The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Lester Zick on 23 Mar 2007 18:42 On 23 Mar 2007 09:49:22 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.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" and why it >is necessary to existence. To a mathematician it just might be. To your existence it's not. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 23 Mar 2007 19:01 On 23 Mar 2007 12:33:46 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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? Moi? > Do you have any truth >to teach? If so, pray tell, where is it? Wherever. Pray tell when you learn to pay attention in class instead of just running your mouth. >> unless of >> course you wish to maintain that division by zero is defined even in >> neomethematics. > >Did I say that? What difference does that make/ It makes for good reading especially when replying to the posts of others. > And how is this related to the statement that an >uncountable bunch of zeroes can have nonzero measure? Beats me. I was hoping you might not be paying attention. You rarely do particularly when a reply is addressed to you. Clearly you imagine uncountable bunches of zeroes can have nonzero measure. But then imagination is what you make of it. >> >Ever consider reading, rather than just making stuff up? >> >> No. > >Ah, well, there's THAT approach, I suppose. Sauce for the goose I suppose. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 23 Mar 2007 19:06 On 23 Mar 2007 10:58:40 -0700, "Brian Chandler" <imaginatorium(a)despammed.com> wrote: > >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? Or even coherent babble. >I admit that Lester's pontification on "construction", "irrationals" >and so on can be amusing sometimes.... Not to mention true all of the time. Of course, Brian, there are those who prefer amusement to truth. I'm not one of them but there might indeed be those who can't quite distinguish one from the other. ~v~~
From: Tony Orlow on 24 Mar 2007 08:56 Brian Chandler wrote: > Tony Orlow wrote: >> Mike Kelly wrote: >>> On 22 Mar, 21:42, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>>> Mike Kelly wrote: >>>>> On 22 Mar, 16:38, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>>>>> Mike Kelly wrote: >>>>>>> On 22 Mar, 13:03, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Mike Kelly wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 22 Mar, 03:28, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Mike Kelly wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mar, 19:20, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> step...(a)nomail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.math Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> step...(a)nomail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.math Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step...(a)nomail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.math Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PD wrote: > > <snippi, snippa> > >>> Risible. >>> >>> -- >>> mike. >>> >> Riete! > > Cosa? Vuoi dire per caso 'ridete'? > >> antonio. > Right, keep taking the tablets. > > Brian Chandler > http://imaginatorium.org > No, yo quiero decir "riete".
From: Tony Orlow on 24 Mar 2007 09:00
Lester Zick wrote: > 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~~ 1=0.999...? 01oo |