The Virgin Birth of Points
in [Physics]
|
From: Lester Zick on 14 Nov 2007 18:10 On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:50:39 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> >> So, Bobby, if space doesn't exist what do you plan to do with >> transcendentals? > >What one does with any real number. Use it in proving theorems or use it >in physical applications. > >By the way, it is Louis who insists that space does not exist, not me. Well I picked up on this subthread from you with - > Louis, since space does not exist So do you insist space does exist or doesn't? ~v~~
From: John Jones on 14 Nov 2007 18:17 On Nov 14, 9:37?pm, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > John Jones wrote: > > > No, in a euclidean plane lines intersect at a unique position of > > intersection. 'Intersection' and 'point' are not mathematical entities > > but loose images and symbols. > > A distinction without a difference. O.K. call the damned things > positions. Substitute the word position for "point" in all the axioms. > You still get the same system. > > You have raised a trivial issue of designation, names and semantics. > Nothing mathematical is altered. > > Bob Kolker > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - But points can be both positioned and unpositioned, as in the mathematically dense line.
From: John Jones on 14 Nov 2007 18:18 On Nov 14, 9:51?pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 14, 4:20 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > Steenrod must be big in some arena, but to use the term 'abstract' in > > any context except art and everyday conversation is fudge. > > You are decreeing that we aren't allowed to use the > abstract concept of a number? We aren't allowed to > say "2"? We have to only refer to concrete things, > like 2 apples or 2 worms? > > - Randy Abstract can be used as a get away with anything term, a sort of one size fits all.
From: Dave Seaman on 14 Nov 2007 18:35 On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:18:24 -0800, John Jones wrote: > On Nov 14, 9:51?pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Nov 14, 4:20 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> > Steenrod must be big in some arena, but to use the term 'abstract' in >> > any context except art and everyday conversation is fudge. >> >> You are decreeing that we aren't allowed to use the >> abstract concept of a number? We aren't allowed to >> say "2"? We have to only refer to concrete things, >> like 2 apples or 2 worms? >> >> - Randy > Abstract can be used as a get away with anything term, a sort of one > size fits all. In mathematics it is perfectly common to take ordinary words such as "group", "ring", "set", "operator", or "manifold" and endow them with meanings undreamed of in the ordinary world. "Mathematicians are a kind of Frenchman; if one says something to them, they translate it into their own language, and it immediately becomes something completely different." - Goethe -- 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: Virgil on 14 Nov 2007 18:38
In article <1195082242.125265.25430(a)v65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, John Jones <jonescardiff(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Nov 14, 9:37?pm, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > John Jones wrote: > > > > > No, in a euclidean plane lines intersect at a unique position of > > > intersection. 'Intersection' and 'point' are not mathematical entities > > > but loose images and symbols. > > > > A distinction without a difference. O.K. call the damned things > > positions. Substitute the word position for "point" in all the axioms. > > You still get the same system. > > > > You have raised a trivial issue of designation, names and semantics. > > Nothing mathematical is altered. > > > > Bob Kolker > > > > > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > But points can be both positioned and unpositioned, as in the > mathematically dense line. And just where on that line does one find those "unpositioned" points? |