|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
16 Mar 2007 01:27:22 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:18:53 +0100, "SucMucPaProlij"
<mrjohnpauldike2006@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Lester Zick" <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:1ukbv2hq1fo7ucv8971u9qo37b48bj6a5h@4ax.com...
The Definition of Points
~v~~
In the swansong of modern math lines are composed of points. But then
we must ask how points are defined? However I seem to recollect
intersections of lines determine points. But if so then we are left to
consider the rather peculiar proposition that lines are composed of
the intersection of lines. Now I don't claim the foregoing definitions
are circular. Only that the ratio of definitional logic to conclusions
is a transcendental somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.14159 . . .
~v~~
Can you prove that non-circular definition of existence exists?
Well that depends on what you and others mean by "existence exists".
On the face of it the phrase "existence exists" is itself circular and
no more demonstrable than a phrase like "pointing points". It's just a
phrase taken as a root axiomatic assumption of truth by Ayn Rand in my
own personal experience whether others have used it or not I don't
know.
On the other hand if you're asking whether anything exists and is
capable of being unambiguously defined the answer is yes. I've done
exactly that on more than one occasion first in the root post to the
thread "Epistemology 201: The Science of Science" of two years ago and
more recently in the root post to the thread "Epistemology 401:
Tautological Mechanics" from a month ago.
The technique of unambiguous definition and the definition of truth is
simply to show that all possible alternative are false. Empirics and
mathematikers generally prefer to base their definitions on
undemonstrable axiomatic assumptions of truth whereas I prefer to base
definitions of truth on finite mechanical tautological reduction to
self contradictory alternatives. The former technique is a practice in
mystical insight while the latter entails exhaustive analysis and
reduction in purely mechanical terms.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "SucMucPaProlij" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 06:34:44 AM |
|
|
"Lester Zick" <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:fdnlv2d3t3vmaht79o2trmqtfq4halm5t8@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:18:53 +0100, "SucMucPaProlij"
<mrjohnpauldike2006@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Lester Zick" <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:1ukbv2hq1fo7ucv8971u9qo37b48bj6a5h@4ax.com...
The Definition of Points
~v~~
In the swansong of modern math lines are composed of points. But then
we must ask how points are defined? However I seem to recollect
intersections of lines determine points. But if so then we are left to
consider the rather peculiar proposition that lines are composed of
the intersection of lines. Now I don't claim the foregoing definitions
are circular. Only that the ratio of definitional logic to conclusions
is a transcendental somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.14159 . . .
~v~~
Can you prove that non-circular definition of existence exists?
Well that depends on what you and others mean by "existence exists".
On the face of it the phrase "existence exists" is itself circular and
no more demonstrable than a phrase like "pointing points". It's just a
phrase taken as a root axiomatic assumption of truth by Ayn Rand in my
own personal experience whether others have used it or not I don't
know.
On the other hand if you're asking whether anything exists and is
capable of being unambiguously defined the answer is yes. I've done
exactly that on more than one occasion first in the root post to the
thread "Epistemology 201: The Science of Science" of two years ago and
more recently in the root post to the thread "Epistemology 401:
Tautological Mechanics" from a month ago.
I think that there is no such thing as "don't exist". It means that everything
exists and negation of existence is impossible. Problem is that word "existence"
is ambiguous and to explain my theory one must first resolve ambiguousness.
Yes, I don't expect anyone to believe me nor to agree with me.
The technique of unambiguous definition and the definition of truth is
simply to show that all possible alternative are false. Empirics and
mathematikers generally prefer to base their definitions on
undemonstrable axiomatic assumptions of truth whereas I prefer to base
definitions of truth on finite mechanical tautological reduction to
self contradictory alternatives. The former technique is a practice in
mystical insight while the latter entails exhaustive analysis and
reduction in purely mechanical terms.
It is interesting but I didn't define my opinion about truth so I choose to say
nothing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 06:11:03 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:34:44 +0100, "SucMucPaProlij"
<mrjohnpauldike2006@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Lester Zick" <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:fdnlv2d3t3vmaht79o2trmqtfq4halm5t8@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:18:53 +0100, "SucMucPaProlij"
<mrjohnpauldike2006@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Lester Zick" <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:1ukbv2hq1fo7ucv8971u9qo37b48bj6a5h@4ax.com...
