Date: Dec 29, 2012 9:52 PM
Author: kirby urner
Subject: Re: A Point on Understanding
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Paul Tanner <upprho@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> This feeble attempt to change the subject won't work. The context here

> is denial of mathematical theorems, pure and simple. There is no

> debate in the denial of a theorem.

>

So may I conclude you're against this strategy of arguing pro and con a

mathematical proposition?

Lets remember that the calculus was not originally well received in

all corners because it seemed insufficiently justified. Newton's

early "proofs" were not always accepted as such, e.g. by Bishop

Berkeley, who thought Newton was putting one over on us. Berkeley

wasn't regarded as a crackpot by his peers, and a university was named

after him.

Likewise Kronecker thought Cantor was nuts (a crackpot) yet today

people celebrate parts of Cantor's thinking. Can a person be a genius

and a crackpot at the same time?

Wasn't Newton a crackpot where his alchemy was concerned? Or maybe

not, just a genius in a different way? Do you have an opinion?

Surely you're not suggesting mathematics should be presented as free

from controversy, as that would go against the historical facts.

Anyway, you seem to be changing the subject way from the question at hand.

Am I correct that you see each vertex approaching an ideal of 360

degrees around it (perfect flatness) at a limit?

Would that be a theorem or a definition?

Or might you say "as long as it's not a perfect sphere, but a

mathematical structure made of vertexes (V) connected by edges (E)

forming a spherical network of windowed openings (F), it's not

approaching true sphere-hood and therefore the sphere-at-the-limit

concept does not apply." ?

I assume you accept Descartes' Deficit as proved, so clearly each V

contributes a finite iotum to the total 720. There's no question of

us ever reaching some "ideal" of zero deficit as that would contradict

the need for 720 total. 720/n is never zero if n is an actual

integer.

Also: V + F == E + 2 (also provable in this case, but not necessarily

relevant -- included for review).

And: If N = V - 2 then N:F:E == 1:2:3 and V = 10 * f * f + 2 where f

= frequency (intervals between pentagons).

Kirby