Prev: speed of light found in purely mathematical numbers without any physical numbers #556 Correcting Math
Next: If economics is one of the soft social sciences, how is it's application different from hard sciences like physics or math?
From: John Jones on 8 Apr 2010 16:55
huge wrote:
> John Jones :
>
>>> There's another thing you keep ignoring that I keep posting: Your way
>>> of thinking (Hegelian through Derrida on the Continent) has never led
>>> to anything but a bit of discussion in universities in things like
>>> literature classes and, less commonly, Continental philosophy
>>> departments.
>>>
>>> Scientific thinking has led to the Hubble space telescope and heart
>>> transplants. Now, don't you think that deserves some kind of response
>>> to explain why you persist in this obscurantism?
>>>
>
> You are still avoiding answering the above two paragraphs.
> What is your answer?
>

You are babbling irrelevancies, and feeble ones at that. Stick to the topic.
From: John Jones on 8 Apr 2010 16:59
huge wrote:
> John Jones :
>
>> huge wrote:
>>> John Jones :
>>>
>>>>> There's another thing you keep ignoring that I keep posting: Your way
>>>>> of thinking (Hegelian through Derrida on the Continent) has never led
>>>>> to anything but a bit of discussion in universities in things like
>>>>> literature classes and, less commonly, Continental philosophy
>>>>> departments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Scientific thinking has led to the Hubble space telescope and heart
>>>>> transplants. Now, don't you think that deserves some kind of
>>>>> response to explain why you persist in this obscurantism?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> You are still avoiding answering the above two paragraphs. What is your
>>> answer?
>>>
>> Are you having trouble with grammar?
>
> Non-response noted. Why do you persist in obscurantism?


You are having trouble reading. Don't bang your desklid, read more slowly.
From: Rick on 9 Apr 2010 12:27
John Jones wrote:
> huge wrote:
>
>>>>>> Scientific thinking has led to the Hubble space telescope and heart
>>>>>> transplants. Now, don't you think that deserves some kind of
>>>>>> response to explain why you persist in this obscurantism?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The definition you were working to.
>>
>> Non-response again noted.
>>
>
>
> The definition you were obviously working to and rejecting.
> HERE IT IS AGAIN:
> "I don't know of any mathematical definitions of a sequence that **DO**
> use time."

distance = time * velocity


From: huge on 9 Apr 2010 12:39
Rick :

> John Jones wrote:
>> huge wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Scientific thinking has led to the Hubble space telescope and
>>>>>>> heart transplants. Now, don't you think that deserves some kind of
>>>>>>> response to explain why you persist in this obscurantism?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The definition you were working to.
>>>
>>> Non-response again noted.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The definition you were obviously working to and rejecting. HERE IT IS
>> AGAIN:
>> "I don't know of any mathematical definitions of a sequence that **DO**
>> use time."
>
> distance = time * velocity

That is the definition of *distance.*
It is not the definition of "sequence" itself.

You want a definition of sequence like this one from Planet Math:
http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&id=397
___________________________
Sequences
Given any set X , a sequence in X is a function f:X from the set of natural numbers to X . Sequences
are usually written with subscript notation: x0x1x2 , instead of f(0)f(1)f(2) .
Generalized sequences
One can generalize the above definition to any arbitrary ordinal. For any set X , a generalized
sequence or transfinite sequence in X is a function f:X where is any ordinal number. If is a finite
ordinal, then we say the sequence is a finite sequence.
___________________________

That is only one among several ways to define a sequence.
--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
From: Rick on 9 Apr 2010 15:56
huge wrote:
> Rick :
>
>> John Jones wrote:
>>> huge wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Scientific thinking has led to the Hubble space telescope and
>>>>>>>> heart transplants. Now, don't you think that deserves some kind of
>>>>>>>> response to explain why you persist in this obscurantism?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> The definition you were working to.
>>>>
>>>> Non-response again noted.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The definition you were obviously working to and rejecting. HERE IT IS
>>> AGAIN:
>>> "I don't know of any mathematical definitions of a sequence that **DO**
>>> use time."
>>
>> distance = time * velocity
>
> That is the definition of *distance.*
> It is not the definition of "sequence" itself.
>
> You want a definition of sequence like this one from Planet Math:
> http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&id=397
> ___________________________
> Sequences
> Given any set X , a sequence in X is a function f:X from the set of natural numbers to X . Sequences
> are usually written with subscript notation: x0x1x2 , instead of f(0)f(1)f(2) .
> Generalized sequences
> One can generalize the above definition to any arbitrary ordinal. For any set X , a generalized
> sequence or transfinite sequence in X is a function f:X where is any ordinal number. If is a finite
> ordinal, then we say the sequence is a finite sequence.
> ___________________________
>
> That is only one among several ways to define a sequence.

Time is a sequence then:
authors.library.caltech.edu/3523/01/FEYpr49c.pdf


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev: speed of light found in purely mathematical numbers without any physical numbers #556 Correcting Math
Next: If economics is one of the soft social sciences, how is it's application different from hard sciences like physics or math?