Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: A Point on Understanding
Replies: 66   Last Post: Jan 6, 2013 11:07 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 kirby urner Posts: 3,690 Registered: 11/29/05
Re: A Point on Understanding
Posted: Dec 29, 2012 9:52 PM

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Paul Tanner <upprho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This feeble attempt to change the subject won't work. The context here
> is denial of mathematical theorems, pure and simple. There is no
> debate in the denial of a theorem.
>

So may I conclude you're against this strategy of arguing pro and con a
mathematical proposition?

Lets remember that the calculus was not originally well received in
all corners because it seemed insufficiently justified. Newton's
early "proofs" were not always accepted as such, e.g. by Bishop
Berkeley, who thought Newton was putting one over on us. Berkeley
wasn't regarded as a crackpot by his peers, and a university was named
after him.

Likewise Kronecker thought Cantor was nuts (a crackpot) yet today
people celebrate parts of Cantor's thinking. Can a person be a genius
and a crackpot at the same time?

Wasn't Newton a crackpot where his alchemy was concerned? Or maybe
not, just a genius in a different way? Do you have an opinion?

Surely you're not suggesting mathematics should be presented as free
from controversy, as that would go against the historical facts.

Anyway, you seem to be changing the subject way from the question at hand.

Am I correct that you see each vertex approaching an ideal of 360
degrees around it (perfect flatness) at a limit?

Would that be a theorem or a definition?

Or might you say "as long as it's not a perfect sphere, but a
mathematical structure made of vertexes (V) connected by edges (E)
forming a spherical network of windowed openings (F), it's not
approaching true sphere-hood and therefore the sphere-at-the-limit
concept does not apply." ?

I assume you accept Descartes' Deficit as proved, so clearly each V
contributes a finite iotum to the total 720. There's no question of
us ever reaching some "ideal" of zero deficit as that would contradict
the need for 720 total. 720/n is never zero if n is an actual
integer.

Also: V + F == E + 2 (also provable in this case, but not necessarily
relevant -- included for review).

And: If N = V - 2 then N:F:E == 1:2:3 and V = 10 * f * f + 2 where f
= frequency (intervals between pentagons).

Kirby

Date Subject Author
12/15/12 Robert Hansen
12/17/12 kirby urner
12/18/12 Robert Hansen
12/17/12 Haim
12/18/12 Robert Hansen
12/26/12 kirby urner
12/26/12 Robert Hansen
12/26/12 kirby urner
12/27/12 Paul A. Tanner III
12/27/12 kirby urner
12/27/12 Robert Hansen
12/27/12 kirby urner
12/27/12 Robert Hansen
12/27/12 kirby urner
12/27/12 Robert Hansen
12/27/12 kirby urner
12/27/12 Robert Hansen
12/27/12 kirby urner
12/28/12 Paul A. Tanner III
12/28/12 kirby urner
12/28/12 Paul A. Tanner III
12/30/12 kirby urner
12/30/12 Louis Talman
12/30/12 kirby urner
12/30/12 kirby urner
12/30/12 kirby urner
12/30/12 Paul A. Tanner III
12/30/12 kirby urner
12/30/12 Paul A. Tanner III
12/27/12 Domenico Rosa
12/27/12 Robert Hansen
12/27/12 Richard Strausz
12/27/12 Domenico Rosa
12/30/12 Joe Niederberger
12/30/12 Paul A. Tanner III
12/30/12 Robert Hansen
12/30/12 Joe Niederberger
12/31/12 Robert Hansen
1/2/13 kirby urner
12/30/12 Joe Niederberger
1/1/13 Paul A. Tanner III
12/31/12 GS Chandy
12/31/12 Robert Hansen
1/1/13 GS Chandy
12/31/12 GS Chandy
12/31/12 Robert Hansen
12/31/12 Joe Niederberger
1/1/13 Robert Hansen
1/1/13 GS Chandy
1/1/13 GS Chandy
1/1/13 GS Chandy
1/1/13 Robert Hansen
1/1/13 Haim
1/1/13 Joe Niederberger
1/1/13 Joe Niederberger
1/1/13 Paul A. Tanner III
1/1/13 Louis Talman
1/2/13 Paul A. Tanner III
1/1/13 Joe Niederberger
1/2/13 Paul A. Tanner III
1/2/13 GS Chandy
1/2/13 Joe Niederberger
1/4/13 Joe Niederberger
1/5/13 GS Chandy
1/5/13 GS Chandy
1/6/13 Robert Hansen
1/6/13 GS Chandy