"Ronn! Blankenship" wrote:
>
>
> After reading Mark's original post:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 7:55 PM
> Subject: Vectors with scalar of zero
> >
> > There are an infinite number of vectors with a scalar of zero on a two
> > dimensional plane, though there are only two vectors with a scalar of zero
> on
> > a one dimensional line. So, to make the vector-cardinality proof valid
> > [soc.history.what-if, "non-linear equations"], I have to add that counting
> > all vectors with scalars of zero as one vector with a start at the origin,
> > the vector-cardinality proof that differentiable functions have
> cardinality
> > less than or equal to the cardinality of the set of complex numbers. Wtf
> do
> > I have to mention the details? Even these statements might have holes in
> > them regarding my proof.
> >
>
> I thought maybe by "vectors with a scalar of zero" he meant "vectors whose
> tails (representing vectors as directed line segments in Euclidean n-space)
> are at the origin," then by "there are only two vectors with a scalar of
> zero on a one dimensional line" he meant that one 'points' in a positive
> direction and the other in a negative direction" and he is not concerned
> with the length of the vector at all.
>
> Of course, that's just a guess on my part, based more on reading the above
> paragraph out of its context than the usual mathematical definitions of
> "scalar" and "vector" . . .
>
> --Ronn! :)
I was just going to globally substitute "one" for "zero" in his
post. I'm prepared to believe that he would confuse the two...
Then again, I must have something better to do! : )
---David
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
