Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: *** CRANK ALERT ***
Replies: 23   Last Post: Jul 10, 2014 10:00 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Tim Golden BandTech.com

Posts: 20
Registered: 8/15/13
Re: 1.93 - Did anyone understand what Euclid had to say about number
before John Gabriel?

Posted: Jul 6, 2014 7:21 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Sunday, July 6, 2014 7:55:52 AM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:
> A unit is the result of a ratio where the magnitudes are equal, that is, x:x, y:y, u:u, etc.
>
>
>
> This was a quantum leap in the development of number. From the abstraction of the unit, one now has a standard of measurement.


This is a false statement. The unit of the real line is assigned arbitrarily. One group chose the inch, and another the meter. When I draw a real line on paper I arbitrarily tick off positive unity, and then other positions can be graphed.

The ratio does nothing for this. By your logic the people working in meters will forever be pointing their finger at a subgroup who works in inches, and vice versa, and both will be attempting to resolve why the other's parts always scale by 0.024, while both groups (under your theory) will believe that they have a standard of measurement that is universal.

It is a fair criticism of the real numbers (in my opinion) to point out this fact that unity is arbitrarily assigned, so it seems from my position that you've detailed a valid topic, but have not actually resolved the issue. Perhaps from your own context you have, so I am open to being corrected. I think though that your language will need revision.


Date Subject Author
7/6/14
Read *** CRANK ALERT ***
Dan Christensen
7/6/14
Read wTf is new about THAT
Brian Q. Hutchings
7/6/14
Read Re: 1.93 - Did anyone understand what Euclid had to say about number
before John Gabriel?
Tim Golden BandTech.com
7/6/14
Read he just hates shakESpear, and I'm just hiding behind the grammrian(s
Brian Q. Hutchings
7/6/14
Read Re: 1.93 - Did anyone understand what Euclid had to say about number before John Gabriel?
Casual Observer
7/7/14
Read Re: 1.93 - Did anyone understand what Euclid had to say about number before John Gabriel?
Casual Observer
7/7/14
Read Re: 1.93 - Did anyone understand what Euclid had to say about number before John Gabriel?
Casual Observer
7/7/14
Read Re: 1.93 - Did anyone understand what Euclid had to say about number before John Gabriel?
Casual Observer
7/7/14
Read Re: 1.93 - Did anyone understand what Euclid had to say about number before John Gabriel?
Casual Observer
7/6/14
Read Re: 1.93 - Did anyone understand what Euclid had to say about number before John Gabriel?
SPQR
7/7/14
Read Re: 1.93 - Did anyone understand what Euclid had to say about number before John Gabriel?
PianoMan
7/7/14
Read Re: 1.93 - Did anyone understand what Euclid had to say about number before John Gabriel?
Casual Observer
7/7/14
Read raNOUtoFAbAr
Brian Q. Hutchings
7/8/14
Read Re: 1.93 - Did anyone understand what Euclid had to say about number
before John Gabriel?
John Gabriel
7/8/14
Read Re: 1.93 - Did anyone understand what Euclid had to say about number
before John Gabriel?
Dan Christensen
7/8/14
Read Re: 1.93 - Did anyone understand what Euclid had to say about number
before John Gabriel?
John Gabriel
7/8/14
Read Re: 1.93 - Did anyone understand what Euclid had to say about number
before John Gabriel?
Brian Q. Hutchings
7/10/14
Read why did the untamed jungle fowl cross the iway
Brian Q. Hutchings

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.