Re: Has anyone heard of a [-1;1] logic?

jgreenfield_at_seol.net.au
Date: 02/05/05 

Date: 4 Feb 2005 21:19:41 -0800

RP wrote:
> jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote:
>
> > Eric Gisse wrote:
> >
> >>jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote:
> >>
> >>>I have a long standing commitment to bare my arse on this group,
to
> >>>anyone who can provide an example of a "less than zero" physical
> >>>entity;
> >>>that is, a negative which represents other than a position
> >>>(coordinate), direction, or opposite.
> >>
> >>All you do when you bare your ass is blow *** everywhere.
> >
> >
> > Pick a proton, and an electron. Write the charge of one in terms
of
> > the
> >
> >>other. ONE of them is gonna be negative.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Prove it!!!!!
> > Stick your finger in a power socket, and record the "less than
zero"
> > jolt you get, fuckwit. By the look of your answers, you've done it
> > before. Positive/negative for protons and electrons are LABELS. You
> > could call them "up" and "down".
> > The "negative" description of an electron has F*A* to do with being
a
> > "less than zero" physical entity.
> >
> >>>In nature, there is "on/off", 1/0 and NO third choice (-1)
> >>>.....ALL a negative can represent is a "less than" something which
> >
> > is
> >
> >>>>0, but NEVER be less than 0, which is a natural, physical
> >>>
> >>>impossibility.
> >>
> >>Did you fail highschool algebra when the concept of negative
numbers
> >>were introduced?
> >
> >
> > Nope! Topped the class, because I realised that they are for
IMAGINARY
> > SITUATIONS, when the net result gives a less than zero answer.
> > That's why I realise that having (-5) electrons doesn't change them
> > into protons..........and you don't.
>
> I've come to a few conclusions on this subject. They may be with or
> without merit, but here they are:
>
> The - sign carries two distinct meanings, depending upon context.
> When adding and subtracting discrete objects the - sign is
independent
> of the dimension, e.g. "apple", "orange", etc., and indicates a
> deficit of a positive number of such objects. IOW,
>
> 2apples - 4apples = -(+2)apples.
>
> There are no real life situations in which more can be taken from
> less, and thus the 2 above refers to 2 members of a larger set of no
> less than 4 members total.

Just great! The answer can be ANYTHING, depending on how large the
UNKNOWN
set is ARBITRARILY said to be. Forget it....that is rubbish
>
> In the context of the Reals, e.g. homogenous functions, the - sign
> indicates displacement to the left of the zero point, the latter of
> which is arbitrarily chosen. Any such system of measures can be
> transformed to fall entirely within the + quadrant, thus eliminating
> negative quantities. Though the - sign will still enter into the
> equations, it will then correspond to deficit of some positive value,
> just as in the above argument.

No way!! c=c+v according to AE, remember? YOU have just ADDED to
"c"
>
> That we can arbitrarily set the zero point without incurring
> mathematical difficulties is no small wonder, but then I wouldn't say
> that there are actually "no difficulties", because there are still
> problems, decoding for instance which sign of an even root is the
> valid one in the given argument. I believe there are a few
> mathematical rules still awaiting discovery, perhaps involving some
> use of i in the equations such that it cancels out in equations not
> involving roots.

Supporters of the physics (Relativity) hierachy use (-1)x(-1)=(+1)
whenever it suits there position, and do a Gisse ie scream about people
not knowing simple math/algebra UNTIL a situation occurs when the
square root of a negative number is required to fit the theories, and
magically the "i" appears, where -1 x -1 NOT +1

...which is SR "logic" in a nutshell.

 We also have odd results such as negative frequency
> when the source is faster than the wave, which is of course a
nonsense
> result.

What? I can't hear a supersonic aircraft approach, but I can hear it
leave.

Arbitrarily designating the absolute value when this is what
> is desired works, but I feel that if the mathematical system were
> complete, this would be an unnecessary gesture, the correct sign
would
> emerge as a matter of course.
>
> Richard Perry

Think:
Does a line shrink to zero, and then "beyond" ie be <0 ?
Does pressure reduce to zero, and beyond ?
Or force (as above)
Or temperature ?

Answer:
If the result is "less than zero", then the ZERO was in the WRONG
PLACE!
  (human error)

eg If a temperature is found -400deg centigrade, then degrees Kelvin
need to be changed!

Jim G
c'=c+v