On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:39:48 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@earthlink.net> wrote:
Cliff wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:10:06 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@earthlink.net> wrote:
Cliff wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:15:22 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@earthlink.net> wrote:
Do you have any NEW evidence, or credible math sites, that support your
position that integers DON'T have set values?
Can you provide foorp that "1+1+2" is a TRUE statement?
Cliff:
I guess that means no, you don't have any NEW evidence or credible math
sites that support your position the integers DON'T have set values.
Now, what *exactly* did I post?
Cliff:
Is this a multiple choice question?
A. Gibberish
B. Nonsense
C. BS
D. A Joke
E. All of the above.
I'd have to answer with "E". What do I win?
Not a thing as that's not an exact quote of what I posted that got
you upset this time <g>.
Cliff:
It was the logical inference from your bit of nonsense.
Wrong again.
I even posted links to matters about limits.
Then try 1+1=2 ....
This is so simple it falls under the class of proof by obviousness.
Oh?
The definition of 2 is one thing plus another one thing.
Is this like pecks of "inertia"?
Clearly not at all that "obvious".
http://humor.beecy.net/misc/principia/
Quick now, what is 1 apple plus 2 pears? 4 demos?
How much more
obvious can something be?
"The average person does not have a firm grasp of the meaning of the word
"proof.""
http://www.jimloy.com/math/proof.htm
"Proof" by induction or your assumption can be bad.
You must be assuming http://humor.beecy.net/misc/principia/
"The above proposition is occasionally useful."
- Lord Alfred North Whitehead/Lord Bertrand Russell
Sadly, IIRC, that was found to be not quite accurate as a proof <g>.
Meaning that the truth of the assertion is so clear that it's axiomatic.
You found it in Lintland?
If I have one penny, and you give me another penny, I then have two
pennies.
Or do you just have one penny "plus" one penny (in *your* theory)?
Is it somehow different in your world?
You always seem to have problems wiith "=" too.
Like your energy is mass stuff "because c is a constant" rubbish. And
your constant dropping of the concept of units (which matter a great deal).
But here's a mathematical proof from the math forum site.
Not yours, eh?
================================================================
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51551.html
Date: 06/10/99 at 10:15:58
From: Doctor Rob
Subject: Re: Need the math proof for 1 + 1 = 2
The proof starts from the Peano Postulates,
Who proved those, BB?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms
[
Peano's nine axioms, rephrased in contemporary notation, are:
1 is a natural number.
Every natural number is equal to itself (equality is reflexive).
For all natural numbers a and b, a = b if and only if b = a (equality is
symmetric).
For all natural numbers a, b, and c, if a = b and b = c then a = c (equality is
transitive).
If a = b and b is a natural number then a is a natural number.
If a is a natural number then Sa is a natural number.
If a and b are natural numbers then a = b if and only if Sa = Sb.
If a is a natural number then Sa is not equal to 1.
For every set K, if 1 is in K, and Sx is in K for every natural number x in K,
then every natural number is in K. (It makes no difference here whether all
elements of K are natural numbers.)
]
which define the natural
numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:
P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.
Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.
Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'
2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.
Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2
Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.
Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which
replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the
definition of addition to this:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in N, and define
a + b = (a + c)'.
You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the
Theorem above is a little different:
Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.
- Doctor Rob, The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
======================================================================
And such things as "addition" were proven how, exactly?
You need to find better I think.
You asked for a proof that 1+1=2. I gave you one. If you think 1+1
equals something other than two, well you'll just have search for that
yourself.
I stated that 1+1=3 for sufficiently large 1, right?
Perhaps if you get 1+1=4 your 1s were excessively large.
It was obviously a metaphor, you DO know what a metaphor is, don't you?
Do they grow in Lintland?
So you don't know what a metaphor is?
Something that confuses BB?
You're the one that didn't seem to understand my comments using the
terms "edifice" and "building blocks". So just who was the confused one
again?
