The Virgin Birth of Points
in [Physics]
|
From: Amicus Briefs on 14 Nov 2007 11:54 On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:15:37 +0000 (UTC), Dave Seaman <dseaman(a)no.such.host> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:48:52 -0700, Amicus Briefs wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:05:12 +0000 (UTC), Dave Seaman >><dseaman(a)no.such.host> wrote: > >>>> 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? >>> >>>What if no coordinate system is specified? The definition of a measure >>>space says nothing about a coordinate system. > >> Well then there is no measure space to measure against. > >What? > >>> For that matter, the >>>important elements of a measure space are not the points (elements of the >>>space itself), but rather the measurable sets (members of the specified >>>signma-algebra). > >> "Signma-algebra"? I must have missed that one in ninth grade algebra. > >Sigma-algebra, of course. If you know what a sigma-algebra is, then you >should know what a measure space is, and that nothing in the definition >has anything to do with coordinates. You don't measure against rationals? The objective of science is not to confuse predicates. That was the purpose of this thread as I understand it.
From: Robert J. Kolker on 14 Nov 2007 11:55 William Hughes wrote: > > You need to define points and line segments. How do you > intend to avoid circularity? (You can't definie points in terms > of line segments and then line segments in terms of points) Hilbert defines neither in Grudlagen der Geometrie. The properties that the terms point, line etc receive are given purely by the axioms. No regression, infinite or otherwise. Bob Kolker
From: Randy Poe on 14 Nov 2007 12:03 On Nov 13, 6:07 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:07:57 -0800, Randy Poe <poespam-t...(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. Yet I fail to see "chapter and verse" in either one of those posts. How strange, if you both actually provided the quote in question. Perhaps you didn't provide this quote you claim you provided? Could that be? - Randy
From: Lester Zick on 14 Nov 2007 12:23 On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:52:53 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Louis, since space does not exist So, Bobby, if space doesn't exist what do you plan to do with transcendentals? ~v~~
From: Schlock on 14 Nov 2007 12:26
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:54:10 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Traveler wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:30:29 -0800, William Hughes >> <wpihughes(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>You need to define points and line segments. >> >> >> Nobody can define them in any way that does not lead to an infinite >> regress. The truth is that there are no such things as points, lines, >> distance, size, surfaces, etc... They are all illusions of perception. >> There exist only particles and these have no size. Having no size is >> not synonymous with having zero size. Size simply does not exist. It >> is not a property of nature. There is no law that requires anything to >> have size. Yet particles have properties such as position, >> orientation, energy, etc... Size is abstract, being the abstract >> vector difference between two positions. > >When you go to a shoe or clothing store how do you order the merchandise >you want? Do you say to the salesperson I want to buy a size ????? suit? Or would you say you want a size pi pair of shoes? |