The Virgin Birth of Points
in [Physics]
|
From: Lester Zick on 12 Nov 2007 13:07 On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 07:40:03 -0800, John Jones <jonescardiff(a)aol.com> wrote: >On Nov 11, 9:40?pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(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. >> >> ~v~~ > >Points have zero length when construed as lying in a spatial >framework. However, points have no length because points are not >objects that arise in a spatial framework. Positions, not points, >arise in the spatial framework, and positions are always >constructions. So the intersections of lines are not points? Dearie, me. >I conclude that the question about points cannot be a logical inquiry >or someone here would have been able to sort it out... Logically or illogically? ~v~~
From: Robert J. Kolker on 12 Nov 2007 13:07 Lester Zick wrote: > > So if you unionize an infinite number of points, would the converse > operation be decertification of the union and wouldn't that constitute > division by zero? You are making no sense here. Division is the inverse operation to multiplication. Bob Kolker
From: Igor on 12 Nov 2007 13:08 On Nov 12, 12:08 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 05:13:10 -0800, Venkat Reddy <vred...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > >On Nov 12, 5:02 pm, David C. Ullrich <ullr...(a)math.okstate.edu> wrote: > >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:57:47 -0800, William Elliot > > >> <ma...(a)hevanet.remove.com> wrote: > >> >On Sun, 11 Nov 2007, Lester Zick 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. > > >> >Clearly points don't have zero length, they have a positive infinitesimal > >> >length for which zero is just the closest real approximation. > > >> Erm, no. Points (or rather singletons) have zero length. > > >I agree. Also, like I said in the other post, points can only exist as > >boundaries of higher dimensional regions. Lines, surfaces, solids etc > >can exist as regions in their own world and as boundaries in higher > >dimensions. When they are in the role of a boundary they are not part > >of any regions (of higher dimension). > > >We can't observe life of a point as a region in its own dimensional > >space. > > Except the main purpose of this thread is less to discuss the zero > length of points than the heresy of maintaining self contradictory > predicates, as in "has zero length" and "is not of zero length". No. Your main purpose in this thread is the same as in any other of your threads. And that is the intentional obfuscation of established mathematical concepts.
From: Robert J. Kolker on 12 Nov 2007 13:20 Dave Seaman wrote: > > > I think you need to learn some measure theory. This is a question about > mathematics, by the way, not philosophy. Zick is totally incapable of understanding either mathematics or physics. Robert Heinlein had some clever things to say about people who cannot cope with mathematics. Heinlein said they are subhuman but capable of wearing shoes and keeping clean. Bob Kolker > > >
From: Robert J. Kolker on 12 Nov 2007 13:21
Lester Zick wrote: > > So the intersections of lines are not points? Dearie, me. Lines (which are sets of points) sometimes have a non-zero set intersection which consists of a single point. Once again you do not distinguish between objects and the sets of which the objects are elements. Another evidence that you cannot cope with mathematics. Bob Kolker |