| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Lester Zick" |
| Date: |
08 May 2007 11:28:48 AM |
| Object: |
Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
Infinitesimal Arithmetic
~v~~
It's curious that for any finite r, infinitesimal i, and transfinite
I, the same people who understand I+r=I have such difficulty
understanding r+i=r.
~v~~
.
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
28 May 2007 06:46:29 PM |
|
|
On 27 May 2007 21:30:03 -0700, Jonathan Hoyle <jonhoyle@mac.com>
wrote:
Or the word of a thousand others?
Oh, it's far more than a thousand. There are over 3,400 colleges in
the United States, and if we assume a conservative estimate of three
professors of Mathematics per school, that's 10,000 right there.
That's not to mention the number of High School Math teachers who
teach Calculus, and the large number of people in industry who know
and use calculus on a daily basis. It's safe to say that you are in
an overwhelming minority.
I would say a new paradigm is invariably in the minority of one. In
any event the number a thousand was rhetorical. My point was truth is
not just a matter of majority logic.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
29 May 2007 01:47:50 AM |
|
|
On May 28, 4:46 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 27 May 2007 21:30:03 -0700, Jonathan Hoyle <jonho...@mac.com>
wrote:
Or the word of a thousand others?
Oh, it's far more than a thousand. There are over 3,400 colleges in
the United States, and if we assume a conservative estimate of three
professors of Mathematics per school, that's 10,000 right there.
That's not to mention the number of High School Math teachers who
teach Calculus, and the large number of people in industry who know
and use calculus on a daily basis. It's safe to say that you are in
an overwhelming minority.
I would say a new paradigm is invariably in the minority of one. In
any event the number a thousand was rhetorical. My point was truth is
not just a matter of majority logic.
~v~~
It's not a new paradigm, there are already infinitesimals in analysis,
generally used in simply formalizable ways with the existence of the
asymptotic limit.
I'd say, lots of those people are familiar with the _notion_ that dx
the differential is an infinitesimal difference, they know it's non-
zero and non-finite, for example in application to model any physical
quantity.
Most people don't really care that much that they're told not to use
the infinitesimals. Probably, 99% of people who generally read
sci.math have or will taken a pre-calculus or calculus course that
introduces the mechanics of the machinery of delta-epsilonics, the
methods of infinitesimal differences, in the definition of the
derivative and fundamental theorem of calculus. Yet, as we see in
this thread, almost every post Hoyle learns about another new system
of infinitesimals.
Here's the picture I want to show you: that the constant width
differential in calculus is the use of mathematics of the
infinitesimal already, there are already infinitesimals in mathematics
and applied mathematics. Standard integral calculus is about the
mathematics of the infinite with functions that have existent limits,
real functions.
Of all the systems of infinitesimals described, the only one generally
applied is the infinitesimal analysis in the integral calculus.
Whether or not the infinitesimals that the inventors of the calculus
had in their calculus are "rigorous", a variety of their theorems in
today's almost exactly the same notation as then correspond directly
to the fundamental theorem of calculus. A way was found to shush or
squelch the infinitesimals as seemingly paradoxical objects from
existence in those systems of the integral calculus. For, if the
infinitesimals were to exist, standard arguments about their
inexistence would apply, as for example, division by zero.
So, would infinitesimal analysis be more of a subset, or superset, of
integral calculus? I don't know much application of infinitesimals
outside calculus. The meaning of "infinitesimal" is generally obvious
from the context, for example in fluid mechanics or the theory of
spinors where it is casually discussed. There are books in the
library called "Infinitesimal Analysis", that's what "Calculus" used
to be called.
In terms of majority logic and applications of mathematics, the
properties of the differential are much better known than, say, those
of the hyperreals or transfinite cardinals, and, they have been for
hundreds of years.
Ross
--
Finlayson Consulting
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
29 May 2007 02:20:11 PM |
|
|
On 28 May 2007 23:47:50 -0700, "Ross A. Finlayson"
<raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
On May 28, 4:46 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 27 May 2007 21:30:03 -0700, Jonathan Hoyle <jonho...@mac.com>
wrote:
Or the word of a thousand others?
Oh, it's far more than a thousand. There are over 3,400 colleges in
the United States, and if we assume a conservative estimate of three
professors of Mathematics per school, that's 10,000 right there.
That's not to mention the number of High School Math teachers who
teach Calculus, and the large number of people in industry who know
and use calculus on a daily basis. It's safe to say that you are in
an overwhelming minority.
I would say a new paradigm is invariably in the minority of one. In
any event the number a thousand was rhetorical. My point was truth is
not just a matter of majority logic.
~v~~
It's not a new paradigm, there are already infinitesimals in analysis,
generally used in simply formalizable ways with the existence of the
asymptotic limit.
I wasn't referring to infinitesimals, Ross, but to the idea of truth
as an exercise in majority logic as Jonathan seems to think. The "new"
paradigm I was referring to was the idea of truth in universal terms
applied to whatever area, in this case infinitesimals dr and dt.
I'd say, lots of those people are familiar with the _notion_ that dx
the differential is an infinitesimal difference, they know it's non-
zero and non-finite, for example in application to model any physical
quantity.
Most people don't really care that much that they're told not to use
the infinitesimals. Probably, 99% of people who generally read
sci.math have or will taken a pre-calculus or calculus course that
introduces the mechanics of the machinery of delta-epsilonics, the
methods of infinitesimal differences, in the definition of the
derivative and fundamental theorem of calculus. Yet, as we see in
this thread, almost every post Hoyle learns about another new system
of infinitesimals.
Here's the picture I want to show you: that the constant width
differential in calculus is the use of mathematics of the
infinitesimal already, there are already infinitesimals in mathematics
and applied mathematics. Standard integral calculus is about the
mathematics of the infinite with functions that have existent limits,
real functions.
Of all the systems of infinitesimals described, the only one generally
applied is the infinitesimal analysis in the integral calculus.
Whether or not the infinitesimals that the inventors of the calculus
had in their calculus are "rigorous", a variety of their theorems in
today's almost exactly the same notation as then correspond directly
to the fundamental theorem of calculus. A way was found to shush or
squelch the infinitesimals as seemingly paradoxical objects from
existence in those systems of the integral calculus. For, if the
infinitesimals were to exist, standard arguments about their
inexistence would apply, as for example, division by zero.
Well I consider that there are certain paradoxical aspects to the
basic concept of infinitesimals, Ross, most notably that curves can't
be exactly defined in mechanical terms of straight line segments
without them nor apparently straight line segments in terms of points.
There is a certain transcendental significance to straight lines and
curves starting with only some point and that transcendental
significance is expressed most obviously through the derivative of r
distance with respect to t time. Time really has no place in static
mathematics but without it we can't explain the mechanization of
lines, curves, surfaces, and so on in dynamic terms.
So, would infinitesimal analysis be more of a subset, or superset, of
integral calculus?
A very good question, Ross. I don't know for sure but I'm inclined to
the idea that infinitesimal analysis indeed represents the superset of
all integral calculus. Just remember triple integration as an integral
of dx, dy, and dz in three dimensions.
I don't know much application of infinitesimals
outside calculus. The meaning of "infinitesimal" is generally obvious
from the context, for example in fluid mechanics or the theory of
spinors where it is casually discussed. There are books in the
library called "Infinitesimal Analysis", that's what "Calculus" used
to be called.
Well here I think the situation is somewhat akin to the definition of
integers in terms of irrationals. Straight line segments are defined
in terms of irrationals (remember I'm talking about rac techniques and
using my own non standard definition for irrationals as defined on
straight line segments exclusively as opposed to transcendentals
defined on curves). And among irrationals every so often an integer
drops out. Analogously in the context of definite infinitesimal
integration every so often a finite multiple drops out of the mix.
In terms of majority logic and applications of mathematics, the
properties of the differential are much better known than, say, those
of the hyperreals or transfinite cardinals, and, they have been for
hundreds of years.
Well I'm not going to get into a discussion of hyperreals, transfinite
arithmetic and so on because I think these topics are better left to
more vivid imaginations and less true definitions and demonstrations.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
30 May 2007 09:23:21 PM |
|
|
On May 29, 12:20 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 28 May 2007 23:47:50 -0700, "Ross A. Finlayson"
<r...@tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
On May 28, 4:46 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 27 May 2007 21:30:03 -0700, Jonathan Hoyle <jonho...@mac.com>
wrote:
Or the word of a thousand others?
Oh, it's far more than a thousand. There are over 3,400 colleges in
the United States, and if we assume a conservative estimate of three
professors of Mathematics per school, that's 10,000 right there.
That's not to mention the number of High School Math teachers who
teach Calculus, and the large number of people in industry who know
and use calculus on a daily basis. It's safe to say that you are in
an overwhelming minority.
I would say a new paradigm is invariably in the minority of one. In
any event the number a thousand was rhetorical. My point was truth is
not just a matter of majority logic.
~v~~
It's not a new paradigm, there are already infinitesimals in analysis,
generally used in simply formalizable ways with the existence of the
asymptotic limit.
I wasn't referring to infinitesimals, Ross, but to the idea of truth
as an exercise in majority logic as Jonathan seems to think. The "new"
paradigm I was referring to was the idea of truth in universal terms
applied to whatever area, in this case infinitesimals dr and dt.
Hi Lester, Les,
I'll comment here on your comments.
Basically as long as you continue to speak English, that would make
sense.
Why dr/dt? Why not dx/dt, or even dd/dt?
I'd say, lots of those people are familiar with the _notion_ that dx
the differential is an infinitesimal difference, they know it's non-
zero and non-finite, for example in application to model any physical
quantity.
....
Of all the systems of infinitesimals described, the only one generally
applied is the infinitesimal analysis in the integral calculus.
Whether or not the infinitesimals that the inventors of the calculus
had in their calculus are "rigorous", a variety of their theorems in
today's almost exactly the same notation as then correspond directly
to the fundamental theorem of calculus. A way was found to shush or
squelch the infinitesimals as seemingly paradoxical objects from
existence in those systems of the integral calculus. For, if the
infinitesimals were to exist, standard arguments about their
inexistence would apply, as for example, division by zero.
Well I consider that there are certain paradoxical aspects to the
basic concept of infinitesimals, Ross, most notably that curves can't
be exactly defined in mechanical terms of straight line segments
without them nor apparently straight line segments in terms of points.
There is a certain transcendental significance to straight lines and
curves starting with only some point and that transcendental
significance is expressed most obviously through the derivative of r
distance with respect to t time. Time really has no place in static
mathematics but without it we can't explain the mechanization of
lines, curves, surfaces, and so on in dynamic terms.
What do you mean by static mathematics? Time, is a dimension.
So, would infinitesimal analysis be more of a subset, or superset, of
integral calculus?
A very good question, Ross. I don't know for sure but I'm inclined to
the idea that infinitesimal analysis indeed represents the superset of
all integral calculus. Just remember triple integration as an integral
of dx, dy, and dz in three dimensions.
Yet, simple geometry represents a superset of much of the integral
calculus.
You integrate in any three cordinates you want, man. There are a wide
variety. Is that not correct, to say, "coordinates"?
I don't know much application of infinitesimals
outside calculus. The meaning of "infinitesimal" is generally obvious
from the context, for example in fluid mechanics or the theory of
spinors where it is casually discussed. There are books in the
library called "Infinitesimal Analysis", that's what "Calculus" used
to be called.
Well here I think the situation is somewhat akin to the definition of
integers in terms of irrationals. Straight line segments are defined
in terms of irrationals (remember I'm talking about rac techniques and
using my own non standard definition for irrationals as defined on
straight line segments exclusively as opposed to transcendentals
defined on curves). And among irrationals every so often an integer
drops out. Analogously in the context of definite infinitesimal
integration every so often a finite multiple drops out of the mix.
That doesn't make sense. Are you using normal definitions?
Integration as applied in continuum problems like boundary and initial
value problems is quite totally applicable to many problems, and,
(some few) modern classes teach integration with reintroduced
infinitesimals. I should find some of those new textbooks.
In terms of majority logic and applications of mathematics, the
properties of the differential are much better known than, say, those
of the hyperreals or transfinite cardinals, and, they have been for
hundreds of years.
Well I'm not going to get into a discussion of hyperreals, transfinite
arithmetic and so on because I think these topics are better left to
more vivid imaginations and less true definitions and demonstrations.
~v~~
Well, thanks, Les, I'll think about that.
I don't think transfinite cardinals are much changed, where, Goedelian
incompleteness doesn't apply to infinite sets and so on, except where
they touch reality. They have less meaning.
I think Aatu is generally right.
Ross
--
Finlayson Consulting
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
31 May 2007 06:31:22 PM |
|
|
On 30 May 2007 19:23:21 -0700, "Ross A. Finlayson"
<raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
On May 29, 12:20 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 28 May 2007 23:47:50 -0700, "Ross A. Finlayson"
<r...@tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
On May 28, 4:46 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 27 May 2007 21:30:03 -0700, Jonathan Hoyle <jonho...@mac.com>
wrote:
Or the word of a thousand others?
Oh, it's far more than a thousand. There are over 3,400 colleges in
the United States, and if we assume a conservative estimate of three
professors of Mathematics per school, that's 10,000 right there.
That's not to mention the number of High School Math teachers who
teach Calculus, and the large number of people in industry who know
and use calculus on a daily basis. It's safe to say that you are in
an overwhelming minority.
I would say a new paradigm is invariably in the minority of one. In
any event the number a thousand was rhetorical. My point was truth is
not just a matter of majority logic.
~v~~
It's not a new paradigm, there are already infinitesimals in analysis,
generally used in simply formalizable ways with the existence of the
asymptotic limit.
I wasn't referring to infinitesimals, Ross, but to the idea of truth
as an exercise in majority logic as Jonathan seems to think. The "new"
paradigm I was referring to was the idea of truth in universal terms
applied to whatever area, in this case infinitesimals dr and dt.
Hi Lester, Les,
I'll comment here on your comments.
Basically as long as you continue to speak English, that would make
sense.
Why dr/dt? Why not dx/dt, or even dd/dt?
Why not dr/dt, Ross? It doesn't make a huge difference but I'm
interested in targeting angular mechanics which is why I use
infinitesimals dr and dt.
I'd say, lots of those people are familiar with the _notion_ that dx
the differential is an infinitesimal difference, they know it's non-
zero and non-finite, for example in application to model any physical
quantity.
...
Of all the systems of infinitesimals described, the only one generally
applied is the infinitesimal analysis in the integral calculus.
Whether or not the infinitesimals that the inventors of the calculus
had in their calculus are "rigorous", a variety of their theorems in
today's almost exactly the same notation as then correspond directly
to the fundamental theorem of calculus. A way was found to shush or
squelch the infinitesimals as seemingly paradoxical objects from
existence in those systems of the integral calculus. For, if the
infinitesimals were to exist, standard arguments about their
inexistence would apply, as for example, division by zero.
Well I consider that there are certain paradoxical aspects to the
basic concept of infinitesimals, Ross, most notably that curves can't
be exactly defined in mechanical terms of straight line segments
without them nor apparently straight line segments in terms of points.
There is a certain transcendental significance to straight lines and
curves starting with only some point and that transcendental
significance is expressed most obviously through the derivative of r
distance with respect to t time. Time really has no place in static
mathematics but without it we can't explain the mechanization of
lines, curves, surfaces, and so on in dynamic terms.
What do you mean by static mathematics?
Here I'm just referring to conventional assumptions of mathematics
where lines and so on are just assumed to exist independent of how
they got there.
Time, is a dimension.
It is? Well certainly Einstein thought so. I'd rather concentrate on
spatial dimensionality though and get that right before we move to
temporal concerns.
So, would infinitesimal analysis be more of a subset, or superset, of
integral calculus?
A very good question, Ross. I don't know for sure but I'm inclined to
the idea that infinitesimal analysis indeed represents the superset of
all integral calculus. Just remember triple integration as an integral
of dx, dy, and dz in three dimensions.
Yet, simple geometry represents a superset of much of the integral
calculus.
You integrate in any three cordinates you want, man. There are a wide
variety. Is that not correct, to say, "coordinates"?
I'm dealing initially with the three demonstrable spatial dimensions,
Ross.
I don't know much application of infinitesimals
outside calculus. The meaning of "infinitesimal" is generally obvious
from the context, for example in fluid mechanics or the theory of
spinors where it is casually discussed. There are books in the
library called "Infinitesimal Analysis", that's what "Calculus" used
to be called.
Well here I think the situation is somewhat akin to the definition of
integers in terms of irrationals. Straight line segments are defined
in terms of irrationals (remember I'm talking about rac techniques and
using my own non standard definition for irrationals as defined on
straight line segments exclusively as opposed to transcendentals
defined on curves). And among irrationals every so often an integer
drops out. Analogously in the context of definite infinitesimal
integration every so often a finite multiple drops out of the mix.
That doesn't make sense. Are you using normal definitions?
Don't understand the objection.I spelled out the abnormal definitions.
Integration as applied in continuum problems like boundary and initial
value problems is quite totally applicable to many problems, and,
(some few) modern classes teach integration with reintroduced
infinitesimals. I should find some of those new textbooks.
In terms of majority logic and applications of mathematics, the
properties of the differential are much better known than, say, those
of the hyperreals or transfinite cardinals, and, they have been for
hundreds of years.
Well I'm not going to get into a discussion of hyperreals, transfinite
arithmetic and so on because I think these topics are better left to
more vivid imaginations and less true definitions and demonstrations.
~v~~
Well, thanks, Les, I'll think about that.
I don't think transfinite cardinals are much changed, where, Goedelian
incompleteness doesn't apply to infinite sets and so on, except where
they touch reality. They have less meaning.
I think Aatu is generally right.
I can't speak for Aatu or for Godel. I can speak for reality.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
28 May 2007 06:53:24 PM |
|
|
On 27 May 2007 21:30:03 -0700, Jonathan Hoyle <jonhoyle@mac.com>
wrote:
dr and dt may not be numbers but what's the demonstration of truth
that they're not limits for definite integration?
"dr/dt" is defined by mathematicians, and it means whatever they say
it means.
If we knew what mathematics and mathematicians were it might help. As
it stands all you can point to is a group of academics and scholastics
who subscribe to a particular set of doctrines they call mathematics
without being able to demonstrate the actual truth of those doctrines.
If you wish to define it differently, then you are free
to do so; however, it is you, not they, who are coming up with
alternative meanings.
Not exactly. I'm coming up with demonstrable truth as the basis for
alternative meanings.
You likewise can choose to reverse the definitions of "cat" and "dog"
if you like, but it would be a bit insincere to act surprised when you
find that noone else is follwoing your convention.
Act surprized? Who's acting surprized? You treat the matter as if it
were merely one of convenience instead of truth. Would it be merely a
matter of convenience if squircles were defined as square circles?
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
28 May 2007 06:44:02 PM |
|
|
On 27 May 2007 21:30:03 -0700, Jonathan Hoyle <jonhoyle@mac.com>
wrote:
"dr" and "dt" are not numbers. The notation "dr/dt" is merely
shorrthand notation for "the derivative of r with respect to t". The
terms "dr" and "dt" have no meaning by themselves.
Do we just take your word for that?
You needn't take my word for anything. I encourage you to look it up
for yourself. Any Calculus textbook will quickly correct your error
here.
In other words instead of your word I should take the word of other
people who can't demonstrate the truth of what they write? Doesn't
seem like much of an improvement.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
24 May 2007 12:53:20 PM |
|
|
On 23 May 2007 19:04:43 -0700, Jonathan Hoyle <jonhoyle@mac.com>
wrote:
You speak as if you held the exclusive right to mathematical truth.
No exclusivity here. I am merely sharing what has already been proven
for some time now.
Proven perhaps. Just not proven true.
You can't demonstrate what you say is actually true and you can't
demonstrate the truth of mathematical axioms you assume true.
What would you accept as a demonstration of the truth (or falsity) of
mathematical axioms?
I don't do axioms. If you'd care to see what I do instead peruse the
brief root post to "Epistemology 401: Tautological Mechanics".
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Hoyle" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
24 May 2007 04:27:53 PM |
|
|
Proven perhaps. Just not proven true.
Is there a difference? If you think so, how do you expect something
to be proven true?
You can't demonstrate what you say is actually true and you can't
demonstrate the truth of mathematical axioms you assume true.
What would you accept as a demonstration of the truth (or falsity) of
mathematical axioms?
I don't do axioms. If you'd care to see what I do instead peruse the
brief root post to "Epistemology 401: Tautological Mechanics".
Aren't you being a bit disingenuous by criticizing it as not
"demonstrably true" to your satisfaction, when in fact you admit there
is no way for them to be?
Jonathan Hoyle
Eastman Kodak
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
24 May 2007 06:37:59 PM |
|
|
On 24 May 2007 14:27:53 -0700, Jonathan Hoyle <jonhoyle@mac.com>
wrote:
Proven perhaps. Just not proven true.
Is there a difference? If you think so, how do you expect something
to be proven true?
You can't demonstrate what you say is actually true and you can't
demonstrate the truth of mathematical axioms you assume true.
What would you accept as a demonstration of the truth (or falsity) of
mathematical axioms?
I don't do axioms. If you'd care to see what I do instead peruse the
brief root post to "Epistemology 401: Tautological Mechanics".
Aren't you being a bit disingenuous by criticizing it
"It" being what, pray tell? I criticize a lot.
as not
"demonstrably true" to your satisfaction,
Did I say "my satisfaction"? Perhaps you could point out anywhere I
made reference to "my satisfaction". Mayhap it was in that section on
ranting you chose to omit without comment except to call it "ranting"?
when in fact you admit there
is no way for them to be?
For them? To be what exactly? Jesus I didn't know ESL and remedial
english comprehension were hiring criteria at Kodak. You're an idiot.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Hoyle" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
25 May 2007 09:02:35 AM |
|
|
Proven perhaps. Just not proven true.
Is there a difference? If you think so, how do you expect something
to be proven true?
You can't demonstrate what you say is actually true and you can't
demonstrate the truth of mathematical axioms you assume true.
What would you accept as a demonstration of the truth (or falsity) of
mathematical axioms?
I don't do axioms. If you'd care to see what I do instead peruse the
brief root post to "Epistemology 401: Tautological Mechanics".
Aren't you being a bit disingenuous by criticizing it
"It" being what, pray tell? I criticize a lot.
as not
"demonstrably true" to your satisfaction,
Did I say "my satisfaction"? Perhaps you could point out anywhere I
made reference to "my satisfaction". Mayhap it was in that section on
ranting you chose to omit without comment except to call it "ranting"?
when in fact you admit there
is no way for them to be?
Okay, fine. You claim that it these statements are "proven but not
proven true" (whatever that means). So how does one "prove it true"?
<remaining ad hominems snipped>
Jonathan Hoyle
Eastman Kodak
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Orlow" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
25 May 2007 10:03:59 AM |
|
|
Jonathan Hoyle wrote:
Proven perhaps. Just not proven true.
Is there a difference? If you think so, how do you expect something
to be proven true?
You can't demonstrate what you say is actually true and you can't
demonstrate the truth of mathematical axioms you assume true.
What would you accept as a demonstration of the truth (or falsity) of
mathematical axioms?
I don't do axioms. If you'd care to see what I do instead peruse the
brief root post to "Epistemology 401: Tautological Mechanics".
Aren't you being a bit disingenuous by criticizing it
"It" being what, pray tell? I criticize a lot.
as not
"demonstrably true" to your satisfaction,
Did I say "my satisfaction"? Perhaps you could point out anywhere I
made reference to "my satisfaction". Mayhap it was in that section on
ranting you chose to omit without comment except to call it "ranting"?
when in fact you admit there
is no way for them to be?
Okay, fine. You claim that it these statements are "proven but not
proven true" (whatever that means). So how does one "prove it true"?
