The infinite is infinitely large number. Infinitely large number is infinitely large in SIZE. This may be true if unit is discrete and finite in size. The idea that 'infinitely large in number must be infinitely large in size' does not apply to anything that is supposed to be compact, continuous, homogeneous and consistent like space or time. 'Compact, continuous, homogeneous and consistent' is verbal description of a quality (nothingness). This quality also has a numerical description: If the product of zero and infinity is a finite unit or ONE OF ANY FINITE SIZE, then the thing is compact, continuous, homogeneous and consistent. (Mass of any magnitude is 'one' in natural radioactive decay.) Therefore to measure time, length and mass we have to use a standard unit of measurement. Q=[N](w) where w is the standard unit of measurement, specifies quantity. I call the expression [N](w) as 'myquantifier'. (I am not using the word 'quantifier' in this context because the word, with a different meaning, is already in use.) If we remove any one of the two elements of expression from 'myquantifier' the thing is NOT quantified. Are calculations without quantification permissible in science? If we use numbers without unit (w) then it means that number directly gives the size, that is, [N]=size. 'myquantifier' is extruded from geometry because in geometry numbers directly give size. Logically pure numbers cannot directly 'constitute' any information without resorting to spatial SELF-REFERENCE. In geometry we correlate (Length/length) or [N] and length/length or [N]. This is the reason why we can form an idea of a circle instantaneously without dimension. If we do calculations without the use of 'myquantifier' and do calculations only using numbers without unit, in the manner we do in pure mathematics can it make any sense?
> The infinite is infinitely large number. Infinitely large number is > infinitely large in SIZE. This may be true if unit is discrete and > finite in size.
[snip]
If you read what you wrote you would be barfing with the rest of us. Which infinity, spewing moron? The countable infinity of the number of integers, the uncountable infinity of the number of points on a line, or one of the other infinitely larger infinities?
India has 1.1 billion assholes and 1 million flush toilets. Before you worry about infinities, concern yourself with small integers.
"Those made captives were forced to clean bucket latrines and throw human excreta at distant places. After those captives were released, they were not accepted by their caste men; hence they formed a separate caste of 'Bhangis.' This class became a hereditary occupational group with a fixed role and status in the society. The nature of work pushed them to the lowest stratum of the social hierarchy."
-- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
> > The infinite is infinitely large number. Infinitely large number is > > infinitely large in SIZE. This may be true if unit is discrete and > > finite in size. > [snip]
> If you read what you wrote you would be barfing with the rest of us. > Which infinity, spewing moron? The countable infinity of the number > of integers, the uncountable infinity of the number of points on a > line, or one of the other infinitely larger infinities?
> India has 1.1 billion assholes and 1 million flush toilets. Before > you worry about infinities, concern yourself with small integers.
> "Those made captives were forced to clean bucket latrines and throw > human excreta at distant places. After those captives were released, > they were not accepted by their caste men; hence they formed a > separate caste of 'Bhangis.' This class became a hereditary > occupational group with a fixed role and status in the society. The > nature of work pushed them to the lowest stratum of the social > hierarchy."
Geometry is fundamentally based on uncountable number of points on a line. Infinity lies within a finite one. We do not have to use units of length in geometry. 1, 2 3,----- etc indicate 1X, 2X, 3X, ......number of points, where X is a constant indicating number of points between integers. Geometry (hyperbola) shows that 0 and infinity reach 1 at the same time but without showing any number between 1 and 0 and 1 and infinity. There are some who feel great by being indignified to others. Such outbursts are a sign of infiriority complex of the INDIVIDUAL. It is unfortunate that AT TIMES materialism destroys sympathy and culture, in good sense of the term. I will continue, it helps me to learn more, by allowing me to understand the physical mode of thinking of those who reply.
> > The infinite is infinitely large number. Infinitely large number is > > infinitely large in SIZE. This may be true if unit is discrete and > > finite in size. > [snip]
> If you read what you wrote you would be barfing with the rest of us. > Which infinity, spewing moron? The countable infinity of the number > of integers, the uncountable infinity of the number of points on a > line, or one of the other infinitely larger infinities?