The Definition of Points
~v~~
In the swansong of modern math lines are composed of points. But then
we must ask how points are defined? However I seem to recollect
intersections of lines determine points. But if so then we are left to
consider the rather peculiar proposition that lines are composed of
the intersection of lines. Now I don't claim the foregoing definitions
are circular. Only that the ratio of definitional logic to conclusions
is a transcendental somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.14159 . . .
~v~~
Can you prove that non-circular definition of existence exists?
Well that depends on what you and others mean by "existence exists".
On the face of it the phrase "existence exists" is itself circular and
no more demonstrable than a phrase like "pointing points". It's just a
phrase taken as a root axiomatic assumption of truth by Ayn Rand in my
own personal experience whether others have used it or not I don't
know.
On the other hand if you're asking whether anything exists and is
capable of being unambiguously defined the answer is yes. I've done
exactly that on more than one occasion first in the root post to the
thread "Epistemology 201: The Science of Science" of two years ago and
more recently in the root post to the thread "Epistemology 401:
Tautological Mechanics" from a month ago.
I think that there is no such thing as "don't exist". It means that everything
exists and negation of existence is impossible. Problem is that word "existence"
is ambiguous and to explain my theory one must first resolve ambiguousness.
Yes, I don't expect anyone to believe me nor to agree with me.
You certainly won't be disappointed.
The technique of unambiguous definition and the definition of truth is
simply to show that all possible alternative are false. Empirics and
mathematikers generally prefer to base their definitions on
undemonstrable axiomatic assumptions of truth whereas I prefer to base
definitions of truth on finite mechanical tautological reduction to
self contradictory alternatives. The former technique is a practice in
mystical insight while the latter entails exhaustive analysis and
reduction in purely mechanical terms.
It is interesting but I didn't define my opinion about truth so I choose to say
nothing.
So I've noticed.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 07:14:48 AM |
|
|
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
I think that there is no such thing as "don't exist". It means that everything
exists and negation of existence is impossible. Problem is that word "existence"
is ambiguous and to explain my theory one must first resolve ambiguousness.
Tell us about four sided triangles.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "SucMucPaProlij" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 08:13:38 AM |
|
|
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:5624dnF27a28tU1@mid.individual.net...
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
I think that there is no such thing as "don't exist". It means that
everything exists and negation of existence is impossible. Problem is that
word "existence" is ambiguous and to explain my theory one must first resolve
ambiguousness.
Tell us about four sided triangles.
Bob Kolker
I don't want you to expect too much because this is not mathematical proof, it
is philosophical proof (or discussion). This is just the way how I explain
things to myself.
I don't agree with mathematikers who claim that points don't «really exist» and
it all starts with a simple story: if two lines intersect then there is a point
(thus it exists), but this point "really doesn't exist".
My question is: does this point exist or not? Do I have to choose between math
and reality and what math has to do with reality? If math has nothing to do with
reality why bother?
Mathematikers do claim that math has nothing to do with reality but if it is
true you can't use math to prove it because math has nothing to do with reality.
It means that there is little possibility that math has some connections with
real world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 08:38:37 AM |
|
|
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
I don't want you to expect too much because this is not mathematical proof, it
is philosophical proof (or discussion). This is just the way how I explain
things to myself.
If it ain't mathematics and it ain't physics, it is *****. Philsophy,
by and large, is academic style *****.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "SucMucPaProlij" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 09:22:12 AM |
|
|
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:5629arF26ac36U1@mid.individual.net...
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
I don't want you to expect too much because this is not mathematical proof,
it is philosophical proof (or discussion). This is just the way how I explain
things to myself.
If it ain't mathematics and it ain't physics, it is *****. Philsophy, by
and large, is academic style *****.
Isaak Newton: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
or "academic style *****"
Think first, reply latter, Bob!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 10:51:19 AM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 10:22 am, "SucMucPaProlij" <mrjohnpauldike2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Bob Kolker" <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:5629arF26ac36U1@mid.individual.net...
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
I don't want you to expect too much because this is not mathematical proof,
it is philosophical proof (or discussion). This is just the way how I explain
things to myself.
If it ain't mathematics and it ain't physics, it is *****. Philsophy, by
and large, is academic style *****.
Isaak Newton: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
or "academic style *****"
What was called "Natural Philosophy" in Newton's time is what
is now called "physics" and is not what is currently called
"philosophy".
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 06:13:36 PM |
|
|
On 17 Mar 2007 08:51:19 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mar 17, 10:22 am, "SucMucPaProlij" <mrjohnpauldike2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Bob Kolker" <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:5629arF26ac36U1@mid.individual.net...
