The Virgin Birth of Points
in [Physics]
|
From: Lester Zick on 2 Dec 2007 16:22 On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 11:01:06 -0800 (PST), Randy Poe <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Dec 2, 1:11 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:40:10 +0100, G. Frege <nomail(a)invalid> wrote: >> >On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:16:56 +0100, G. Frege <nomail(a)invalid> wrote: >> >> >Typos corrected... >> >> >>>> Note that geometrical OBJECTS can't be true or false. >> >> >>> Sure they can ... >> >> >> No, they can't. >> >> >>> if their definitions are true or false. >> >> >> Definitions aren't true or false. >> >> >At least this is "general wisdom". Though if we formally introduce >> >definitions as some sort of "ad hoc axioms", well, things are different >> >--- in this case the model also makes those "ad hoc axioms" true. >> >> >Still geometrical objects are neither true nor false. :-) >> >> > Hint: What would it mean for a certain circle >> > to be true or to be false? :-o >> >> It would mean the combination of predicates used to defined the circle >> were mutually contradictory as in "the set of all points equidistant >> from any point" which actually defines a sphere > >If we say it defines a "glook", then that is our definition of >a "glook". It is only a definition of sphere when people declare >that to be the definition of a sphere, and then only to those >people. So if those people define a square to be a circle the definition is true? >But at any rate, do you really think that "the set of all >points equidistant from any point" is a predicate with a >truth value? No. I told you before I don't do truth values because no one seems to know what truth values are or where they come from or why. >A predicate P can be used in a sentence of the form >"if P then Q". Can you make a meaningful sentence >by completing either of these? Can't quite figure out what you're talking about or why. The definition for a circle I gave is pretty conventional. If you don't like it I suggest you take it up with those who are conventional. > "If the set of all points equidistant from any point, >then..." > > "If..., then the set of all points equidistant from any >point." > > - Randy ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 2 Dec 2007 16:31 On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:29:45 -0700, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:14:16 -0700, Quint Essential <QT(a)archangel.net> >wrote: > >>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:33:44 -0700, Lester Zick >><dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:46:35 -0700, Quint Essential <QT(a)archangel.net> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>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? >>> >>>Well of course the objective of mathematics are demonstrations of >>>truth and not merely hypothetical assumptions. And this is one of the >>>main themes I've been trying to stress throughout these threads. >>> >>>However even hypothetically the problem is that lines have direction >>>and points don't. Consequently any infinity of points that might be >>>assumed couldn't also be assumed to lie on any line in any direction. >>> >>>In other words given some line, infinite subdivision is possible but >>>those results would not be points; they would be line segments defined >>>by points of intersection. And given any infinity of points all you >>>could produce are various line segments not lying along any line >>>unless the line itself is defined first regardless of the points. >>> >>>~v~~ >> >>Well then why not just hypothetically assume space is filled with >>infinities of points. Since points would be everywhere wouldn't that >>circumvent the problem of directionality? > >Doesn't really change the epistemological problem. It's a question of >methodology. Finitists simply define line segments with points at the >ends of segments. Infinitists also insist lines are composed of points >but cannot show the infinities of points they claim lines are composed >of. That's what I mean when I say "where are all the points supposed >to come from?". It's one thing to claim such a thing but it's another >to demonstrate the truth of the claim. Infinitists claim there a union >of infinities of points which make up the line but when asked to show >those infinities of points for any given line have nothing to offer. > >~v~~ But then wouldn't "finitists" experience similar difficulties with infinities associated with the calculus? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 2 Dec 2007 19:48 On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:16:36 -0800 (PST), Randy Poe <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >But at any rate, do you really think that "the set of all >> >points equidistant from any point" is a predicate with a >> >truth value? >> >> No. > >Ah, so you immediately back off on your claim that >a definition is a predicate or a combination of predicates. Not at all. In the first place I claimed a definition is a combination of predicates and not "a predicate". I don't know where you get this stuff. You're just an inveterate liar and partisan hack. But more to the point predicate combinations are either true or false. Truth values have nothing to do with it. I don't use the term because no one can explain the origin of whatever you think you mean by the phrase "truth values". So I didn't back off anything except your continual misstatements of what I say. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 2 Dec 2007 19:52 On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:16:36 -0800 (PST), Randy Poe <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> I told you before I don't do truth values because no one seems to >> know what truth values are or where they come from or why. > >So when you ask if a definition is "true", you don't actually >do "true" or "false"? If you don't "do" true or false, then >what do you mean when you ask if something is true? What do you do when you stop beating your wife? It's something similar in my case. I don't do truth values to begin with because you have no idea what they are or what they mean or where they come from. It's your phrase not mine. If you think T and F mean true and false then I suggest you explain what you mean by the terms other than 1 and 0. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 2 Dec 2007 19:56
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:16:36 -0800 (PST), Randy Poe <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >A predicate P can be used in a sentence of the form >> >"if P then Q". Can you make a meaningful sentence >> >by completing either of these? >> >> Can't quite figure out what you're talking about or why. > >You claimed a definition is a predicate. I'm showing you >what a predicate is. No you're showing us what you think a predicate is without being able to demonstrate the truth of what you claim. > If it were a predicate, it would act >like a predicate. I claimed a definition is a combination of predicates. Otherwise we wouldn't need the definition and would just use the predicate. You're not showing us anything except misstatements of what I say and then imputing them to me. ~v~~ |