The Virgin Birth of Points
in [Physics]
|
From: Lester Zick on 14 Nov 2007 19:12 On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:49:28 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Schlock wrote: >> >> >> Or would you say you want a size pi pair of shoes? > >Actually my shoe size is 3*pi with e width. Which you couldn't find on a straight line. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 14 Nov 2007 19:15 On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:48:26 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> >> So axioms that define their properties don't define them? Mirabile >> dictu! > >Axioms -assert- the properties possesed by the undefined objects. Well if axioms assert properties possessed by undefined objects, they can scarcely be undefined objects, now can they Watson. > For >exampoe: Whatever a point is, a pair of them determine a line segment >(whatever that is) uniquely. > >Mathematics at this level of abstraction and with an axiomatic (or >postulational) orientation consists of drawing conclusion from the >axioms (or postulates) by means of logical inference. Er, if you say so. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 14 Nov 2007 19:21 On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:05:44 -0800, Randy Poe <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Nov 14, 12:29 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:32:37 -0800, Randy Poe <poespam-t...(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? > >No, they don't. Good to know. > Hence the assertion that the words >"tables, chairs, and beer mugs" could be substituted >for "points, lines, and planes" without changing the >theory. I daresay if "tables, chairs, and beer mugs" were actually substituted the theory would be changed considerably. >> Mirabile dictu! > >You are continually amazed by the most elementary >things. I'm certainly continually amazed by the most simplistic claims of simpletons. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 14 Nov 2007 19:22 On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:03:27 -0800, Randy Poe <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >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? No. ~v~~
From: Robert J. Kolker on 15 Nov 2007 11:18
Lester Zick wrote: > > > So do you insist space does exist or doesn't? Physical space. Not to be confused with mathematical space which does not physically exist. Context is important. Bob Kolker |