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
I don't want you to expect too much because this is not mathematical proof,
it is philosophical proof (or discussion). This is just the way how I explain
things to myself.
If it ain't mathematics and it ain't physics, it is *****. Philsophy, by
and large, is academic style *****.
Isaak Newton: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
or "academic style *****"
What was called "Natural Philosophy" in Newton's time is what
is now called "physics" and is not what is currently called
"philosophy".
Actually it's what is now called empiricism.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 10:57:16 AM |
|
|
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
Isaak Newton: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
Natural Philosophy, the old name for Science. It was not metaphysics.
"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc
must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school
metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract
reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any
experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No.
Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry
and illusion."
An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume, one of the
few philosophers that ever made any sense.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 06:17:23 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:57:16 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
wrote:
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
Isaak Newton: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
Natural Philosophy, the old name for Science. It was not metaphysics.
Natural philosophy is the old name for empiricsm not science.
"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc
must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school
metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract
reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any
experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No.
Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry
and illusion."
Sophistry and illusion are what empirics employ to explain experiments
in terms of one another.
An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume, one of the
few philosophers that ever made any sense.
Unlike yourself, empirics, quantum speculators, and relativists.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wolf" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 09:40:51 PM |
|
|
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:5629arF26ac36U1@mid.individual.net...
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
I don't want you to expect too much because this is not mathematical proof,
it is philosophical proof (or discussion). This is just the way how I explain
things to myself.
If it ain't mathematics and it ain't physics, it is *****. Philsophy, by
and large, is academic style *****.
Isaak Newton: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
or "academic style *****"
Think first, reply latter, Bob!
In those days, "philosophy" meant what we now mean by "science."
--
Wolf
"Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
18 Mar 2007 01:04:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:40:51 -0500, Wolf <ElLoboViejo@ruddy.moss>
wrote:
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:5629arF26ac36U1@mid.individual.net...
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
I don't want you to expect too much because this is not mathematical proof,
it is philosophical proof (or discussion). This is just the way how I explain
things to myself.
If it ain't mathematics and it ain't physics, it is *****. Philsophy, by
and large, is academic style *****.
Isaak Newton: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
or "academic style *****"
Think first, reply latter, Bob!
In those days, "philosophy" meant what we now mean by "science."
Well I'd agree with you here, Wolf, except it's never really been
clear what science is supposed to be. The only thing really even close
in ancient times was Aristotle's organon or syllogism.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 10:19:26 AM |
|
|
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
Isaak (sic) Newton: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
or "academic style *****"
May I suggest:
"Newton's Principia for the Common Reader" by S. Chandrasekhar (1995)
Clarendon Press . Oxford
ISBN 0 19 851744 0
Quoting from "Great Physicists: The life and times of leading physicists
from Galileo to Hawking: by William H Cropper.
'For his final study, Chandra chose a remarkable subject--Isaac Newton.
Chandra was a student of science history and biography, and he had a wide
acquaintance among his contemporaries in physics and astrophysics. But for
him one scientist stood above all those of the past and present, and that
was Newton. He decided to pay homage to Newton, and try to fathom his genius,
by translating "for the common reader" the parts of Newton's Principia that
led to the formulation of the gravitational law.
'Newton relied on the geometrical arguments that are all but incomprehensible
to a modern audience. To make them more accessible, Chandra restated Newton's
proofs in the now conventional mathematical languages of algebra and calculus.
His method was to construct first his own proof for a proposition and then to
compare it with Newton's version. "The experience was a sobering one," he writes.
"Each time, I was left in sheer wonder at the elegance, the careful arrangement,
the imperial style, the incredible originality, and above all the astonishing
lightness of Newton's proofs, and each time I felt like a schoolboy admonished
by the master."'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 04:57:02 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
May I suggest:
"Newton's Principia for the Common Reader" by S. Chandrasekhar (1995)
Clarendon Press . Oxford
ISBN 0 19 851744 0
Yikes! $114 new and $82 used in paperback from Amazon. Wonder what
he means by common.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 04:59:14 PM |
|
|
Bob Cain wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
May I suggest:
"Newton's Principia for the Common Reader" by S. Chandrasekhar (1995)
Clarendon Press . Oxford
ISBN 0 19 851744 0
Yikes! $114 new and $82 used in paperback from Amazon. Wonder what
he means by common.