<remaining ad hominems snipped>
Jonathan Hoyle
Eastman Kodak
Jonathan, don't you know this is going to go back to "not not" as the
universal self contradiction, and "not" as the universal truth? I've
already explained to Lester how his "not a not b" is, in common
parlance, "not a or not b", and how his derivation of "a and b" as the
result of "not (not a not b)" is really no different than the standard
relationship between "or" and "and". Lester refuses to concede that the
best we can do IS make some assumptions, and then follow them to their
conclusions, and that the test of the assumptions accepted is the
acceptability of the conclusions derived. He assumes truth of his
assumptions as much as anyone does, except he's not following through to
conclusions to test them. I still can't tell if he's really interested
in truth, or just likes to stir the pot. Stirring the pot isn't without
merit, in any case. :)
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
25 May 2007 05:09:25 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:03:59 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony@lightlink.com>
wrote:
Jonathan Hoyle wrote:
Proven perhaps. Just not proven true.
Is there a difference? If you think so, how do you expect something
to be proven true?
You can't demonstrate what you say is actually true and you can't
demonstrate the truth of mathematical axioms you assume true.
What would you accept as a demonstration of the truth (or falsity) of
mathematical axioms?
I don't do axioms. If you'd care to see what I do instead peruse the
brief root post to "Epistemology 401: Tautological Mechanics".
Aren't you being a bit disingenuous by criticizing it
"It" being what, pray tell? I criticize a lot.
as not
"demonstrably true" to your satisfaction,
Did I say "my satisfaction"? Perhaps you could point out anywhere I
made reference to "my satisfaction". Mayhap it was in that section on
ranting you chose to omit without comment except to call it "ranting"?
when in fact you admit there
is no way for them to be?
Okay, fine. You claim that it these statements are "proven but not
proven true" (whatever that means). So how does one "prove it true"?
<remaining ad hominems snipped>
Jonathan Hoyle
Eastman Kodak
Jonathan, don't you know this is going to go back to "not not" as the
universal self contradiction, and "not" as the universal truth?
As an alternative to what exactly, Tony?
I've
already explained to Lester how his "not a not b" is, in common
parlance, "not a or not b", and how his derivation of "a and b" as the
result of "not (not a not b)" is really no different than the standard
relationship between "or" and "and".
Gee you explained it to me did you, Tony, or did I explain it to you?
Lester refuses to concede that the
best we can do IS make some assumptions, and then follow them to their
conclusions, and that the test of the assumptions accepted is the
acceptability of the conclusions derived.
I certainly don't refuse to concede it's the best you can do, Tony,
because you and other empirics have been doing nothing else but
guessing about what you're talking about the beginning of time.
Whether it's the best which can be done however is another issue that
you and other empirics decline to address preferring to guess about it
instead along with the rest of your assumptions of truth.
He assumes truth of his
assumptions as much as anyone does, except he's not following through to
conclusions to test them.
I'm not? I didn't follow through on the unique assumption of "not" to
demonstrate the actual truth of boolean conjunctions in mechanical
terms? Are you hard of reading or what?
I still can't tell if he's really interested
in truth, or just likes to stir the pot. Stirring the pot isn't without
merit, in any case. :)
I prefer to stir the ***** which opinions and assholes have in common.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Orlow" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
26 May 2007 11:08:48 AM |
|
|
Lester Zick wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:03:59 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony@lightlink.com>
wrote:
Jonathan Hoyle wrote:
Proven perhaps. Just not proven true.
Is there a difference? If you think so, how do you expect something
to be proven true?
You can't demonstrate what you say is actually true and you can't
demonstrate the truth of mathematical axioms you assume true.
What would you accept as a demonstration of the truth (or falsity) of
mathematical axioms?
I don't do axioms. If you'd care to see what I do instead peruse the
brief root post to "Epistemology 401: Tautological Mechanics".
Aren't you being a bit disingenuous by criticizing it
"It" being what, pray tell? I criticize a lot.
as not
"demonstrably true" to your satisfaction,
Did I say "my satisfaction"? Perhaps you could point out anywhere I
made reference to "my satisfaction". Mayhap it was in that section on
ranting you chose to omit without comment except to call it "ranting"?
when in fact you admit there
is no way for them to be?
Okay, fine. You claim that it these statements are "proven but not
proven true" (whatever that means). So how does one "prove it true"?
<remaining ad hominems snipped>
Jonathan Hoyle
Eastman Kodak
Jonathan, don't you know this is going to go back to "not not" as the
universal self contradiction, and "not" as the universal truth?
As an alternative to what exactly, Tony?
As an alternative to "not not", which you suppose somehow to be a
self-contradiction, even though "not not" is a self-canceling null
operation in logic. It's the arithmetic equivalent of "--"
I've
already explained to Lester how his "not a not b" is, in common
parlance, "not a or not b", and how his derivation of "a and b" as the
result of "not (not a not b)" is really no different than the standard
relationship between "or" and "and".
Gee you explained it to me did you, Tony, or did I explain it to you?
You refused to answer a yes-or-no question, when it came down to trying
to explain it to you, and confirm that your "not a not b" is everybody
else's "not a OR not b". "not" is a 1-place logical operator, so "not a
not b" consists of two truth values, not one. It's not a single
predicate, unless you use a 2-place operator, namely, OR, to join the
two results from the 1-place operators acting on each of the two
variables. It's like trying to assign a value to "1+1 6*2". That's two
numbers, and you need some other operator to combine them into two
numbers. It's basic syntax.
Lester refuses to concede that the
best we can do IS make some assumptions, and then follow them to their
conclusions, and that the test of the assumptions accepted is the
acceptability of the conclusions derived.
I certainly don't refuse to concede it's the best you can do, Tony,
because you and other empirics have been doing nothing else but
guessing about what you're talking about the beginning of time.
Whether it's the best which can be done however is another issue that
you and other empirics decline to address preferring to guess about it
instead along with the rest of your assumptions of truth.
One tests their assumptions. You are not born with a priori knowledge.
In your derivation of universal "truth" you make obvious assumptions
that you deny, such as the implied "OR" in your original "not a not b".
You assume all sorts of stuff, like that you can pop universal truth out
of a hat from a vacuum, without any empirical feedback. That's a pretty
obviously problematic assumption regarding truth, wouldn't you say? What
makes you so sure THAT'S true?
