Date: Dec 27, 2012 7:55 PM
Author: kirby urner
Subject: Re: A Point on Understanding
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 epsilon-delta? 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