Turtle Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 Law of Measurement While doing scientific researching on the number line, I notice something very interesting. It occurred to me that on a number line I should be using half the marker instead of the whole marker that’s located above the number Zero (0). After all, isn’t the whole marker that is located above the number Zero (0) half negative and half positive? :cup: no; it is not. the map is not the territory; the mark is not the number. :cup: you have presented yet another in a string of strange claims that use math terms but distinctly lack mathematical rigor or merit. :) this thread belongs in strange claims. Buffy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guadalupe Posted September 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 no; it is not. the map is not the territory; the mark is not the number. :cup: you have presented yet another in a string of strange claims that use math terms but distinctly lack mathematical rigor or merit. :) this thread belongs in strange claims. Hi! Turtle :cup: I never claimed that a mark is a number. But, if you strongly feel that my thread belongs in strange claims. I’ll understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 Hi! Turtle :) I never claimed that a mark is a number. ... oh but you did. that you deny it or simply don't see it goes to no rigor & no merit. yes, i strongly feel this belongs in strange claims. :cup: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guadalupe Posted September 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 oh but you did. that you deny it or simply don't see it goes to no rigor & no merit. yes, i strongly feel this belongs in strange claims. :cup: Hi! Turtle :) Would you please be so kind enough as to show where I posted such a claim that the mark is a number? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 Hi! Turtle :cup: Would you please be so kind enough as to show where I posted such a claim that the mark is a number? your first post that i quoted in my first post. again; that you don't understand why this is so is exactly why your postings have no mathematical merit. pure word salad; not even wrong. :) Word salad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Not even wrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guadalupe Posted September 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 your first post that i quoted in my first post. again; that you don't understand why this is so is exactly why your postings have no mathematical merit. pure word salad; not even wrong. :) Word salad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Not even wrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Hi! Turtle :cup: I’m sorry for not respond to your post #5. I’ve been waiting for the information that may help me better understand modest post #10. So far the information I have gathered has been favorable. All I’m waiting for now is a response from Dr. Ronald Staszkow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 Hi! Turtle :) I’m sorry for not respond to your post #5. I’ve been waiting for the information that may help me better understand modest post #10. So far the information I have gathered has been favorable. All I’m waiting for now is a response from Dr. Ronald Staszkow. :cup: Ron Staszkow Faculty Website: Faculty Profile - Ron Staszkow, Professor Emeritus, Math - Ohlone College, Fremont, Newark, East Bay Area, California erhm...yeah, a community college teacher with a BA in math, yours in particular, is not going to hold any weight against what has already been presented by hypog members. your premise is flawed from the git go, we have shown it so, and no amount of delaying and word-salad tossing is going to make it any different. :cup: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guadalupe Posted September 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 Ron Staszkow Faculty Website: Faculty Profile - Ron Staszkow, Professor Emeritus, Math - Ohlone College, Fremont, Newark, East Bay Area, California erhm...yeah, a community college teacher with a BA in math, yours in particular, is not going to hold any weight against what has already been presented by hypog members. your premise is flawed from the git go, we have shown it so, and no amount of delaying and word-salad tossing is going to make it any different. :) :P Hi! Turtle Hmm. Here is a question for you. If someone from a prestigious institution, university or even a member of this forums that has a PhD in Mathematics were to concur with my Law of Measurement would it make any difference? :cup: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 Would you please be so kind enough as to show where I posted such a claim that the mark is a number? Turtle was referring to the the first paragraph in your original post in this thread: It occurred to me that on a number line I should be using half the marker instead of the whole marker that’s located above the number Zero (0). After all, isn’t the whole marker that is located above the number Zero (0) half negative and half positive? Clearly here, you are talking quite literally about the "mark" on the ruler. The reason this is meaningless from a mathematical point of view is that a ruler or number line is a physical oversimplification that must have markers that are visible for purposes