The Virgin Birth of Points
in [Physics]
|
From: Amicus Briefs on 13 Nov 2007 06:25 On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:14:32 -0700, Virgil <Virgil(a)com.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> >> >> Hey it's not my problem, Bobby. I'm not the one who claims points have >> zero length but are not of zero length.Modern mathematics is a heresy. > > >Ultra-heretic Zick accusing others of his own sin? Ah, Virgil. We feared lest you had gone astray teaching the trivium of truth to schoolchildren at Our Lady of Perpetual Education. It's good to know our fears were as groundless as your faith.
From: David C. Ullrich on 13 Nov 2007 06:30 On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 05:13:10 -0800, Venkat Reddy <vreddyp(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 12, 5:02 pm, David C. Ullrich <ullr...(a)math.okstate.edu> wrote: >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:57:47 -0800, William Elliot >> >> <ma...(a)hevanet.remove.com> wrote: >> >On Sun, 11 Nov 2007, Lester Zick wrote: >> >> >> The Virgin Birth of Points >> >> ~v~~ >> >> >> The Jesuit heresy maintains points have zero length but are not of >> >> zero length and if you don't believe that you haven't examined the >> >> argument closely enough. >> >> >Clearly points don't have zero length, they have a positive infinitesimal >> >length for which zero is just the closest real approximation. >> >> Erm, no. Points (or rather singletons) have zero length. >> > >I agree. Good for you. >Also, like I said in the other post, points can only exist as >boundaries of higher dimensional regions. Lines, surfaces, solids etc >can exist as regions in their own world and as boundaries in higher >dimensions. When they are in the role of a boundary they are not part >of any regions (of higher dimension). > >We can't observe life of a point as a region in its own dimensional >space. Uh, no. The reason a set consisting of a single point has zero length is that a - a = 0. >- venkat ************************ David C. Ullrich
From: Lester Zick on 13 Nov 2007 06:31 On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:57:25 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> >> >> Hey it's not my problem, Bobby. I'm not the one who claims points have >> zero length but are not of zero length.Modern mathematics is a heresy. > >Neither does any one else. You have created a straw man here. Horseshit, Bobby. I didn't create the straw man. I can cite chapter and verse. >Measure is associated with certain -sets of points-, But only rational/irrational measure and not real measure. > not the points >themselves. They're not interested in measure but in points. Without them they can't get anywhere beyond. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 13 Nov 2007 06:35 On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:53:21 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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. A lattice? And how is a lattice not a geometric form? And what lies in the interstices of the lattice? Nothing? Something? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 13 Nov 2007 06:41
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:56:04 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: > >> Well I know enough of mathematics to have convinced you there is no >> real number line. > >So what. The theory of real numbers can and is developed without any >geometric content of all. Any geometrical associations with real numbers >are merely aids to intuition, not logical necessity. Sure, sure, Bobby. That's why the expression "real number line" pops up all over the place. That's why you talk incessantly about lines, points, and lattices etc. >In the nineteenth century a purely analytic foundations for the theory >of real and complex variables was developed. Geometry was purged as a >logical necessity. Of course, geometry can be very helpful for the >right-brain operations associated with discovering new theorems to prove >or new mathematical systems. Of course geometry can be very helpful because there is a geometry of arithmetic but no arithmetic of geometry. The problem is there is no set of real numbers. If there were you could dance on geometry. But you can't define any set of real numbers because there is no single modality for real numbers for the definition of any single set.Pi lies on circular arcs as Archimedes showed and doesn't lie anywhere else. ~v~~ |