Re: Beginning ?


Dean Elliot wrote:
> "TomGee" <lvlus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1114805767.059509.228810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Dean Elliot wrote:
> > "TomGee" <lvlus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1114712959.479217.262360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Whoa, I did not say they are the same thing - you said that, not
> me.
> > > As you infer above with your question, I said they are not the
same
> > > thing.
> >
> > Whoa, I did not say that you said that they were the same thing.
> >
> > > A group is a number of things thought of as being or belonging
> > > together, while discrete objects are:
> > group
> >
> >
SNIP redundant definitions.
> >
> >
> > You initially said: "Take 3 apples". That's a group.
> >
> >
> Yes, and I meant to say that, so as to make the distinction between a
> group and the fact that there is no such thing as a single "3apples".
> Are you arguing that there is such a thing? Or what?
>
> "Take 3 apples. The apples are real, but the no. 3 is their quantity
> and not part of them. There is no such thing as a 3apples."
>
> >
> > > "1. completely separate: completely separate and unconnected
> > > 2. mathematics finite: used to describe elements or variables
that
> > are
> > > distinct, unrelated, and have a finite number of values "
> > > Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004
> Microsoft
> > > Corporation. All rights reserved.
> > >
> > > A single apple is distinct as one apple. Two or more apples,
> however,
> > > constitute not a single apple but a group of apples whenever they
> are
> > > considered together. Thus, we can have 3 apples as a group, but
> not
> > as
> > > a single apple, speaking both physically and grammatically.
> >
> > > There is no such thing as a single "3apple" in Nature unless we
> create
> > > it and arbitrarily name it as such. We could, I'm sure, graft
> seeds
> > > such that we could grow 3-in-1 apples, but that is simply taking
3
> > > discrete objects and merging their parts so as to create a single
> > > object. Then there could exist a "3apple" single object, so
named,
> > but
> > > AFAIK, it has not been done.
> >
> > What has that got to do with a 3apples? Especially since the
> definition
> > of "distinct objects" that you provide claims that the objects are
> > unrelated (they are all apples).
> >
> >
> So are you arguing that there is such a thing as a single "3apples",
or
> are you arguing that the 3 apples are a group? If the latter, I made
> that statement and you agree with it. If the former, I disagree.
> >
> >
> > But even if they were distinct objects,
> > by "taking 3 apples" as you have done, you've created a group of 3
> > apples. When you "take 3 apples", the quantity is intrinsic to the
> group
> > and is a part of it.
> >
> >
> I never said it was not. In fact, I insist that is so. It is the
fact
> that you are considering more than one apple which makes it a group.
> If you think I said that 3 apples don't make a group, you are
mistaken.
> >
> >
> > Your claim: "The apples are real, but the no. 3 is their quantity
and
> > not part of them. There is no such thing as a 3apples."
> > By your original definition that began "take 3 apples" it can only
be
> > concluded that it is a group of 3 apples.
> >
> >
> Yes, that's exactly what I said, but you apparently misunderstood
what
> you read.
> >
> >
> > Therefore, the no. 3 is part of the group. It is even part of the
> name
> > 3apples.
> >
> >
> No, that's patently false. You cannot support your conclusions above
> with any sort of proper logic or reasonable thought. That is your
own
> opinion and in my opinion, you're wrong about that. The number 3 is
> part of the group, as I have already said, but being part of a name
> does not mean that the named object is real. Again, there is no such
> thing as a "3apples", and if that is your argument, you're wrong.
> >
> >
> > Are you are trying to say that by creating a group of 3 apples you
> don't
> > change the apples? That is in effect wrong. You change something
> merely
> > by the act of measuring it (hence the uncertainty principle).
> >
> >
> No, sorry, the Uncertainty Principle has to do with quantum events
and
> not - repeat - not macro events. You cannot elevate the Principle to
> the level of our everyday world just by a magical wave of your hand.
I
> know many have done that very same thing, but that is one reason why
I
> post here, because your teachers did not stop you all from making
such
> errors, probably because they themselves believe that to be true, but
> someone has to do it.
> >
> >
> > I ask again, what is a 3apples if not a group of 3 apples.
> >
> >
> : have already explained it to you, but you apparently cannot
> : |understand it and so you argue that 3 apples are a group, which is
> what
> : I said from the beginning. For whatever reason you cannot see your
> : errors, it is beyond my being able to change your mind, no matter
how
> : reasonable are my arguments.
>
> Fascinating non-sense.
>
>
No. What I said is perfectly logical.
>
>
> You say that you have already explained it, which
> you haven't and claim that that's the reason for not explaining it.
>
>
False. I have explained it now 3 times and still you cannot read to
see that is true. It is not my fault that you cannot understand what
you read.
>
>
> You
> say that that's the reason why I argue that 3apples is a group and
then
> say that that's what you said from the beginning, which you didn't.
>
>
False again. That is precisely what I said. You misundertood it for
your convenience or whatever, but it's there in B and W forever for all
to see.
>
>
> You
> say that it's not a group. You say that it doesn't exist. What you
don't
> say anywhere at any time is what a 3apples is.
>
>
False again. I said a 3apples is non-existent. What part of that do
you not understand?
>
>
> You can make spurious
> claims all that you want, but it doesn't change the truth. It's very
> simple, since you have demonstrated that you incapable of stating the
> difference between a 3apples and a group of 3 apples: Tell me what
you
> think a 3apples is. Then even I will understand what you're trying to
> say. Don't equivicate. Don't make excuses.
>
>
If I thought that when I said that a 3apples is non-existent it was a
very difficult to understand statement, I could understand your
confusion, but it is a most simple statement, short and to the point,
and unambiguous in its clear use of English grammar. If you cannot see
that I already said what I think a 3apples is when I said, "a 3apples
is non-existent", the fault for that lies with you, not with me.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Beginning ?
    ... >>> A single apple is distinct as one apple. ... Two or more apples, ... For whatever reason you cannot see your ... > you haven't and claim that that's the reason for not explaining it. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Beginning ?
    ... > Dean Elliot wrote: ... >> If you think I said that 3 apples don't make a group, ... For whatever reason you cannot see ... >> you haven't and claim that that's the reason for not explaining it. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Ambiguity
    ... answer to Q1 is interesting in that it is wrong for the wrong reason. ... Who Graded This Exam? ... If you had three apples and four oranges in one hand and four ... How can u drop a raw egg onto a concrete floor without cracking ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: A Quiz
    ... What is the main reason for divorce? ... If you had three apples and four oranges in one hand and four ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: Beginning ?
    ... >> If you think I said that 3 apples don't make a group, ... For whatever reason you cannot see ... >> you haven't and claim that that's the reason for not explaining it. ... No one has ever seen a flat Earth either, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)