The Virgin Birth of Points
in [Physics]
|
From: Lester Zick on 19 Nov 2007 12:32 On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 18:11:59 -0800 (PST), Randy Poe <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> But I should know the smallest and largest numbers in {x: 0=<x<=1} to >> remove the set. > >Why? Just because you declare this is a condition, what >makes you think you rule the universe? Probably the same thing that makes you think you rule the universe. ~v~~
From: Phil Carmody on 19 Nov 2007 13:14 So _this_ is where that silly thread disappeared to. Venkat Reddy <vreddyp(a)gmail.com> writes: > Strict equality doesn't make sense for real numbers. Ahhhhh, music to my ears. Stockhausen played on an orchestra of a thousand kazoos. > BTW, I still > didn't get an answer for the question "what is the largest number that > is less than 1?". I'm sure you have done. You just didn't get a number as an answer though. Phil -- Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all. -- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
From: Lester Zick on 19 Nov 2007 17:17 On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:04:26 -0800 (PST), Randy Poe <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Nov 19, 12:32 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 18:11:59 -0800 (PST), Randy Poe >> >> <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> But I should know the smallest and largest numbers in {x: 0=<x<=1} to >> >> remove the set. >> >> >Why? Just because you declare this is a condition, what >> >makes you think you rule the universe? >> >> Probably the same thing that makes you think you rule the universe. > >I think I rule the universe, but also I never say anything >original and I'm just quoting scripture? Which is it? Probably all three. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 30 Nov 2007 13:33 On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:40:29 -0700, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > The Virgin Birth of Points > ~v~~ > >The Jesuit heresy maintains points have zero length but are not of >zero length and if you don't believe that you haven't examined the >argument closely enough. The epistemological problem for modern math is where do an infinite number of points required to unionize points into lines come from? Only one solid is needed to produce one surface and one surface required to produce one line but an infinite number of points are required to produce one line. And the difficulty is that we can only produce finite numbers of points through tangency or intersection. So where are all the points supposed to come from? Imagination? Otherwise we can only be left with a finite number of straight line segments defined between points. ~v~~
From: Quint Essential on 1 Dec 2007 00:46
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:33:50 -0700, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:40:29 -0700, Lester Zick ><dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> >> The Virgin Birth of Points >> ~v~~ >> >>The Jesuit heresy maintains points have zero length but are not of >>zero length and if you don't believe that you haven't examined the >>argument closely enough. > >The epistemological problem for modern math is where do an infinite >number of points required to unionize points into lines come from? > >Only one solid is needed to produce one surface and one surface >required to produce one line but an infinite number of points are >required to produce one line. And the difficulty is that we can only >produce finite numbers of points through tangency or intersection. So >where are all the points supposed to come from? Imagination? Otherwise >we can only be left with a finite number of straight line segments >defined between points. > >~v~~ So let me give you a hypothetical. What's wrong with assuming an infinite number of points from which we construct lines and so on? |