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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 2012, at 7:35 PM, kirby urner <email@example.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
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