Prev: Time in the distance
Next: Foundations of financial management 13e stanley block, geoffrey hirt, bartley test bank
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 20 Jul 2010 11:59
On Jul 20, 12:13 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dance, puppet. Keep doing exactly as I predict.
-----------------------------------

Morning Woofy,

There is an unpleasant surprise waiting for you at
sci.physics.research.

Oh, that's right. It's a site for physicists and you are a "barker".

Back to sleep, then. Perchance to dream of chasing squirrels.

From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 20 Jul 2010 12:11
On Jul 20, 3:33 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I really think you miss-understood your 'we do not yet
> understand the inner meaning of the restriction to differentiable
> manifolds' quote. It is to do with discontinousness.
-------------------------------------------------------

Doubtful. I think Weyl was talking about differentiability, as he
expressly stated.

Many classical fractals like the Koch curve, are continuous but non-
differentiable.

Other fractals are discontinuous, such as the Cantor dust, and some
Julia sets.

If we are going to explore the possibility that nature's most
fundamental geometry is fractal geometry, then we will need to explore
BOTH non-differentiability and non-continuity.

It is a big and very important subject, and it should have taken off
in the 1980s and 1990s. However the postmodern pseudophysicists put
the squelch on it so as to save their Platonic assumptions of
reversibility, homogeneity, differentiability and continuity.

Paradigmatic change is not for the faint of heart or the weak of mind
(EG, take special note).

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Jacko on 20 Jul 2010 12:52
> Back to sleep, then. Perchance to dream of chasing squirrels.

Il be on squarels all neat. May shunt tim sun chippe faut.

Je irai donde esta pesticos(t). Titigral fearry and fundar.

Stand 'till ye drop and forward - Jacko
From: Jacko on 20 Jul 2010 12:53
On 20 July, 17:11, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu>
wrote:
> On Jul 20, 3:33 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I really think you miss-understood your 'we do not yet
> > understand the inner meaning of the restriction to differentiable
> > manifolds' quote. It is to do with discontinousness.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Doubtful.  I think Weyl was talking about differentiability, as he
> expressly stated.
>
> Many classical fractals like the Koch curve, are continuous but non-
> differentiable.

The differentialbility depends on smoothness. the perhaps calculable
projection to the smooth, would be rate change solid.
From: Jacko on 20 Jul 2010 13:00
On 20 July, 17:53, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 July, 17:11, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 20, 3:33 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I really think you miss-understood your 'we do not yet
> > > understand the inner meaning of the restriction to differentiable
> > > manifolds' quote. It is to do with discontinousness.
>
> > -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Doubtful.  I think Weyl was talking about differentiability, as he
> > expressly stated.
>
> > Many classical fractals like the Koch curve, are continuous but non-
> > differentiable.
>
> The differentialbility depends on smoothness. the perhaps calculable
> projection to the smooth, would be rate change solid.

Resmove the t'error to Sig/noise limit to calc, bingo pop n sol'n of
order same win testi mate
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Time in the distance
Next: Foundations of financial management 13e stanley block, geoffrey hirt, bartley test bank