zick on 18 Mar 2007 14:12
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:01:10 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: > >> >> Geometric figures are boundaries not physical entitities. They're more > >How is the interior of a sphere a boundry? The interior of a sphere is not a boundary any more than the exterior is. The surface of a sphere is the boundary dividing the interior from the exterior. The interior and exterior are just spaces whatever that may turn out to mean. You can't have one without the other and the boundary is what divides them and defines both in relation to each other. ~v~~ |