Re: Beginning ?


Dean Elliot wrote:
> "TomGee" <lvlus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1114884888.656679.298440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 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.
>
> Lots of things don't exist (a flat Earth, for example). That doesn't
> mean that it doesn't have a definition.
>
>
I'll give you that, but do you have a definition for it? I've asked
you for it but you have yet to offer it. I have already explained that
your claiming that it is a group of 3 apples is patently false, so
don't try to claim that again.
>
>
> You define something by listing its attributes. In other words, what
> collection of attributes is a 3apples?
>
>
How could anyone say for sure what its attributes are if no one has
ever seen one because it is non-existent?
>
>
> It is non-sense to say that a 3apples is a thing that doesn't exist
and
> that distinguishes from any of the other things that don't exist.
>
>
No one said that, unless you said it and I missed it.
>
>
> (For
> example, why didn't you just say "Take 3 apples..... a flat Earth
> doesn't exist."?)
>
>
I see no reason for me to have made such a statment.
>
>
> You obviously meant it to refer a set of 3 apples, or some other
aspect
> of the situation in which "you take 3 apples". That was the context
in
> which you used it.
>
>
You obviously took it to mean that was what I meant to do, but you
obviously took it wrong. You seem to want to claim that I meant to say
that a group of 3 apples is the same as a "3apples". But I distinctly
said quite the opposite and undeniably so. You have worked yourself
into a corner and like those little furry animals which when cornered
fight to escape, you are trying to confuse the issue. But like I said
before, it is all there for posterity and forever so. No matter how
much you wish it had happened the way you want it to, it did not. How
long can you keep this nonsense up?
>
>
> Can you say what you think a 3apples is? How does it differ from a
flat
> Earth? Can you attribute any properties to it at all?
>
>
No, I can't, can you?

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • 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 ?
    ... >>> 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)
  • 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)