The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Bob Kolker on 20 Mar 2007 20:53 Virgil wrote:> > > Read up on Pontryagin and his ilk before making such idiotic claims. For those who do not know it, Leon Pontrfyagin was a blind topologist. Bob Kolker
From: stephen on 20 Mar 2007 20:57 In sci.math Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > PD wrote: >> >> No one says a set of points IS in fact the constitution of physical >> object. >> Whether it is rightly the constitution of a mentally formed object >> (such as a geometric object), that seems to be an issue of arbitration >> and convention, not of truth. Is the concept of "blue" a correct one? >> >> PD >> > The truth of the "convention" of considering higher geometric objects to > be "sets" of points is ascertained by the conclusions one can draw from > that consideration, which are rather limited. How is it limited Tony? Consider points in a plane, where each point is identified by a pair of real numbers. The set of points { (x,y) | (x-3)^2+(y+4)^2=10 } describes a geometric object. In what way is this description "limited"? Can you provide a better description, and explain how it overcomes those limitations? Stephen
From: Lester Zick on 20 Mar 2007 21:12 On 20 Mar 2007 15:20:55 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mar 20, 2:33 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> On 19 Mar 2007 11:51:47 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Mar 19, 2:44 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> >> On 19 Mar 2007 08:59:24 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > That the set of naturals is infinite. >> >> >> >> Geometrically incorrect. Unless there is a natural infinitely greater >> >> >> than the origin, there is no infinite extent involved. >> >> >> >The naturals don't have physical positions, since they are not >> >> >defined geometrically. >> >> >> They are if they're associated with points and points define line >> >> segments. >> >> >By "associated with points" I assume you mean something >> >like using points to model the naturals. In that case the points >> >in your model have positions, but nevertheless the naturals >> >themselves don't have physical positions or exist as geometric >> >entities. >> >> >Do you have any idea what I'm saying? >> >> I'm a physicist, Randy, not a psychologist. > >By whose standard and measure are you a physicist, Lester? You know, Draper, you're an incredibly stupid person for such a fond member of the physics community. No sooner do I pull the same stunt on Bob Kolker than you take exactly the same bait. How about if I just define Lester(x)=physicist(x) where x=Michelson-Morley or x=frequency dilation? At least I understand that is the preferred method of mathematical definition these days. Unless you intend to complain Michelson-Morley and frequency dilation aren't physics. Which I wouldn't put past you considering some of your other proclivities. >There are certain categorizations, like "expert", which one does not >self-attach. One earns certain labels through attribution by others. I know; that's why I let the terms themselves speak for me. >This is also a fact that one cannot circumvent by willful abstinence >or simple refusal to abide. This sounds more like a priestly sermon than scientific observation. > That you don't like that, is completely >irrelevant. And who exactly died and elevated you to the papacy? And keeper of the public morals no less? For someone who can't even explain which two frames of reference he claims are required to calculate fringe shifts for Michelson-Morley, when my version of the experiment fails you can talk to your heart's content. Otherwise I just might consider keeping my mouth shut if I were you until you have something constructive to say, princess. ~v~~
From: Randy Poe on 20 Mar 2007 21:25 On Mar 20, 8:17 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On 20 Mar 2007 12:39:37 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > >> >Is my guess wrong? Fine. I assume you know what > >> >you meant (oops, there I go making assumptions again). > >> >If so, then explain it. > > >> "Associated with points". > > >That would not be "alternate terminology". > > No it would be the question I asked in the terms I asked it. Do those terms have meaning? If so, what? It's a simple question. Every other human being has the capability of rephrasing questions. Why don't you? The answer, of course, is that you yourself have no idea what you were asking. You were just stringing words together. - Randy
From: Brian Chandler on 21 Mar 2007 00:06
Lester Zick wrote: > On 19 Mar 2007 11:51:47 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > >On Mar 19, 2:44 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On 19 Mar 2007 08:59:24 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> > >> wrote: <this section intentionally not present> > I'm a physicist, Randy, not a psychologist. Gosh, honto? Only the other day you were a mathematician, you said. Brian Chandler http://imaginatorium.org |