The Virgin Birth of Points
in [Physics]
|
From: Lester Zick on 14 Nov 2007 12:28 On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:55:45 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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. So properties given purely by axioms don't define points or lines? Surpassing strange I must admit. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 14 Nov 2007 12:29 On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:32:37 -0800, Randy Poe <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Nov 13, 10:09 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 13, 9:58 pm, Traveler <trave...(a)noasskissers.net> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:30:29 -0800, William Hughes >> >> > <wpihug...(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. >> >> Piffle. >> > >Well, Hilbert didn't say exactly that, but I believe the >point of his comment that "One must be able to say at >all times-instead of points, lines, and planes---tables, >chairs, and beer mugs" was that you *don't* need to >define these things, only the axioms that define their >properties. So axioms that define their properties don't define them? Mirabile dictu! ~v~~
From: Traveler on 14 Nov 2007 12:32 On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:52:53 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Traveler wrote: > >> ahahaha... Yo, Billie. Your opinion matters because of what again? >> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... >> >> Louis Savain > >Louis, since space does not exist may I assume that you are nowhere? Yes. The universe is nonlocal. > Nor >does your body possess dimension or extension? Correct. > Gee, I wish I could do that. You could and you do. ahahaha... Louis Savain Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
From: Dave Seaman on 14 Nov 2007 12:32 On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:54:53 -0700, Amicus Briefs wrote: > 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. A measure is a real-valued function defined on a sigma-algebra of sets. If there is confusion here, it is entirely on your end. -- 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/>
From: Traveler on 14 Nov 2007 12:54
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? ahahaha... Funny but so what? We use abstractions all the time. Does that mean that the abstractions exist physically? Nope. Have you ever isolated size in a lab and determined its physical composition? How about angles, circumferences, space, height, width, etc...? What are they made of? Electrons? quarks? sizeons? ahahaha... Not that I hope to change your mind, Kolker. You're are a senile old man and your neurons have calcified. That's the problem with people who post on usenet. Over 90% of them are either senile or too old to learn anything new. ahahaha... But it's always fun watching them squirm. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Louis Savain Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm |