The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Lester Zick on 23 Mar 2007 12:53 On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:15:37 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:15:35 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Lester Zick wrote: >>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:24:22 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Lester Zick wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:40:46 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Tony Orlow wrote: >>>>>>>> There is no correlation between length and number of points, because >>>>>>>> there is no workable infinite or infinitesimal units. Allow oo points >>>>>>>> per unit length, oo^2 per square unit area, etc, in line with the >>>>>>>> calculus. Nuthin' big. Jes' give points a size. :) >>>>>>> Points (taken individually or in countable bunches) have measure zero. >>>>>> They probably also have zero measure in uncountable bunches, Bob. At >>>>>> least I never heard that division by zero was defined mathematically >>>>>> even in modern math per say. >>>>>> >>>>>> ~v~~ >>>>> Purrrrr....say! Division by zero is not undefinable. One just has to >>>>> define zero as a unit, eh? >>>> A unit of what, Tony? >>>> >>>>> Uncountable bunches certainly can attain nonzero measure. :) >>>> Uncountable bunches of zeroes are still zero, Tony. >>>> >>>> ~v~~ >>> Infinitesimal units can be added such that an infinite number of them >>> attain finite sums. >> >> And since when exactly, Tony, do infinitesimals equal zero pray tell? >> >> ~v~~ > >Only in the "standard" universe, Lester. So 1-1="infinitesimal" Tony? Somehow I doubt that's exactly what Newton and Leibniz had in mind with their calculus. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 23 Mar 2007 12:53 On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:04:51 +0000 (UTC), stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: >In sci.math Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> Mike Kelly wrote: >>> >>> You brought up the continuum hypothesis. Next post, you say you don't >>> want to talk about cardinality. Risible. > >> CH is a question in ZFC. The answer lies outside ZFC. > >Just like the answer to Fermat's Last Theorem lies outside >the integers. You mean there's something SOAP operas can't model? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 23 Mar 2007 12:54 On 22 Mar 2007 16:38:00 -0700, "Mike Kelly" <mikekellyuk(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >> CH is a question in ZFC. The answer lies outside ZFC. > >Risible. So are SOAP operas. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 23 Mar 2007 12:56 On 23 Mar 2007 01:10:58 -0700, "Mike Kelly" <mikekellyuk(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >This was supposed to be about you stating what the "limitations" of >the current axiomatisation of geometry are. You haven't done so. So what are the limitations of SOAP operas? None that I've heard of. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 23 Mar 2007 12:57
On 23 Mar 2007 02:28:13 -0700, "Brian Chandler" <imaginatorium(a)despammed.com> wrote: >Cosa? Vuoi dire per caso 'ridete'? Far neinte apparently. ~v~~ |