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: the ugly contradiction at the heart of High School Geometry #35.3
Uni-text 8th ed.: TRUE CALCULUS

Replies: 24   Last Post: Nov 3, 2013 7:44 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Wally W. Posts: 283 Registered: 6/15/11
Re: why the nonscientist has such a difficult time of comprehending what a contradiction is and what it means
Posted: Nov 2, 2013 6:57 PM

On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 15:34:44 -0700 (PDT), Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

>On Saturday, November 2, 2013 3:13:23 PM UTC-5, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 13:06:50 -0700 (PDT), Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>

>(snip)
>>
>> Okay, your "geometry" can't handle points less than 10^-603 units of
>>
>> distance (are those light-years or microns?) apart.
>>

>
>There are few things in physics of over 10^200. There is nothing I know of in physics that is 10^300.

There is nothing we can perceive smaller than the Planck limit. Does
that mean it is impossible for anything to be there?

>So 10^603 is a safe bet that infinity of physics and math is there.

Your mathematics is based on a bet?!

What if someone found that infinity is actually at 10^604?

What would this do to your mathematics?

>In fact, if you could comprehend mathematics and my demonstration that the pseudosphere surface area matches the related sphere area when in the region of 10^603, you would begin to see that infinity for mathematics is 10^603.
>
>My geometry is far better than yours for yours is a contradiction of point and line, and worse, yours cannot yield any Calculus.
>
>

>>
>>
>> You have created a system where the butterfly effect can't exist below
>>
>> the precision of your measurements.
>>

>
>What a silly irrelevant topic. Those lacking in logic have about every other sentence as a irrelevant topic.

No, you ignore what doesn't fit your preconception.

>>
>>
>> Nice step backwards!
>>

>
>Nice step forwards for me, and you were never in the subject of math or science. You were a total outsider.
>
>

>>
>>
>> Maybe you have something to teach Aristotle.
>>

>
>Another irrelevancy. I am sure you are incurably unteachable, for you have no logic to build up any science.
>

>>
>>
>> Your new geometry is of limited usefulness in the 21st century.

>
>Coming from somebody who was never in math or science.
>
>My advice to you, although you are too gloated and arrogant, is why not try to learn from others rather than your "snit and snivel" on others who have something to say.

And yet, you have offered little other than insult in rebuttal.

>Please, no more from you, because you obviously have no math content of note.

IOW: I make observations that you can't rebut with more than insults.