> India has 1.1 billion assholes and 1 million flush toilets. Before > you worry about infinities, concern yourself with small integers.
> "Those made captives were forced to clean bucket latrines and throw > human excreta at distant places. After those captives were released, > they were not accepted by their caste men; hence they formed a > separate caste of 'Bhangis.' This class became a hereditary > occupational group with a fixed role and status in the society. The > nature of work pushed them to the lowest stratum of the social > hierarchy."
vgopa...@rediffmail.com (V.Gopal) wrote in message <news:38af3945.0210041003.7a4f8f49@posting.google.com>... > The infinite is infinitely large number. Infinitely large number is > infinitely large in SIZE. This may be true if unit is discrete and > finite in size. The idea > that 'infinitely large in number must be infinitely large in size' > does not apply to anything that is supposed to be compact, continuous, > homogeneous and consistent like space or time. 'Compact, continuous, > homogeneous and consistent' > is verbal description of a quality (nothingness). This quality also > has a numerical description: If the product of zero and infinity is a > finite unit or ONE OF ANY FINITE SIZE, then the thing is compact, > continuous, homogeneous and consistent. (Mass of any magnitude is > 'one' in natural radioactive decay.) Therefore to measure time, length > and mass we have to use a standard unit of measurement. Q=[N](w) where > w is the standard unit of measurement, specifies quantity. I call the > expression [N](w) as 'myquantifier'. (I am not using the word > 'quantifier' in this context because the word, with a different > meaning, is already in use.) If we remove any one of the two elements > of expression from 'myquantifier' the thing is NOT quantified. Are > calculations without quantification permissible in science? If we use > numbers without unit (w) then it means that number directly gives the > size, that is, [N]=size. 'myquantifier' is extruded from geometry > because in geometry numbers directly give size. Logically pure numbers > cannot directly 'constitute' any information without resorting to > spatial SELF-REFERENCE. In geometry we correlate (Length/length) or > [N] and length/length or [N]. This is the reason why we can form an > idea of a circle instantaneously without dimension. If we do > calculations without the use of 'myquantifier' and do calculations > only using numbers without unit, in the manner we do in pure > mathematics can it make any sense?
Geometrically the Planck lenght has no basis is logic,if something has a lenght,a circumference can be drawn around this lenght and if so,a radius half the original lenght can be determined.As this half Planck lenght also constitutes a discrete lenght you just start over again by determining a circumference from this half lenght and on and on as a infinite regression.
The method above uses a greater lenght to determine a smaller lenght so the logic is sound,what is not sound is that where current models determine that there is a mathematical cutoff point for geometry where none exists.
>From: geraldkelle...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) >The method above uses a greater lenght to determine a smaller lenght >so the logic is sound,what is not sound is that where current models >determine that there is a mathematical cutoff point for geometry >where none exists.
and the same sort of "human limiting" happens in basic addition of speeds.
They create walls. That do not exist. (simply so thier "other walls that also do not exist" can seem to exist) :)
>The infinite is infinitely large number. Infinitely large number is >infinitely large in SIZE. This may be true if unit is discrete and >finite in size. The idea >that 'infinitely large in number must be infinitely large in size' >does not apply to anything that is supposed to be compact, continuous, >homogeneous and consistent like space or time. 'Compact, continuous, >homogeneous and consistent' >is verbal description of a quality (nothingness). This quality also >has a numerical description: If the product of zero and infinity is a >finite unit or ONE OF ANY FINITE SIZE, then the thing is compact, >continuous, homogeneous and consistent. (Mass of any magnitude is >'one' in natural radioactive decay.) Therefore to measure time, length >and mass we have to use a standard unit of measurement. Q=[N](w) where >w is the standard unit of measurement, specifies quantity. I call the >expression [N](w) as 'myquantifier'. (I am not using the word >'quantifier' in this context because the word, with a different >meaning, is already in use.) If we remove any one of the two elements >of expression from 'myquantifier' the thing is NOT quantified. Are >calculations without quantification permissible in science? If we use >numbers without unit (w) then it means that number directly gives the >size, that is, [N]=size. 'myquantifier' is extruded from geometry >because in geometry numbers directly give size. Logically pure numbers >cannot directly 'constitute' any information without resorting to >spatial SELF-REFERENCE. In geometry we correlate (Length/length) or >[N] and length/length or [N]. This is the reason why we can form an >idea of a circle instantaneously without dimension. If we do >calculations without the use of 'myquantifier' and do calculations >only using numbers without unit, in the manner we do in pure >mathematics can it make any sense?
