Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Calculus the only necessity for Graph Paper Eucl Geom #1272
Correcting Math 3rd ed

Replies: 4   Last Post: Nov 11, 2012 10:42 PM

 Search Thread: Advanced Search

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 adamk Posts: 1,492 Registered: 8/15/09
Re: Calculus the only necessity for Graph Paper Eucl Geom #1272 Correcting Math 3rd ed
Posted: Nov 11, 2012 10:42 PM
 Plain Text Reply

> Hate to say it, but so far, the only necessity demand
> for Graph Paper
> Euclidean Geometry is that of the Calculus.

Hate to say it, but you're knowledge of basic grammar

is below that of a third-grader. ..the only

necessity demand....? WTF . Go pick up a 3rd-grade

grammar book.
>
> The Calculus cannot exist within absolute-continuity
> of Old Math.

???? Another sentence written in your own private

grammar and language.

It
> cannot exist because it has zero width for picket
> fences in the
> summation of integration and it has no room to form a
> slope angle or
> tangent in the derivative.

??? Is this Esperanto, or something ???
>
> The Hyperbolic Geometry is also nonexistent within
> absolute-continuity
> because the legs of the triangle bow so much so that
> the sides cross
> over one another in order to have the vertex meet for
> both sides of
> the interior angle. This is also seen in Euclidean
> geometry where
> asymptotes such as F(x)
> = 1/x

That's not an asymptote, moron.

when the value of x becomes 10^603 the y value
> is 10^-603 and
> although you imagine that to be a open curve,

Undefined term in people mathematics, maybe you have

your own pig-definition?

it is
> closed at that
> moment since that is the infinity borderline.

Maybe it is because of some construction going on

at the moment?
>
> Calculus is probably enough of a correction to say
> that Euclidean
> Geometry is Graph Paper Geometry that has empty space
> between
> successive Real points.

Putting words together at random is not working for you.

Maybe if you write English sentences someone can comment.

Or, to put it in your language: table, boat is further

toaster than it is more hot than something which is

colder from it.
>
> Now I got out the graph paper last night and been
> playing around with
> it.

Finally doing something at your skill level. Try

crayons and paper next.
>
> I come up with this conjecture. I have no way of
> proving it
> and they are difficult proofs, I suspect, very
> difficult.

And difficulty is more for proving than to make

it easier to show it, right?
>
> Anyway, focused on two triangles, both
> right-triangles, the 3,4,5
> triangle and 1,1,sqrt2.
>
>
> It brings to question whether a Real triangle can
> have more points of
> intersection of Real on top of Real for its third
> side. The mind
> immediately thinks of the 45 degree angle as the
> third side but keep
> in mind it is the ruler of Reals applied to that 45
> degree diagonal
> that does not line up Real points with the diagonal.
> But I wonder if
> the diagonal is long enough that the Real points of
> the ruler start to
> coincide with the Real points of the graph, which the
> 3,4,5 triangle
> suggests that they match up in proper circumstances.
>
> Now I think that scalene and oblique triangles would
> be far easier to
> fulfill the condition that each side has two Real
> points of Reals on
> top of Reals in intersection.
>
> I do not know why these proofs would so difficult,
> but they look
> horribly tough.
>
> I guess they are so difficult is because mathematics
> has never
> ventured into these green pastures before and that
> who ever does so
> comes full of the Old Math view of Euclidean Geometry
> of absolute
> continuity.
>
> One thing that is neat, immediately is that given a
> line and a point
> not on the line there exists one line parallel to the
> given line, the
> parallel idea. What is neat in this Graph Paper
> Euclid geometry is
> that we can count a finite number of lines that are
> parallel, and not
> a infinitude of lines parallel between the point
> outside the line and
> the given line. For example the given line is the
> x-axis and the point
> outside is the point (10^-603, 10^-603) so the given
> line parallel to
> the x-axis is the line that contains the two
> Real points (10^-603, 10^-603) and (0, 10^-603). Now
> in Old Math they
> had an infinitude of more lines parallel between
> those two lines, but
> in New Math, there are zero
> more lines between those two parallel to the x-axis.
> So in New Math we
> quantize parallel lines, in Old Math, they packed
> infinite amounts of
> parallel lines.
>
> I guess Calculus is enough to cause the downfall of
> Old Math Euclidean
> Geometry.

True: all the bridges, buildings, machines, etc. built

using the assumptions of old math have collapsed,

and/or do not work anymore. Sure, idiot.

>
> But I still have not pinpointed why Elliptic Geometry
> cannot exist
> without empty space between Successive Reals. I do
> not recall ever a
> Calculus built from Elliptic Geometry, it was always
> built with
> Euclidean geometry and transfer the results to
> Elliptic geometry.

False. As usual, you have no idea of what you're talking

about, you have not bothered to do any research before

posting stupidities, "mr. scientist"

If
> there is a calculus built on the axioms of Elliptic
> geometry, then I
> would have a necessity demand for holes between
> Successive Reals.

There are holes of different type, usually denoted by

letters. The ones assigned to you are the a-holes.
>
> Google's New-Newsgroups censors AP posts but Drexel's
> Math Forum does
> not and my posts in archive form is seen here:
> http://sexwithanimals.com>
> Archimedes Plutonium
> http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.