Mr. Lint?
This from the person that can't decide which direction (or ANY
direction for that matter), a vector may point in a stationary object?
LOL
What system of unit vectors did you have?
*I* didn't have ANY.
So you create your own problems?
You always have unit vectors, BB. Else what is the Lint telling
you about?
Nope. Unit vectors point in a spatial direction.
So they have direction AND magnitude?
Sort of like simple 3D Cartesian unit vectors?
=================================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_%28spatial%29
A unit vector is any vector with a length of one, geometrically, it
only indicates a direction but no magnitude.
=================================================================
Any clues what the magnitude of "1" is?
Don't buy pigs in pokes. Think for yourself now & then. Take a basic
math or science class, etc.
A stationary object in the reference frame considered, doesn't point in
ANY direction
Since when should all "objects" point?
And the unit vectors of the "reference frame considered" are what,
exactly, and having what units?
since it isn't moving in ANY direction.
Sez who? Even per Einstein there is no such thing as an absolute
"reference frame".
And that has nothing to do with it's momentum in any case beyond
the values of the scalars of the vector components. But you don't begin
to grasp vectors at all.
How much simpler
can this concept be?
Pretty simple indeed if you grasped any of it. It's really basic stuff.
A stationary object where the reference frame is
centered on it's center of mass doesn't HAVE any unit vectors pointing
in ANY direction.
It certainly does ... you just don't know what vectors are. Not a clue.
Post any credible source that states that a stationary object has a
direction vector in a reference frame centered on it center of mass.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004707/cm.php3?Java=No
[
Momentum is one of those things that is always conserved. This means that no
matter what occurs, the initial momentum is exactly equal to the final momentum.
This does not mean that there is no change in motion, because stationary objects
explode into many moving pieces. What is meant is that if you were to add up the
momentum of all those little pieces, it would add up to the original momentum
(in the case of the stationary object, all the different directions would cancel
each other out). The other conserved values are Energy and Mass, and Electric
Charge.
]
IF the "stationary object" had no momentum vector it could hardly be
conserved, now could it?
P=m*v even if the scalars of the unit vectors of v have a magnitude of 0.
v & p remain vectors at all times and are never scalars.
They keep their full units too, just as the mass does.
And the world is full of idiots.
BTW, What's a "reference frame"?
A reference frame is an area such that the objects within it can be
measured to determine their movement in relation to each other.
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-117911.html
"If a vector equation is true in one reference frame then it is true in all
inertial reference frames."
Note that "inertial reference frame" is a phrase <G>.
And that vectors never become scalars.
========================================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference
A frame of reference is a particular perspective from which the
universe is observed. Specifically, in physics, it refers to a provided
set of axes from which an observer can measure the position and motion
of all points in a system, as well as the orientation of objects in it.
========================================================================
http://www.kwon3d.com/theory/transform/transform.html
It's a simple *vector transformation* from reference frame
to reference frame. And for the momentum vectors <G>.
After all, each points in one "direction", right?
That's probably why a stationary object doesn't have any unit vectors,
But it does.
Nope.
Yep. It would be in a "reference frame" and it has the unit vectors ...
which can be transformed to other coordinate systems by simple
vector operations on them.
If you believe otherwise you are free to provide a credible physics
source that agrees with you.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy121/LectureNotes/Chapter03/Chapter3.html
[
Although the decomposition of a vector depends on the coordinate system chosen,
relations between vectors are not affected by the choice of the coordinate
system (for example, if two vectors are perpendicular in one coordinate system,
they are perpendicular in every coordinate system). The physics (and the
relation between physical quantities) is also not affected by the choice of the
coordinate system, and we usually choose the coordinate system such that our
problems can be solved most easily.
]
If you can't, your opinion is no more than
unsupported conjecture, in other words a WAG.
You & the Lint guess at basic 6th grade stuff.
since it isn't moving in ANY direction.
Since when does it have to to have a specific momentum?