geraldkelle...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message <news:273f8e06.0210050424.1f1302e3@posting.google.com>... > vgopa...@rediffmail.com (V.Gopal) wrote in message <news:38af3945.0210041003.7a4f8f49@posting.google.com>... > > The infinite is infinitely large number. Infinitely large number is > > infinitely large in SIZE. This may be true if unit is discrete and > > finite in size. The idea > > that 'infinitely large in number must be infinitely large in size' > > does not apply to anything that is supposed to be compact, continuous, > > homogeneous and consistent like space or time. 'Compact, continuous, > > homogeneous and consistent' > > is verbal description of a quality (nothingness). This quality also > > has a numerical description: If the product of zero and infinity is a > > finite unit or ONE OF ANY FINITE SIZE, then the thing is compact, > > continuous, homogeneous and consistent. (Mass of any magnitude is > > 'one' in natural radioactive decay.) Therefore to measure time, length > > and mass we have to use a standard unit of measurement. Q=[N](w) where > > w is the standard unit of measurement, specifies quantity. I call the > > expression [N](w) as 'myquantifier'. (I am not using the word > > 'quantifier' in this context because the word, with a different > > meaning, is already in use.) If we remove any one of the two elements > > of expression from 'myquantifier' the thing is NOT quantified. Are > > calculations without quantification permissible in science? If we use > > numbers without unit (w) then it means that number directly gives the > > size, that is, [N]=size. 'myquantifier' is extruded from geometry > > because in geometry numbers directly give size. Logically pure numbers > > cannot directly 'constitute' any information without resorting to > > spatial SELF-REFERENCE. In geometry we correlate (Length/length) or > > [N] and length/length or [N]. This is the reason why we can form an > > idea of a circle instantaneously without dimension. If we do > > calculations without the use of 'myquantifier' and do calculations > > only using numbers without unit, in the manner we do in pure > > mathematics can it make any sense?
> Geometrically the Planck lenght has no basis is logic,if something has > a lenght,a circumference can be drawn around this lenght and if so,a > radius half the original lenght can be determined.As this half Planck > lenght also constitutes a discrete lenght you just start over again by > determining a circumference from this half lenght and on and on as a > infinite regression.
> The method above uses a greater lenght to determine a smaller lenght > so the logic is sound,what is not sound is that where current models > determine that there is a mathematical cutoff point for geometry > where none exists.
In mathematics when the method uses greater length to smaller length, the limit is dL.The circumference of a circle has to be bigger than dX, therfore dX cannot be the circumference of a circle. The length of a curved line must always be an irrational number. An irrational number seems to have some dimension because it is not discrete or exact.
>From: vgopa...@rediffmail.com (V.Gopal) >In mathematics when the method uses greater length to smaller length, >the limit is dL.
actually the "limit" is sL to dL.
>The circumference of a circle has to be bigger than >dX, therfore dX cannot >be the circumference of a circle.
It can if the dX = sL and not the dL. (and it is according to planck) "smallest limit" :)
> The length of a curved line must >always be an >irrational number.
The length of a circles line is infinite. Who cares How about this one.
1 Planck length devided by 2 = 1/2 Plancks length. that alone shows. no Planckin' limit! :)
>An irrational number seems to have some dimension >because it >is not discrete or exact.
Planck is the irrational one to think there is a limit to "smallest" and so is anyone that "does not get it" It's sad that the basic math "is even wrong now"? sheesh!
