The Virgin Birth of Points
in [Physics]
|
From: Robert J. Kolker on 13 Nov 2007 08:00 Amicus Briefs wrote: > On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:45:25 -0800, John Jones <jonescardiff(a)aol.com> > wrote: > > >>A position may well not be a primitive, but the intersections of lines >>construct positions, not points > > > So if we change the name of "points" to "positions" we'll solve the > problem? Better still call them potatoes. Two potatoes determine a kugel. Two kugels intesect on a potatoe. Bob Kolker
From: Venkat Reddy on 13 Nov 2007 08:33 On Nov 12, 10:15 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> 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. > > I don't see how points "clearly" have infinitesimal length unless > they're infinitesimal to begin with. Clearly Newton didn't think > points were infinitesimal nor did Leibniz or they wouldn't have > drafted the notations they used. And Newton's calculations of tangents > were only defined at one point not at one infinitesimal. > > We have a certain arithmetic notation such as 5-5=0 in which the > difference between 5 and itself is not infinitesimal but zero. Nor is > the difference between a line and itself infinitesimal but zero. > Lester Sir, but I thought you just said that the main purpose of this thread is less to discuss the zero length of points than the heresy of maintaining self contradictory predicates, or to continue some of your silly fights with other poster. Anyways, happy to see you discussing same ideas from my other thread regarding the extent of points. - venkat
From: Venkat Reddy on 13 Nov 2007 08:42 On Nov 13, 12:31 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Nov 12, 6:05?pm, Dave Seaman <dsea...(a)no.such.host> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 07:50:52 -0800, John Jones wrote: > > > On Nov 12, 3:42?pm, Dave Seaman <dsea...(a)no.such.host> wrote: > > >> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 07:06:39 -0800, Hero wrote: > > >> > Robert wrote: > > >> >> 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. > > > >> >> In Euclidean space a set which has exactly one pont as a member has > > >> >> measure zero. But you can take the union of an uncountable set of such > > >> >> singleton sets and get a set with non-zero measure. > > > >> > What measure will give a non-zero number/value? > > > >> Lebesgue measure will do so, not for all possible uncountable sets, but > > >> for some. For example, the Lebesgue measure of an interval [a,b] is its > > >> length, b-a. > > > >> -- > > >> Dave Seaman > > >> Oral Arguments in Mumia Abu-Jamal Case heard May 17 > > >> U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit > > >> <http://www.abu-jamal-news.com/> > > > An interval [a,b] is composed of positions, not points. But even > > > positions are constructions, and it is not appropriate to analyse a > > > construction in spatial terms. > > > I think you need to learn some measure theory. This is a question about > > mathematics, by the way, not philosophy. > > > -- > > Dave Seaman > > Oral Arguments in Mumia Abu-Jamal Case heard May 17 > > U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit > > <http://www.abu-jamal-news.com/>- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I think you need to distinguish between a position and a point before > wildly conflating them in both a philosophical and mathematical > confusion. The position of a point is relative to the reference coordinate system. So, position is an attribute on a point to locate it with reference to the given coordinate system. Does it make some sense? - venkat
From: Randy Poe on 13 Nov 2007 08:44 On Nov 13, 6:31 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:57:25 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" > > <bobkol...(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. Lester Zick citing a reference other than himself? I'd like to see that. Exact quote, please, that says points have zero length but not zero length. - Randy
From: Venkat Reddy on 13 Nov 2007 08:48
On Nov 13, 6:44 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 13, 6:31 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > > On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:57:25 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" > > > <bobkol...(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. > > Lester Zick citing a reference other than himself? > > I'd like to see that. Exact quote, please, that says > points have zero length but not zero length. > He must be referring to the post by William in the thread "Lines composed of points?". - venkat |