Go to a library.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
18 Mar 2007 11:47:26 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:59:14 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
May I suggest:
"Newton's Principia for the Common Reader" by S. Chandrasekhar (1995)
Clarendon Press . Oxford
ISBN 0 19 851744 0
Yikes! $114 new and $82 used in paperback from Amazon. Wonder what
he means by common.
Go to a library.
My Latin isn't what it used to be anyway, Bob.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
18 Mar 2007 01:01:17 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:57:02 -0700, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
May I suggest:
"Newton's Principia for the Common Reader" by S. Chandrasekhar (1995)
Clarendon Press . Oxford
ISBN 0 19 851744 0
Yikes! $114 new and $82 used in paperback from Amazon. Wonder what
he means by common.
Is that the Latin edition?
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SucMucPaProlij" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 09:46:56 AM |
|
|
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:5629arF26ac36U1@mid.individual.net...
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
I don't want you to expect too much because this is not mathematical proof,
it is philosophical proof (or discussion). This is just the way how I explain
things to myself.
If it ain't mathematics and it ain't physics, it is *****. Philsophy, by
and large, is academic style *****.
Reality check:
If I say "This is math" does it make it math just because I say so?
If I say "This is physics" does it make it physics just because I say so?
If I say "This is philosophy" does it make it philosophy just because I say so?
How can you tell if something is math, physics or philosophy if you never saw
this thing I talk about?
Introduce yourself with Shakespeare!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 06:18:23 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:46:56 +0100, "SucMucPaProlij"
<mrjohnpauldike2006@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:5629arF26ac36U1@mid.individual.net...
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
I don't want you to expect too much because this is not mathematical proof,
it is philosophical proof (or discussion). This is just the way how I explain
things to myself.
If it ain't mathematics and it ain't physics, it is *****. Philsophy, by
and large, is academic style *****.
Reality check:
If I say "This is math" does it make it math just because I say so?
If I say "This is physics" does it make it physics just because I say so?
If I say "This is philosophy" does it make it philosophy just because I say so?
How can you tell if something is math, physics or philosophy if you never saw
this thing I talk about?
Well mainly because academics say so.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 11:01:09 AM |
|
|
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:5629arF26ac36U1@mid.individual.net...
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
I don't want you to expect too much because this is not mathematical proof,
it is philosophical proof (or discussion). This is just the way how I explain
things to myself.
If it ain't mathematics and it ain't physics, it is *****. Philsophy, by
and large, is academic style *****.
Reality check:
If I say "This is math" does it make it math just because I say so?
If I say "This is physics" does it make it physics just because I say so?
If I say "This is philosophy" does it make it philosophy just because I say so?
How can you tell if something is math, physics or philosophy if you never saw
this thing I talk about?
First of all you are talking about abstractions so you cant literally
see them.
Second if you have learned some geometry or physics you will know it
when you encounter it (as in thinking about it).
Introduce yourself with Shakespeare!
Your posts are full of Sound and Fury. A Tale told by an Idiot.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "SucMucPaProlij" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 12:05:31 PM |
|
|
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:562hm6F2673reU4@mid.individual.net...
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:5629arF26ac36U1@mid.individual.net...
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
I don't want you to expect too much because this is not mathematical proof,
it is philosophical proof (or discussion). This is just the way how I
explain things to myself.
If it ain't mathematics and it ain't physics, it is *****. Philsophy, by
and large, is academic style *****.
Reality check:
If I say "This is math" does it make it math just because I say so?
If I say "This is physics" does it make it physics just because I say so?
If I say "This is philosophy" does it make it philosophy just because I say
so?
How can you tell if something is math, physics or philosophy if you never saw
this thing I talk about?
First of all you are talking about abstractions so you cant literally see
them.
if 1 is abstraction, can you see it?
1
ups! here is another 1.....
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Second if you have learned some geometry or physics you will know it when you
encounter it (as in thinking about it).
Is sentence "you will know when you see it" math, physics or "academic style
*****"?
Introduce yourself with Shakespeare!
Your posts are full of Sound and Fury. A Tale told by an Idiot.
Hahahahahaha Yeah right!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 06:20:15 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:01:09 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
wrote:
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:5629arF26ac36U1@mid.individual.net...
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
I don't want you to expect too much because this is not mathematical proof,
it is philosophical proof (or discussion). This is just the way how I explain
things to myself.