You can cut any number in half. (there is no limit to the above) The End. Planck is a "smart" idiot. <LOL>
vgopa...@rediffmail.com (V.Gopal) wrote in message <news:38af3945.0210051318.6c10fdf6@posting.google.com>... > geraldkelle...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message <news:273f8e06.0210050424.1f1302e3@posting.google.com>... > > vgopa...@rediffmail.com (V.Gopal) wrote in message <news:38af3945.0210041003.7a4f8f49@posting.google.com>... > > > The infinite is infinitely large number. Infinitely large number is > > > infinitely large in SIZE. This may be true if unit is discrete and > > > finite in size. The idea > > > that 'infinitely large in number must be infinitely large in size' > > > does not apply to anything that is supposed to be compact, continuous, > > > homogeneous and consistent like space or time. 'Compact, continuous, > > > homogeneous and consistent' > > > is verbal description of a quality (nothingness). This quality also > > > has a numerical description: If the product of zero and infinity is a > > > finite unit or ONE OF ANY FINITE SIZE, then the thing is compact, > > > continuous, homogeneous and consistent. (Mass of any magnitude is > > > 'one' in natural radioactive decay.) Therefore to measure time, length > > > and mass we have to use a standard unit of measurement. Q=[N](w) where > > > w is the standard unit of measurement, specifies quantity. I call the > > > expression [N](w) as 'myquantifier'. (I am not using the word > > > 'quantifier' in this context because the word, with a different > > > meaning, is already in use.) If we remove any one of the two elements > > > of expression from 'myquantifier' the thing is NOT quantified. Are > > > calculations without quantification permissible in science? If we use > > > numbers without unit (w) then it means that number directly gives the > > > size, that is, [N]=size. 'myquantifier' is extruded from geometry > > > because in geometry numbers directly give size. Logically pure numbers > > > cannot directly 'constitute' any information without resorting to > > > spatial SELF-REFERENCE. In geometry we correlate (Length/length) or > > > [N] and length/length or [N]. This is the reason why we can form an > > > idea of a circle instantaneously without dimension. If we do > > > calculations without the use of 'myquantifier' and do calculations > > > only using numbers without unit, in the manner we do in pure > > > mathematics can it make any sense?
> > Geometrically the Planck lenght has no basis is logic,if something has > > a lenght,a circumference can be drawn around this lenght and if so,a > > radius half the original lenght can be determined.As this half Planck > > lenght also constitutes a discrete lenght you just start over again by > > determining a circumference from this half lenght and on and on as a > > infinite regression.
> > The method above uses a greater lenght to determine a smaller lenght > > so the logic is sound,what is not sound is that where current models > > determine that there is a mathematical cutoff point for geometry > > where none exists. > In mathematics when the method uses greater length to smaller length, > the limit is dL.The circumference of a circle has to be bigger than > dX, therfore dX cannot > be the circumference of a circle. The length of a curved line must > always be an > irrational number. An irrational number seems to have some dimension > because it > is not discrete or exact.
An irrational number such as the value for Pi and Phi are numerical equivalents to non periodicity,the string of numbers neither being entirely ordered or disordered just as in physical geometry the alignment of Penrose tiling patterns never settle down to a final ordered pattern.
To create an tiling pattern that tiles the plane to infinity one must begin with an inbuilt 'error',by this means the tiling pattern will TEND towards a corresponding value of phi,like its numerical equivalent it never reaches a final determined value.In this respect the Planck lenght is a geometric dog for using the relationship between lenght (diameter) and circumference of a circle which is an inviolate proportion no matter how small the lenght is,if you are inclined to do away with the relationship between circumference and diameter to keep your discrete Planck lenght then by all means do so but what a truly awful thing to do.
> Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message > > > > India has 1.1 billion assholes and 1 million flush toilets. Before > > you worry about infinities, concern yourself with small integers.
> > "Those made captives were forced to clean bucket latrines and throw > > human excreta at distant places. john_cor...@excite.ca (John) wrote in message > Uncle Al: Are you s racist? A jingoist? Or both?
> --John
A. Psychiatrist Writes
Believe it or not John, Uncle Al here is actually too thick to be a racist, and he probably wouldn't even know what a jingoist is.
His only real interest in life appears to be this somewhat unhealthy obssession with the lavatory arrangements of third-world-countries, something he's clearly keen to show off to everyone whenever the opportunity arises, or rather doesn't as here.
|
