The Virgin Birth of Points
in [Physics]
|
From: Lester Zick on 12 Nov 2007 19:58 On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:06:18 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> >> >> Then I'm curious about this unionizing of points people talk about. > >You are curious about sets (and no wonder, you know nothing about them). Yes but on the plus side I suffer fools gladly. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 12 Nov 2007 19:59 On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:20:13 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> I think you need to learn some measure theory. This is a question about >> mathematics, by the way, not philosophy. > >Zick is totally incapable of understanding either mathematics or >physics. Well I know enough of mathematics to have convinced you there is no real number line. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 12 Nov 2007 20:01 On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:07:27 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> >> So if you unionize an infinite number of points, would the converse >> operation be decertification of the union and wouldn't that constitute >> division by zero? > >You are making no sense here. Division is the inverse operation to >multiplication. So? I'm just asking what the inverse operation of the unionization of points is. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 12 Nov 2007 20:03 On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:01:17 -0800, lwalke3(a)lausd.net wrote: >> On Nov 12, 6:21?pm, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> > Once again you do not distinguish between objects and the sets of which >> > the objects are elements. Another evidence that you cannot cope with >> > mathematics. >> A line is not a set of points because sets are indifferent to order. >> However, if you care to order points we still do not have a minimal >> definition of a line. > >I've been thinking about the links to Euclid's and Hilbert's >axioms presented in some of the other geometry threads: Guesswork gives me a headache. Please spare us undemonstrated assumptions of truth. ~v~~
From: Robert J. Kolker on 12 Nov 2007 20:53
Lester Zick wrote: > > So? I'm just asking what the inverse operation of the unionization of > points is. There is none. THe set operations do not form a group. But, of course, you knew that. The set operations constitute a lattice. Bob Kolker |