The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Lester Zick on 23 Mar 2007 12:58 On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:03:14 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >True, But, where geometry has to do with sets of atomic points and >measure, well, it has something to say about the infinity of sets. And where geometry has nothing to do with sets of atomic points it doesn't. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 23 Mar 2007 13:11 On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:29:40 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Since TO steadfastly rejects the implications of his own assumptions, he >guarantees that he will never reach that goal. Look who's talking about rejecting the implications of his own assumptions. What a joke unless maybe you consider they aren't even his own assumptions at all but assumptions of those around him. This guy can't even draw a straight line without someone elses assumptions about sets of points and line segments adding up to straight lines. He's an airhead whose only standards of truth are trivial assumptions. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 23 Mar 2007 13:12 On 23 Mar 2007 04:48:36 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Mar 22, 9:03 pm, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> Virgil wrote: >> > Which supposedly richer system is still so poor that it it does not >> > exist. Other than as one of TO's pipe dreams. >> >> Not yet as a complete replacement for ZFC, but that wasn't built i na >> day, or a few years, either. >> > >But, like Rome and unlike TO-matics, the builders could >look around every once in awhile and say "this has grown >since last time I looked." I'm confident Dr. Frankenstein felt the same way. ~v~~
From: Brian Chandler on 23 Mar 2007 13:58 Randy Poe wrote: > On Mar 23, 12:42 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:12:02 -0500, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> > > wrote: > > >Lester Zick wrote: > > >> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:14:38 -0500, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> > > >> wrote: > > >>> Lester Zick wrote: > > >>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:45:54 -0500, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>> Lester Zick wrote: > > >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:17:16 -0500, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> > > >>>>>> wrote: < ... > > > The problem is that approximations to pi reside on straight lines but > > their limit does not. Pi resides on circular arcs or curves.And before > > Randy/Stephen/Virgil can pop in to ask what I mean by "reside" I > > suggest they try to "point out" pi on a straight line whilst I "point > > out" pi on a circle. > > I'm going to ask what you mean by "point out" ... What's the point of that? If entities should not be multiplied without cause, surely the same goes for incoherent babble? I admit that Lester's pontification on "construction", "irrationals" and so on can be amusing sometimes.... Brian Chandler http://imaginatorium.org
From: PD on 23 Mar 2007 15:33
On Mar 22, 6:04 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On 22 Mar 2007 11:12:40 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >On Mar 22, 12:28 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:24:22 -0500, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> > >> wrote: > >> >Lester Zick wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:40:46 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowh...(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. > > >Why no, no they're not, Lester. > > Of course you say so, Draper. Fact is that uncountable bunches of > infinitesimals are not zero but non uncountable bunches of zeroes are. > > >Perhaps a course in real analysis would be of value. > > And perhaps a course in truth would be of value to you Absolutely. And who would you propose teach it? Do you have any truth to teach? If so, pray tell, where is it? > unless of > course you wish to maintain that division by zero is defined even in > neomethematics. Did I say that? And how is this related to the statement that an uncountable bunch of zeroes can have nonzero measure? > > >Ever consider reading, rather than just making stuff up? > > No. Ah, well, there's THAT approach, I suppose. |