He assumes truth of his
assumptions as much as anyone does, except he's not following through to
conclusions to test them.
I'm not? I didn't follow through on the unique assumption of "not" to
demonstrate the actual truth of boolean conjunctions in mechanical
terms? Are you hard of reading or what?
I read and analyzed exactly what you said, and when I tried to explain
my objection, and ask for clarification, you danced around it, to the
point of refusing to answer a yes or no question. You're not willing to
actually discuss what you're spouting.
I still can't tell if he's really interested
in truth, or just likes to stir the pot. Stirring the pot isn't without
merit, in any case. :)
I prefer to stir the ***** which opinions and assholes have in common.
~v~~
I take it that's your opinion.
01oo
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Hoyle" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
25 May 2007 11:06:11 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 11:03 am, Tony Orlow <t...@lightlink.com> wrote:
Jonathan, don't you know this is going to go back to "not not" as the
universal self contradiction, and "not" as the universal truth? I've
already explained to Lester how his "not a not b" is, in common
parlance, "not a or not b", and how his derivation of "a and b" as the
result of "not (not a not b)" is really no different than the standard
relationship between "or" and "and". Lester refuses to concede that the
best we can do IS make some assumptions, and then follow them to their
conclusions, and that the test of the assumptions accepted is the
acceptability of the conclusions derived. He assumes truth of his
assumptions as much as anyone does, except he's not following through to
conclusions to test them. I still can't tell if he's really interested
in truth, or just likes to stir the pot. Stirring the pot isn't without
merit, in any case. :)
Tony
Clearly, you have had more experience with him than I, Tony. And for
that i do not envy you. :-)
Jonathan Hoyle
Eastman Kodak
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
25 May 2007 12:52:11 PM |
|
|
On 25 May 2007 07:02:35 -0700, Jonathan Hoyle <jonhoyle@mac.com>
wrote:
Proven perhaps. Just not proven true.
Is there a difference? If you think so, how do you expect something
to be proven true?
You can't demonstrate what you say is actually true and you can't
demonstrate the truth of mathematical axioms you assume true.
What would you accept as a demonstration of the truth (or falsity) of
mathematical axioms?
I don't do axioms. If you'd care to see what I do instead peruse the
brief root post to "Epistemology 401: Tautological Mechanics".
Aren't you being a bit disingenuous by criticizing it
"It" being what, pray tell? I criticize a lot.
as not
"demonstrably true" to your satisfaction,
Did I say "my satisfaction"? Perhaps you could point out anywhere I
made reference to "my satisfaction". Mayhap it was in that section on
ranting you chose to omit without comment except to call it "ranting"?
when in fact you admit there
is no way for them to be?
Okay, fine. You claim that it these statements are "proven but not
proven true" (whatever that means). So how does one "prove it true"?
Very carefully.
<remaining ad hominems snipped>
Johnny, here's the problem. Let me ask you a question. How many pixels
are there in truth?See that's why you do photography and I do science.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Hoyle" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
25 May 2007 02:49:26 PM |
|
|
Johnny, here's the problem. Let me ask you a question. How many pixels
are there in truth?See that's why you do photography and I do science.
You're understanding of Kodak is as poor as your understanding of
Calculus. I am not a photographer and no little to nothing about
photography. (Nor do I pretend to.)
If you must know, I am a Macintosh software developer writing support
software for our new line of ink jet printers. I can happily discuss
issues about the Mac OS X Printing API or lower-level USB interface
calls, but your continued analogies to photography and cameras are
lost on me, I am afraid.
As for your obscure reference to "doing science", I am curious as to
what your occupation is.
Jonathan Hoyle
Eastman Kodak
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Orlow" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
23 May 2007 10:43:10 AM |
|
|
Lester Zick wrote:
On 21 May 2007 12:41:43 -0700, Jonathan Hoyle <jonhoyle@mac.com>
wrote:
On May 21, 1:21 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Nonsense. r+i=r exactly "says" what i actually is: i is zero, in
symbols: i = 0. Got it?!
Well not exactly. If I+i=I does that mean i=0? Not hardly.
That's precisely what it means.
No. Any finite added to a transfinite produces the same transfinite
result. That's why the arithmetic is transfinite to begin with. Unless
you're contending that the term "arithmetic" only applies to finites.
Which is a position I can understand and sympathize with. But when the
term "arithmetic" is applied to any combination of transfinites,
infinitesimals, and finites you're not doing finite arithmetic anymore
and the rules are different.
I believe some of the rules are universal, and should be considered
inviolable. For instance, x+y=y+x and x>0 -> x+y>y.
Take a close look at finite r in circular rotation. Finite r is not
just a rigid rod of some kind. It's mechanized by a combination of
tangential dr and centripetal dr. Tangential dr is mechanized by
instantaneous definite integral of tangential velocity from 0 to dt
and centripetal dr is mechanized through the definite instananeous
integral of centripetal acceleration between 0 and dt to produce
finite centripetal velocity and the definite instantaneous integral of
finite centripetal velocity between 0 and dt to produce dr.
There is no other way to produce circular rotation. In fact even in
the case of a rigid rod the forces which keep it rigid are balanced
internally and centripetal acceleration is still required to produce
curvilinear rotation which is still subject to the same mechanics. A
finite number of infinitesimals just doesn't produce a finite change.
~v~~
Well, there is another way to produce a circle, and r needn't vary even
infinitesimally. If you consider the x and y coordinates of a point with
respect to another point, the circle's center, and increase the x value
proportionate to the y value, while decreasing the y value proportionate
to the x value, in continuous fashion, you trace a circle clockwise.
01oo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
23 May 2007 01:31:07 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:43:10 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony@lightlink.com>
wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
On 21 May 2007 12:41:43 -0700, Jonathan Hoyle <jonhoyle@mac.com>
wrote:
On May 21, 1:21 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Nonsense. r+i=r exactly "says" what i actually is: i is zero, in
symbols: i = 0. Got it?!
Well not exactly. If I+i=I does that mean i=0? Not hardly.
That's precisely what it means.
No. Any finite added to a transfinite produces the same transfinite
result. That's why the arithmetic is transfinite to begin with. Unless
you're contending that the term "arithmetic" only applies to finites.
