The Virgin Birth of Points
in [Physics]
|
From: Lester Zick on 13 Nov 2007 17:52 On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:04:33 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:> >> What about the fries? Do they form a Mandelbrot set? > >Only if mixed with almonds. How's about pi kugels? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 13 Nov 2007 17:56 On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:07:19 -0800, William Hughes <wpihughes(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > So both "a point is an element of a line" and "a >> > point is a subset of a line" are incorrect. >> >> Excellent! This settles my question in the main thread. >Hardly. There is more than one way of defining lines >and points. Certainly you can take "line" >be a primative. In this case >a line is not composed of anything, it just is. > >However, your argument is not only "it is possible >to define a line as not being composed of points", >but also that "it is impossible to define a line >as being composed of points". The latter statement >is false. Well that certainly clears that up. >It is certainly possible to define points without >reference to lines and then to define a line >as a particular set of points. I knew it. If we define something without being able to define something we thereby reach Jesuit comprehension of points. > If we do this >then we need a definition of "extent" for a set >of points. Why, since we only have your word for it that we can define something we can't define? > Note there can be more than >one "size" for a set. The cardinality is one >size but the cardinality does not have the >properties we want. However, the Lebesque measure >does. If we define the extent of a set >to be the Lebesque measure, then the extent of >a point (formally the extent of the singleton >containing the point) is 0, but the extent of a set of >points may not be 0. The fact that you do >not like this will not make it go away. ~v~~
From: Schlock on 13 Nov 2007 17:58 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. Yes, well, the jury is still out on the difference between them. > Primitives are incommensurables. >Points, lines, planes, etc are incommensurables which do not contain >the properties of one within the other. Their 'synthesis' is not a >synthesis of properties or objects, but of the frameworks that >establish objects and properties (see Kant). I think we'll let you see Kant and please don't come back until you do.
From: Lester Zick on 13 Nov 2007 18:01 On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:05:24 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Venkat Reddy wrote: > >> I thought a set contains zero or more elements, and the size >> (cardinality) of the set is the number of its elements. Whats the >> "length" of a set? Why is it zero when the set contains a single >> point? And, to which of my statement did you negate when you said >> "no"? > >Do not confuse cardinality with measure. They are quite distinct. Everything you say is quite distinct. It hasn't stopped you from confusing them. In fact the one thing that stands out clearly in all this nonsense is that one can't get a straight word out of you guys. Points are this, measures are that, and positions are something else. Modern mathematikers are all just a bunch of prancing princesses preening terminology they can't even agree on. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 13 Nov 2007 18:07
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:07:57 -0800, Randy Poe <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Nov 13, 11:40 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 05:48:58 -0800, Venkat Reddy <vred...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >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? >> >> Only for the purpose of ridicule. I cite you all the time. > >OK, then. Your offer to "cite chapter and verse" was >not a serious one. Thought not. When you learn to think you can "think not". Venkat and I both replied to you. ~v~~ |