The Virgin Birth of Points
in [Physics]
|
From: Lester Zick on 8 Dec 2007 23:34 On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:49:07 -0800 (PST), panton_chrimaton(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Dec 6, 1:46 pm, Wolf Kirchmeir <ElLoboVi...(a)RuddyMoss.com> wrote: >> Shrew_D wrote: >> > On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:33:18 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir >> > <ElLoboVi...(a)RuddyMoss.com> wrote: >> >> >>> However I think my original point regarding Randy's use of "short- >> >>> hand" still stands because clearly the "shorthand" in a definition has >> >>> to be "shorthand" for something and I think Lester is correct on this >> >>> issue. >> >> Since I cannot figure out what Lester means by "predicates" etc, I can >> >> neither agree nor disagree. >> >> > You can't agree that "shorthand" means "shorthand for something"? >> >> Well, of course. The term defined is shorthand for the description. I >> thunk that was obvious. But that doesn't explain what Lester means by >> "predicates." For example, he seems to think "not" is a predicate, hence >> his famous "regression to self contradiction", which he then contradicts >> to create a tautology that he claims is "universally true." >> >> See? >> >> I thought not. ;-) > >Do you like people to get straight to the point? (pun intended...) >Lester has not interest in math; On the other hand I appear to have more interest in language than you/ > his interest is in getting people to >argue with him. It is exactly like "I want an argument" skit by Monty >Python. The scary thing is, as much an idiot as Zick is, he is light- >years sharper than the dolts (300 replies worth) who continually try >to reason with him. Considerably more than 300 replies, sport. >How long would you have to argue with a broken record, before it dawns >on you that it isn;t a person????? Apparently longer than it's taken you. ~v~~
From: Bob Cain on 9 Dec 2007 00:20 Shrew_D wrote: > Previously you maintained a definition was "just shorthand". That was > the point Lester objected to that... You are Lester. What's up with the sock puppet thing? You were disingenuous enough without it. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein
From: Lester Zick on 19 Dec 2007 11:31 On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:44:46 -0800 (PST), David R Tribble <david(a)tribble.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> Of course it disagrees with and is unorthodox in the context of the >> current standard mathematical paradigm because I'm arguing against the >> current standard mathematical paradigm and you're simply arguing >> against my argument by saying my argument isn't the current standard >> mathematical paradigm, which I never suggested and wouldn't claim it >> was. What I'm exclusively interested in is whether my argument is true >> and all you seem able to suggest is it's not the current contemporary >> standard mathematical paradigm. > >Okay, now we might be getting somewhere. You're talking >about your own system of arithmetic/geometry. > >But it's awfully confusing of you to use terms like "real number >line" and "circular arc" when you mean something entirely >different than the commonly accepted meanings. You see >how someone could conclude that you're trying to say >something about standard arithmetic and geometry when you >say things like that, don't you? > >What, then, do you mean by "real number line" and "circular arc" >within this system of yours? And how do your meanings apply >to the concepts of the same name that Archimedes used in >his geometric proofs? You know, I thought we'd had similar conversations before and it turns out I was right. Back in July you insisted that the phrase "cardinal numbers" was originally defined by Cantor when, of course, that was nonsense because cardinal and ordinal numbers were in use long before Cantor. Even Brian Chandler had occasion to take note of your mistake. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 19 Dec 2007 11:57 On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:53:09 -0800 (PST), David R Tribble <david(a)tribble.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >>> You elide the word "truth" in my phrase "demonstrations of truth" and >>> then tell me I can't demonstrate things without some "establishment"? >>> The question I have then is how one establishes the truth of anything >>> without just assuming the established context to begin with? >> > >David R Tribble wrote: >>> Exactly. In the realm of mathematics, we call those assumed >>> contexts "axioms". >> > >Lester Zick wrote: >> Exactly. And a chain is no stronger than its weakest link and no truer >> than is weakest assumptions of truth which in the context of modern >> mathematics don't constitute demonstrations of truth at all. > >You've stated that you define "point" as the intersection >of two lines. Okay, now demonstrate this is true. A very reasonable question but that's not quite the way it works. The way it works is you get to ask a question. You asked what my definition of a point is, which I answered. Then I get to ask a question, what your definition of a point is, which you haven't answered. So you don't get to ask further questions until you answer my question. Now I'm very happy to discuss the basis of demonstrations of truth; however. you've already dismissed the only basis of demonstration possible when you declared that I haven't proven anything by saying "not" is true of everything because "not not" is self contradictory or "differences" are true of everything because anything "different from differences" is self contradictory. So you really need to make up your mind how the conversation is to proceed. Based on attributions to Hilbert I don't believe you actually have any credible definition for points which accounts for their supposed constituency of lines. However being perfectly reasonable individual, I am willing to wait and see. ~v~~
From: Archibald Angel on 19 Dec 2007 12:08
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:42:32 -0700, Virgil <Virgil(a)com.com> wrote: > > Lester Zick wrote: >> And a chain is no stronger than its weakest link and no truer >> than is weakest assumptions of truth which in the context of modern >> mathematics don't constitute demonstrations of truth at all. > >Zick seems too stupid to realize that proving "A implies B" does not >ever require that anyone prove "A". Prove "A" what? Then how do you ever know what "A" is or whether "A" is true or false? Or do you just dress "A" up in a word salad and hope for the best? Why don't you just assume the truth of "B" to begin with and forget about "A" altogether? >All mathematical proofs are of this form, "A implies B", where A is a >set of axioms, and are quite independent on the truth of the axioms >which form the "A". Only because mathematicians have proven too lazy or stupid to figure out how to demonstrate their assumptions of truth. >And, for that matter, quite independent of Zick's manifold >misrepresentations of what math is about. You appear to be quite an extraordinarily stupid individual. Archie |