Which is a position I can understand and sympathize with. But when the
term "arithmetic" is applied to any combination of transfinites,
infinitesimals, and finites you're not doing finite arithmetic anymore
and the rules are different.
I believe some of the rules are universal, and should be considered
inviolable. For instance, x+y=y+x
Only for cardinal numbers. Even in the case of ordinals like "first +
second = second + first" I don't think you can make a case for that
principle and in the case of general predicates ordering is critical.
and x>0 -> x+y>y.
I don't know what this expression means, Tony.
Take a close look at finite r in circular rotation. Finite r is not
just a rigid rod of some kind. It's mechanized by a combination of
tangential dr and centripetal dr. Tangential dr is mechanized by
instantaneous definite integral of tangential velocity from 0 to dt
and centripetal dr is mechanized through the definite instananeous
integral of centripetal acceleration between 0 and dt to produce
finite centripetal velocity and the definite instantaneous integral of
finite centripetal velocity between 0 and dt to produce dr.
There is no other way to produce circular rotation. In fact even in
the case of a rigid rod the forces which keep it rigid are balanced
internally and centripetal acceleration is still required to produce
curvilinear rotation which is still subject to the same mechanics. A
finite number of infinitesimals just doesn't produce a finite change.
~v~~
Well, there is another way to produce a circle, and r needn't vary even
infinitesimally. If you consider the x and y coordinates of a point with
respect to another point, the circle's center, and increase the x value
proportionate to the y value, while decreasing the y value proportionate
to the x value, in continuous fashion, you trace a circle clockwise.
The problem here, Tony, is I'm discussing actual mechanization of
circular rotation and not simply defining point coordinates on the
perimeter of a circle once produced. Your final comment "you trace a
circle clockwise" highlights the point exactly: How do you trace a
circle in mechanical terms? You do it with constant linear velocity
and constant transverse acceleration. There is no other way to do it.
The kind of "circles" you're talking about are just so much carbon
dust vestiges and artifact traces of what went on during the actual
dynamic process of circular rotation. The actual "circle" is not any
static series of point coordinates. That just represents mathematical
approximations to the circle itself which only exists in the dynamics
of linear velocity and transverse acceleration of circular rotation.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
22 May 2007 09:11:54 AM |
|
|
On May 21, 6:59 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 21 May 2007 12:41:43 -0700, Jonathan Hoyle <jonho...@mac.com>
wrote:
On May 21, 1:21 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Nonsense. r+i=r exactly "says" what i actually is: i is zero, in
symbols: i = 0. Got it?!
Well not exactly. If I+i=I does that mean i=0? Not hardly.
That's precisely what it means.
No. Any finite added to a transfinite produces the same transfinite
result. That's why the arithmetic is transfinite to begin with. Unless
you're contending that the term "arithmetic" only applies to finites.
Which is a position I can understand and sympathize with. But when the
term "arithmetic" is applied to any combination of transfinites,
infinitesimals, and finites you're not doing finite arithmetic anymore
and the rules are different.
Take a close look at finite r in circular rotation. Finite r is not
just a rigid rod of some kind. It's mechanized by a combination of
tangential dr and centripetal dr.
Gotta love the "tangential dr" part.
Zick swears he's seen some calculus someplace, sometime, and this
looks something like that.
This kind of babble would be safe if Zick could be assured that
everyone is at the same level of incompetence as his. It apparently
hasn't occurred to him that a substantial number of his readers can
recognize a pretense when they see it.
Tangential dr is mechanized by
instantaneous definite integral of tangential velocity from 0 to dt
and centripetal dr is mechanized through the definite instananeous
integral of centripetal acceleration between 0 and dt to produce
finite centripetal velocity and the definite instantaneous integral of
finite centripetal velocity between 0 and dt to produce dr.
There is no other way to produce circular rotation. In fact even in
the case of a rigid rod the forces which keep it rigid are balanced
internally and centripetal acceleration is still required to produce
curvilinear rotation which is still subject to the same mechanics. A
finite number of infinitesimals just doesn't produce a finite change.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
22 May 2007 11:18:59 AM |
|
|
In message <1179839513.587613.309810@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, PD
<TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> writes
On May 21, 6:59 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 21 May 2007 12:41:43 -0700, Jonathan Hoyle <jonho...@mac.com>
wrote:
On May 21, 1:21 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Nonsense. r+i=r exactly "says" what i actually is: i is zero, in
symbols: i = 0. Got it?!
Well not exactly. If I+i=I does that mean i=0? Not hardly.
That's precisely what it means.
No. Any finite added to a transfinite produces the same transfinite
result. That's why the arithmetic is transfinite to begin with. Unless
you're contending that the term "arithmetic" only applies to finites.
Which is a position I can understand and sympathize with. But when the
term "arithmetic" is applied to any combination of transfinites,
infinitesimals, and finites you're not doing finite arithmetic anymore
and the rules are different.
Take a close look at finite r in circular rotation. Finite r is not
just a rigid rod of some kind. It's mechanized by a combination of
tangential dr and centripetal dr.
Gotta love the "tangential dr" part.
Zick swears he's seen some calculus someplace, sometime, and this
looks something like that.
This kind of babble would be safe if Zick could be assured that
everyone is at the same level of incompetence as his. It apparently
hasn't occurred to him that a substantial number of his readers can
recognize a pretense when they see it.
"Tangential dr" rings bells. Several thousand posts back, he
demonstrated that he didn't understand angular momentum, and was
forcibly told so by the late Franz Heymann. Ever since then he's
included sci.physics, relevant or not, in the crossposts of these
interminable threads as a kind of revenge.
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
22 May 2007 12:43:15 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:18:59 +0100, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
In message <1179839513.587613.309810@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, PD
<TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> writes
On May 21, 6:59 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 21 May 2007 12:41:43 -0700, Jonathan Hoyle <jonho...@mac.com>
wrote:
On May 21, 1:21 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Nonsense. r+i=r exactly "says" what i actually is: i is zero, in
symbols: i = 0. Got it?!
Well not exactly. If I+i=I does that mean i=0? Not hardly.
That's precisely what it means.
