
Re: A Point on Understanding
Posted:
Dec 27, 2012 7:55 PM


On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Robert Hansen <bob@rsccore.com> wrote: > > On Dec 27, 2012, at 7:35 PM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@gmail.com> wrote: > > Answer: we don't need the concept of "limit" to shape the question in > the first place. This isn't a math language where "perfect > continuity" is even defined, let alone necessary. This isn't > calculus. So what? Most of math isn't. > > > So why did you bring in epsilondelta? That was like mixing apples and > furniture. >
I think someone coming from a calculus background should not be discouraged from those habits of thought. They're useful in calculus. There's definitely an "if frequency > delta then 360  v < epsilon" aspect to the puzzle.
I anticipate this being a conundrum, whether I bring it up or not. I took it from a published source.
> Why didn't you just say "Can a curve be flat if I define a curve as not > being flat?" The answer is clearly, No. > > Bob Hansen
The polyhedron starts out looking spherical (round anyway) and gets more and more spherical. Clearly it's not approaching "perfect flatness" *at all* as f increases. It just gets more smoothly rounded, like a bowling ball (but under the microscope, we see discrete vertexes).
Kirby

