Re: The Virgin Birth of Points
- From: David R Tribble <david@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:47:18 -0800 (PST)
David R Tribble wrote:
I think Lester is rejecting the notion that an uncountable
set (interval) of zero-width points can have a non-zero
measure, although it's always difficult to get a straight
line on his thinking.
Lester Zick wrote:
No difficulty whatsoever. I asked a perfectly reasonable question that
Hughes explain the rationale for what he claimed and he refused on the
grounds he couldn't discuss it with anyone to whom it wasn't obvious.
Bob Kolker was the only one willing to comment directly on the subject
so I'm not even sure why you bring it up at the late date. Obviously
you have nothing of relevance to say on the subject or you would have
brought it to everyones attention long ago.
Or maybe I'm just not that interested.
Bob's idea that the "union" of points is achieved through integration.
But that's absurd on the face of it since the converse of integration,
differentiation (or disintegration as I occasionally like to call it),
produces infinitesimals not points. And infinitesimals have direction
whereas points don't.
Would that "direction" be related to a tangent line?
And as far as anyone has been able to say there is no converse
operation to the "union" of points. Consequently no one has been able
to state exactly how points are produced to begin with other than the
classical intersection of lines of which lines are supposedly
composed. And exactly how it is that the "union" of non directional
points is supposed to produce any line remains a transcendental
mystery of the first order.
Maybe to you, but not to me.
Now I'm perfectly willing to revisit the subject. However I strongly
suspect you have nothing substantial to contribute except the
reiteration of neo mathematical doctrines regarding this and that.
I take it that any explanation I offer which resembles
standard accepted mathematical principles you will
then summarily reject. To be "substantial", it must fit
into your unorthodox concepts, otherwise you simply
brand it "dogma" and summarily ignore it as meaningless.
That's no way to carry on a civilized discussion.
least Bob had the temerity to acknowledge publicly there is no "real
number line" in formal terms whereas the only thing you've ever had
the temerity to acknowledge is that you don't like my style, which is
hardly original since demands for demonstrations of truth among
philosophers typically fall on deaf ears anyway just as they are now.
To be honest, I grew tired of your mathematical proclamations,
none of which you ever demonstrated as true, despite repeated
request from me and others for you to do so. I simply lost
interest in your non-standard and unsubstantiated concepts.
It's nothing personal; there are several other frequent
posters in sci.math who have also attempted in vain to
promote their unorthodox theories, and whom I have also
grown tired of.
You ask a lot of questions but you don't even have the courtesy to
acknowledge answers so I suspect we can take it as written that you
have nothing further to offer on this particular subject either except
your opinion of my forensic techniques and your recitation of modern
math doctrines which are of no interest to anyone because we can look
them up in any standard text.
But I still don't understand why you reject accepted
mathematics.
I come back to this thread every few days or so, but nothing
of interest has been written in it in a while. In his latest
posts Lester complains that people argue far too much
about personalities than on the mathematical/philisophical
issues.
I don't complain modern mathematikers argue far too much about
personalities; I complain they argue about nothing else because
they're neo platonic mystics and mathematical solipsists. Nature
abhors philosophers and nobody actually practices modern math anyway
except statisticians, empirics, and gamblers.
You seemed to be awfully worked up about the whole
business of mathematics. Do you believe you practice
modern math but no else does?
Infinitesimals do not exist on the real number line.
Infinitesimals do not have "directions" (whatever that means).
If someone asks you to make sense of these proclamations,
the rules of decent discussion dictate that you should
produce a logical argument that does so. I don't
understand what you mean by these terms, because
they don't appear to mean the same things as the terms
I know about.
Which is ironic in the extreme because of his
obsessive and regular insults aimed at anyone who
disagrees with him louder than usual.
I've never mind if one disagrees with me if there is some evidence for
the disagreement besides undemonstated opinions. There isn't. That's
what I insult.
Perhaps you should start with something simple, such as
showing how the real number line contains infinitesimals,
or explaining exactly what you mean by "point" since it
does not appear to be the same concept that everyone
else shares.
.
- References:
- Re: The Virgin Birth of Points
- From: David R Tribble
- Re: The Virgin Birth of Points
- Prev by Date: Solving for C
- Next by Date: Re: Haar measures existence
- Previous by thread: Re: The Virgin Birth of Points
- Next by thread: Re: The Virgin Birth of Points
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
