
Re: what a real rebuttal of AP's claim of a contradiction in the heart of Geometry looks like #35.9 Unitext 8th ed.: TRUE CALCULUS
Posted:
Nov 2, 2013 10:47 PM


On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 17:30:28 0700 (PDT), Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>On Saturday, November 2, 2013 5:48:29 PM UTC5, Wally W. wrote: >> On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 15:34:44 0700 (PDT), Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Saturday, November 2, 2013 3:13:23 PM UTC5, 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 lightyears 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? >> > >If math is a subset of physics, then math ends far earlier than physics. > >> >> >> >> >> >So 10^603 is a safe bet that infinity of physics and math is there. >> >> >> >> Your mathematics is based on a bet?! >> > >Its based on several proofs Euler formula of regular polyhedra, pseudosphere to sphere surface area, Riemann Hypothesis at infinity. All of which is over your head. > >> >> >> What if someone found that infinity is actually at 10^604? >> > >It may well be, but I was close enough. > >> >> >> What would this do to your mathematics? >> >> > >Nothing, but show that others, slowly and gradually realized that the most important quest of modern day mathematics is to pin down the borderline of finite with infinity rather than all those other goofball activities they waste their time upon. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >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. >> > >So, it is your brainwashed memorizations of High School coupled with your preconceptions as superior to every one else. > >You are forgetting that you never rebutted any of my claims, but just offered sentences of contrary statements. You are so vapid in logic that you do not even know what a rebuttal is. > >Let me show you at the end here what a rebuttal looks like. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. > > >Can I call you Wally the Illogical Walrus? For let me show you what a rebuttal looks like. > >AP Claim: > >(1) point has no length, width, depth >(2) line has length but no width and depth > >Contradiction: because a line composed of just points, all of which have no length, or 0 length when added up yields 0 length. > >How to correct the Contradiction? Find the finite to infinity borderline which gives a microinfinity which acts as "empty space between two successive finite points" thus giving the two points a length. So that a line in Geometry, True Geometry is a finite point with empty space and then the next finite point with empty space and then the next finite point with empty space for however long that line is. > >What a Wally Walrus rebuttal should look like: > >(1) point has no length, width, depth >(2) line has length but no width and depth > >So, as points become more dense and more dense they become closer together.
They don't *become* more dense. They always existed. How do you *create* points? From what do you create them?
>Visualize a point as a tiny circle or tiny sphere.
You want to give it size. It has none.
>As you make them more and more dense they crowd together.
I don't *make* points. How do you?
>At some moment of density,
A critical mass of points. Is there then a chain reaction to initiate a Big Bang?
>the points are so close together that they touch one point to the neighbor point.
Then there is no greater perception of density, right?
This happens when they are 10^603 units of distance apart? BTW: you never clarified whether this distance was measured in lightyears or microns. There are 22 orders of magnitude difference at stack in this distinction.
If you say points can be no closer than 10^603 lightyears apart, what do you say to someone who has defined points 10^603 microns apart? They have points spaced 10^625 lightyears apart. Your minimum point spacing seems to be inadequate for their use.
>This moment is called a continuum of points,
By whom?
>and although each point has 0 length,
If you visualize a point as "a tiny circle or tiny sphere" then it does not have zero length.
Tiny things have size.
>when they touch one another, they begin to form a length.
A length is associated with any distance between points, continuous or not.
>That is what a real rebuttal begins to look like there Wally,
Or not.
>not your sentences of contrary to everything I write.
Not everything.
>But of course you never studied logic in school and all of this if foreign to you. > >AP
Are we having fun yet?