If it ain't mathematics and it ain't physics, it is *****. Philsophy, by
and large, is academic style *****.
Reality check:
If I say "This is math" does it make it math just because I say so?
If I say "This is physics" does it make it physics just because I say so?
If I say "This is philosophy" does it make it philosophy just because I say so?
How can you tell if something is math, physics or philosophy if you never saw
this thing I talk about?
First of all you are talking about abstractions so you cant literally
see them.
There wouldn't appear to be much that you can see, Bob.
Second if you have learned some geometry or physics you will know it
when you encounter it (as in thinking about it).
So geometry or physics are kinda like art?
Introduce yourself with Shakespeare!
Your posts are full of Sound and Fury. A Tale told by an Idiot.
Signifying Bob.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 06:12:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:38:37 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
wrote:
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
I don't want you to expect too much because this is not mathematical proof, it
is philosophical proof (or discussion). This is just the way how I explain
things to myself.
If it ain't mathematics and it ain't physics, it is *****. Philsophy,
by and large, is academic style *****.
I don't have any problem with that, Bob.Problem is so are SOAP operas.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 08:40:03 AM |
|
|
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
Mathematikers do claim that math has nothing to do with reality but if it is
true you can't use math to prove it because math has nothing to do with reality.
It means that there is little possibility that math has some connections with
real world.
Mathematics has an instrumental connection with the world. It makes
physics possible. Isaac Newton first had to invent calculus to develop a
physical theory of dynamic motion.
Without mathematics there is no physics.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "SucMucPaProlij" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 09:31:18 AM |
|
|
Mathematikers do claim that math has nothing to do with reality but if it is
true you can't use math to prove it because math has nothing to do with
reality. It means that there is little possibility that math has some
connections with real world.
Mathematics has an instrumental connection with the world. It makes physics
possible. Isaac Newton first had to invent calculus to develop a physical
theory of dynamic motion.
Without mathematics there is no physics.
And I agree but can you tell me does point exist?
How do you explain it?
You don't have to lecture me about Newton. Newton is not subject of this
discussion.
And you don't have to reply if you don't understand my question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 10:59:31 AM |
|
|
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
And I agree but can you tell me does point exist?
How do you explain it?
Point is an idea or a notion. It has no physical existence. Neither does
the integer 1.
Point is a place holder for an intuition about space. Nothing more.
Along with line, plane and a few other place holders they constitute the
undefined terms of geometry. Intuitive notions are useful guides for
finding logical proofs, but they have not probatory or logical standing.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hero" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 01:09:55 PM |
|
|
Bob Kolker wrote:
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
And I agree but can you tell me does point exist?
How do you explain it?
Point is an idea or a notion. It has no physical existence. Neither does
the integer 1.
Point is a place holder for an intuition about space. Nothing more.
Along with line, plane and a few other place holders they constitute the
undefined terms of geometry. Intuitive notions are useful guides for
finding logical proofs, but they have not probatory or logical standing.
Referring to .." they have not probatory...standing".
This associates: If You want to put down a glass onto a table and You
are holding it's base a bit skew it might get a standing, but being
pushed by someone at this moment it might tumble - and this has to do
with it's point of gravity.
With friendly greetings
Hero
PS. I just wonder, if a point relates to the word "pointing"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: The Definition of Points |
17 Mar 2007 02:01:13 PM |
|
|
On 17 Mar 2007 11:09:55 -0700, "Hero" <Hero.van.Jindelt@gmx.de> wrote:
Bob Kolker wrote:
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
And I agree but can you tell me does point exist?
How do you explain it?
Point is an idea or a notion. It has no physical existence. Neither does
the integer 1.
Point is a place holder for an intuition about space. Nothing more.
Along with line, plane and a few other place holders they constitute the
undefined terms of geometry. Intuitive notions are useful guides for
finding logical proofs, but they have not probatory or logical standing.
Referring to .." they have not probatory...standing".
This associates: If You want to put down a glass onto a table and You
are holding it's base a bit skew it might get a standing, but being
pushed by someone at this moment it might tumble - and this has to do
with it's point of gravity.
In other words for a glass to have probative value it can't be
probitive.
With friendly greetings
Hero
PS. I just wonder, if a point relates to the word "pointing"?
I'm convinced the phrase "pointing out" is definitely related to
"point". You can easily enough "point out" an irrational on a straight
line using rac construction but you can't "point out" a transcendental
on a straight line at all.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