No. Any finite added to a transfinite produces the same transfinite
result. That's why the arithmetic is transfinite to begin with. Unless
you're contending that the term "arithmetic" only applies to finites.
Which is a position I can understand and sympathize with. But when the
term "arithmetic" is applied to any combination of transfinites,
infinitesimals, and finites you're not doing finite arithmetic anymore
and the rules are different.
Take a close look at finite r in circular rotation. Finite r is not
just a rigid rod of some kind. It's mechanized by a combination of
tangential dr and centripetal dr.
Gotta love the "tangential dr" part.
Zick swears he's seen some calculus someplace, sometime, and this
looks something like that.
This kind of babble would be safe if Zick could be assured that
everyone is at the same level of incompetence as his. It apparently
hasn't occurred to him that a substantial number of his readers can
recognize a pretense when they see it.
"Tangential dr" rings bells.
Well, well, Red. Ever the ardent amanuensis.
Several thousand posts back, he
demonstrated that he didn't understand angular momentum, and was
forcibly told so by the late Franz Heymann.
Well empirics are considerably better at forcible tellings I daresay
than at mechanical explanations for what they forcibly tell. At least
I can explain the origin of quantum particle spin properties and
Planck's constant better than you, Euler, Mati, et al. can explain the
mechanical rationale for what you call angular momentum.
Ever since then he's
included sci.physics, relevant or not, in the crossposts of these
interminable threads as a kind of revenge.
And you apparently continue to read them for reasons as obscure as the
mechanics you employ. Transcendental masochism no doubt. When you can
define curves as something besides SOAP operas get back to me.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
29 May 2007 07:12:44 AM |
|
|
On May 22, 12:43 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:18:59 +0100, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:
In message <1179839513.587613.309...@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, PD
<TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> writes
On May 21, 6:59 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 21 May 2007 12:41:43 -0700, Jonathan Hoyle <jonho...@mac.com>
wrote:
On May 21, 1:21 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Nonsense. r+i=r exactly "says" what i actually is: i is zero, in
symbols: i = 0. Got it?!
Well not exactly. If I+i=I does that mean i=0? Not hardly.
That's precisely what it means.
No. Any finite added to a transfinite produces the same transfinite
result. That's why the arithmetic is transfinite to begin with. Unless
you're contending that the term "arithmetic" only applies to finites.
Which is a position I can understand and sympathize with. But when the
term "arithmetic" is applied to any combination of transfinites,
infinitesimals, and finites you're not doing finite arithmetic anymore
and the rules are different.
Take a close look at finite r in circular rotation. Finite r is not
just a rigid rod of some kind. It's mechanized by a combination of
tangential dr and centripetal dr.
Gotta love the "tangential dr" part.
Zick swears he's seen some calculus someplace, sometime, and this
looks something like that.
This kind of babble would be safe if Zick could be assured that
everyone is at the same level of incompetence as his. It apparently
hasn't occurred to him that a substantial number of his readers can
recognize a pretense when they see it.
"Tangential dr" rings bells.
Well, well, Red. Ever the ardent amanuensis.
Several thousand posts back, he
demonstrated that he didn't understand angular momentum, and was
forcibly told so by the late Franz Heymann.
Well empirics are considerably better at forcible tellings I daresay
than at mechanical explanations for what they forcibly tell. At least
I can explain the origin of quantum particle spin properties and
Planck's constant better than you
Do that.
, Euler, Mati, et al. can explain the
mechanical rationale for what you call angular momentum.
Ever since then he's
included sci.physics, relevant or not, in the crossposts of these
interminable threads as a kind of revenge.
And you apparently continue to read them for reasons as obscure as the
mechanics you employ. Transcendental masochism no doubt. When you can
define curves as something besides SOAP operas get back to me.
~v~~- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
29 May 2007 12:23:00 PM |
|
|
On 29 May 2007 05:12:44 -0700, PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Several thousand posts back, he
demonstrated that he didn't understand angular momentum, and was
forcibly told so by the late Franz Heymann.
Well empirics are considerably better at forcible tellings I daresay
than at mechanical explanations for what they forcibly tell. At least
I can explain the origin of quantum particle spin properties and
Planck's constant better than you
Do that.
Been there, done that.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
29 May 2007 02:50:59 PM |
|
|
On May 29, 12:23 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 29 May 2007 05:12:44 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Several thousand posts back, he
demonstrated that he didn't understand angular momentum, and was
forcibly told so by the late Franz Heymann.
Well empirics are considerably better at forcible tellings I daresay
than at mechanical explanations for what they forcibly tell. At least
I can explain the origin of quantum particle spin properties and
Planck's constant better than you
Do that.
Been there, done that.
Methinks thou liest.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
29 May 2007 05:23:31 PM |
|
|
On 29 May 2007 12:50:59 -0700, PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 29, 12:23 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 29 May 2007 05:12:44 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Several thousand posts back, he
demonstrated that he didn't understand angular momentum, and was
forcibly told so by the late Franz Heymann.
Well empirics are considerably better at forcible tellings I daresay
than at mechanical explanations for what they forcibly tell. At least
I can explain the origin of quantum particle spin properties and
Planck's constant better than you
Do that.
Been there, done that.
Methinks thou liest.
And methinks thou dost protest too much.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
29 May 2007 05:28:31 PM |
|
|
On May 29, 5:23 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 29 May 2007 12:50:59 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well empirics are considerably better at forcible tellings I daresay
than at mechanical explanations for what they forcibly tell. At least
I can explain the origin of quantum particle spin properties and
Planck's constant better than you
Do that.
Been there, done that.
Methinks thou liest.
And methinks thou dost protest too much.
Not if thou liest.
J'Accuse!
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinitesimal Arithmetic |
30 May 2007 01:32:48 PM |
|
|
On 29 May 2007 15:28:31 -0700, PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 29, 5:23 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 29 May 2007 12:50:59 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well empirics are considerably better at forcible tellings I daresay
than at mechanical explanations for what they forcibly tell. At least
I can explain the origin of quantum particle spin properties and
Planck's constant better than you
Do that.
Been there, done that.
Methinks thou liest.
| | | | | | | | | |
