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: Matheology § 170
Replies: 41   Last Post: Dec 8, 2012 5:35 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de

Posts: 14,720
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology § 170
Posted: Dec 7, 2012 12:47 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 6 Dez., 18:56, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
wrote:
> In article <8fdbfffe-9ad4-4409-a70a-f26497c59...@o6g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
>

> >On 5 Dez., 19:54, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
> >> In article <0e301358-0106-4609-b628-14da5781d...@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
> >1
> >11
> >111

>
> >> >In mathematics a triangle is defined by one angle and its two sides.
>
> >> No, in mathematics a triangle is defined by either its three vertices or
> >> its three sides. Two rays with a common endpoint define an angle, but not
> >> a triangle.

>
> >Two *sides* with an angle defined by these sides define a triangle.
>
> Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.


Have you never learned geometry in elementary school?
>
> From Wikipedia[1]:
>
>   "A triangle is one of the basic shapes of geometry: a polygon with
>   three corners or vertices and three sides or edges which are line
>   segments."


Just that can be constructed by one angle and two complete sides.
>
> and:
>
>   "In Euclidean geometry any three points, when non-collinear, determine
>   a unique triangle [...]"
>

That does not deny that an angle and two sides determine a triangle.
Never learned logic?

> Both of these refer to the need for three vertices; neither of them says
> that one is enough.


First try to understand that a line of length aleph_0 units is shorter
than a line of lengths 2^aleph_0 units. Or understand that this all is
Cantor-humbug in arithmetic too.

> Something with rays, as WM proposes, would not be a "closed plane figure",
> which all of these competing definitions require.


You have to distinguish between potential and completed infinity. Of
course the sensible definition of potential infinity does not allow to
construct that triangle. But it also gives no quantity for the height.
Complete infinity gives a quantity for the height, which can be
surpassed. Therefore the question is: What about the third side? Has
it a width of aleph_0 units too?

Regards, WM


Date Subject Author
12/4/12
Read Matheology § 170
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/4/12
Read Re: Matheology � 170
Virgil
12/4/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/4/12
Read Re: Matheology � 170
Virgil
12/5/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/5/12
Read Re: Matheology � 170
Virgil
12/5/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/5/12
Read Re: Re: Matheology § 170
Michael Stemper
12/6/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/6/12
Read Re: Matheology � 170
Virgil
12/6/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/6/12
Read Re: Matheology � 170
Virgil
12/7/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/7/12
Read Re: Matheology � 170
Virgil
12/8/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/8/12
Read Re: Matheology � 170
Virgil
12/8/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/8/12
Read Re: Matheology � 170
Virgil
12/6/12
Read Re: Re: Matheology § 170
Michael Stemper
12/7/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/7/12
Read Re: Matheology � 170
Virgil
12/8/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/8/12
Read Re: Matheology � 170
Virgil
12/8/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/8/12
Read Re: Matheology � 170
Virgil
12/4/12
Read Re: Matheology � 170
Scott Berg
12/5/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/5/12
Read Re: Matheology � 170
Virgil
12/6/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/6/12
Read Re: Matheology � 170
Virgil
12/6/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/6/12
Read Re: Matheology � 170
Virgil
12/6/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/6/12
Read Re: Matheology � 170
Virgil
12/7/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/7/12
Read Re: Matheology � 170
Virgil
12/8/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/8/12
Read Re: Matheology � 170
Virgil
12/8/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/8/12
Read Re: Matheology � 170
Virgil
12/6/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
David R Tribble
12/6/12
Read Re: Matheology § 170
netzweltler

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.