of understanding and perception. But in the underlying mathematical conceptual realization of the number line, markers are infinitely thin, and as a result, there is nothing to "split into halves." By trying to use the physical approximation to deal with an abstract mathematical concept, you have--either through ignorance or intention to mislead--made an argument that has no mathematical validity. I hope this clarifies the issue that Turtle has been trying to describe to you. I'm just trying to make a smudge on the collective unconscious, :)Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 Hi! Turtle :P Hmm. Here is a question for you. If someone from a prestigious institution, university or even a member of this forums that has a PhD in Mathematics were to concur with my Law of Measurement would it make any difference? not a whit. i've read it & it is... erhm... severley wanting to put it nicely. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 Guadalupe is asking questions long since considered. I refer Guadalupe to the Greek discusses on magnitudes. I believe it was Erastosthenes who compiled the study on magnitudes. In short, about 3000 years ago it was determined that your claim is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 Turtle, I have given this one some thought. You are an accoplished carpenter, and I am a hobbyist on woodworking. When we use a meaure we know that the hash marks are always "on center" (or they should be). So when I am marking a point at 20 1/8" I use the center of that hash mark to find the spot. If that is the "Law of Measurement" then I guess we have been following it for years. Also, when using a ruler I do not measure from the end, but from one hash mark to another. This is a more certain distance than trying to line up from the edge. Of course some precision tools are built to measure from an edge, but the hash marks are still on center. Guadalupe, are you talking about a "Rule of Measuring with a Ruler" or a "Law of Measure"? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 Turtle, I have given this one some thought. You are an accomplished carpenter, and I am a hobbyist on woodworking. When we use a meaure we know that the hash marks are always "on center" (or they should be). So when I am marking a point at 20 1/8" I use the center of that hash mark to find the spot. If that is the "Law of Measurement" then I guess we have been following it for years. :hyper: let's just say it is a law of measurement and not the law. for example another law of measurement for woodworkers is: ~ measure twice, cut once. Also, when using a ruler I do not measure from the end, but from one hash mark to another. This is a more certain distance than trying to line up from the edge. the choice of using an end or edge of a ruler or tape measure is one i make depending on the specifics at the time. Of course some precision tools are built to measure from an edge, but the hash marks are still on center. Bill notice also that such precision rules have no hash mark on the end or edge. why you ask? :lol: well this goes somewhat to galupe's misunderstanding about zero, as the end is the end and there is no more or less than the end. it's the end. zero. period. . . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guadalupe Posted September 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 :lol: why you ask? well this goes somewhat to galupe's misunderstanding about zero, as the end is the end and there is no more or less than the end. it's the end. zero. period. . . . . . Hi! Turtle :hyper: Hum… Turtle my friend, what exactly is a galupe’s? :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 Hi! Turtle Hum… Turtle :hyper: my friend, what exactly is a galupe’s? it's a purposeful possessive misspelling of your name meant to lighten the mood a wee bit. :lol: silly; aint i!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guadalupe Posted September 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 it's a purposeful possessive misspelling of your name meant to lighten the mood a wee bit. silly; aint i!? Hi! Turtle :hyper: I remember a similar circumstance with Dr. Benoit Mandelbrot and his new mathematics of fractal geometry. His colleagues (mathematicians) that he respected turn against him and reacted with scorn toward his fractal geometry. Saying that fractal geometry is worthless and that fractal was considered as an artifact of his stupid computing machine, it’s useless and ridiculous. :lol: :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 I remember a similar circumstance with Dr. Benoit Mandelbrot and his new mathematics of fractal geometry....So just to clarify the strategy you're using here: You believe that you can obviate the need to address any objections to your proposed theory by drawing comparisons between yourself and Benoit Mandelbrot. I would like to say that I believe that this strategy may prove ineffective in supporting acceptance of your proposed theory. It should be noted that unlike you, Benoit Mandelbrot actually provided answers to the objections posed by his peers, and indeed over time they came to accept his work. At this rate, I do not see a parallel to your own path. Pardon, sir; error: he is not quantity enough for that Worthy's thumb: he is not so big as the end of his club, Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.