Zero momentum = no displacement. No displacement = no movement
direction. No movement direction = no vector.
The"zero" only applies to the scalar coefficients, not to the vector, as
vectors cannot become scalars in such a way.
You need to find out what vectors *are*.
Note what vectors are <VBG>. Keep guessing ....
No need to guess at all. Your comments about stationary objects having
unit vectors seems to have no validity.
BB, YOU don't grasp ANY of this. Pretty simple basic concepts too.
Who are you trying to convince, yourself? LOL
Try posting your lint to some of the science groups <G>.
then all math &
physics would be nothing more than an undependable & speculative house
of cards.
But YOU have tons of lint ... and "Anything is possible"" and "Whatever
I deem possible I can claim as truth" and ... just for starters.
You put "Whatever I deem possible I can claim as truth" in quotes as if
*I* had actually said that. That's of course false, since I never said
any such thing, and you know it.
You usually get there sooner or later. Probably walking backwards.
So you're essentially admitting you just fabricated that bit of
nonsense and falsely attributed it to being a quote of mine?
Part & parcel of the context of your usual claims as pontificated
from Lintand.
In other words, since you couldn't logically refute anything I said
Except for refuting all of it I suppose. But you'd have to know what
the subject is to begin to grasp it.
(or back up your claims with any credible physics sources)
Almost all of which would assume that you know just a little to begin
with .. and you don't seem to.
you just decided
to fabricate some utter nonsense and attribute it to me as if I had
actually said it?
Such as all the rubbish you post from the bad nuns, Aristotle, Lintland,
a clear failing of 6th grade science (did you even take any ever?),
a seeming total lack of the basic conceptual tools needed (reminds me
of someone with no grasp of what maps are) ...
How honest is that?
Far better than posting from Lintland with no conceptual grasp.
YOU are the one that keeps claiming you need "inertia" as a *cause*
to have no effect !!
You need no causes to have no effects.
There are trilllions & trillions of "no effects" and none need
causes *not to happen*.
He's afraid his anamistic bowling ball (bad case of the bad nuns IMHO)
would otherwise get up & eat up all his carpeting .. had it not that
"inertia" stuff to motivate it otherwise.
Not that you have been able to find a single peck of "inertia" yet.
What is it with you lately, posting the alleged statements of others
that are nothing but complete fabrications on your part? Are you TRYING
to trash any credibility you may retain and commit newsgroup suicide?
I'm not all that burdened with lint <VBG>.
It's apparent you're certainly not burdened with stating the truth
either.
I'm not all that burdened with lint <VBG> It's yours.
Ahh yes. This one.
=============================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiently_large
"Sufficiently large" is sometimes the subject of mathematical humor;
for example, as in the mathematician's joke "pi = 3, for sufficiently
large values of 3".
==============================================================
Yep. Wick.
You neglected to add that it's just "mathematical humor".
Not *my* problem.
Oh? It's very much YOUR problem if you're trying to use it to support
your claim that integers don't have set values.
That's your claim, not mine. I never stated such.
Sounds suspiciously like another intentional deceit to me.
And it actually was, since you've been proffering this bit of nonsense
as if it were true for quite some time.
Wick had the Pi bit too.
But you have not finished your tests on all those 1s .....
I think we're about done with this particular bit of nonsense of yours.
Running out of ones to test? Get some new ones from Lintland.
Now that this bit of
"mathematical humor" has come to light,
You probably need more than shop math.
I can only assume your other
kooky comments about inertia, momentum, mass/energy, vectors, and every
other off-the-wall conceptual faux pas you've been supporting for years
The rather solid simple, basic Physics stuff?
Yeah, the simple stuff you've had wrong all these years but were too
afraid of damaging your self-image to admit it.
You never took any tests or classes I gather <G>>
Just like you screwing
up the lathe code for a corner radius.
Except for one distracted typo it was exactly what I wanted <G>.
--
Cliff
.
