Case, Here's my point, enter 1 into your calculator then divide by two until you reach zero. If 1 is absolute then zero can be achieved. You are assuming one has a beginning and an end 1.0 Rests on zero. 0.9 never reaches 1.0, 1.0 never reaches 1.1 But by rounding. Fucked up huh? Math goes Kaplooey when used to measure reality. You must assume an absolute value based on an average for it to function or you just chase Your tail down the rabbit hole at getting to 1 from zero. Time to take a long drawl on the skull bong.. -Ron
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Kulp Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] the illusion of zero [Case] But 1 is absolute. It signifies a single specific point on the number line. It is exact. Rounding error fizzes all around it but it is complete and unambiguous. Just like every other point on the line well except for the square root of 2 and its ilk. 1 to the minus gazillion is no less absolute but a gazillion times more obscure. [Ron] is .99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999infinity An absolute? 1 works if zero is taken to mean something, an absolute. then every whole is an assumed absolute But in reality it is'nt. math is meaningless until an absolute is assumed.you have to have a cut-off To precipitate a round then you may reach an absolute 1. but does reality have a cut-off point To cause a rounding? Averaging is the closest we can come to any kind of precision. 1 apple plus 1 apple may equal two apples absolutly but when you measure the buggers All of it goes to shit. one is redder one is bigger ect. You have kids, you know You can't give both your kids an apple without them bitching about one has the better. Even if the objects are seemingly identical, they know. 1 does not equal 1, 1 I say is an assumed value For a whole in order for math to work. Thanks for helping work this out, I invite argument on this. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Case Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] the illusion of zero [Case] Not being a Trinitarian I am not sure how much help I can be. In fact it seems to me you are really pushing it since this looks a lot more like: 1+1+1=5. [Ron] More like 1+1+1=1,(.45+.45+.45=1.35) my emphisis lies in the averaging. the value for absolute. That pirsig is right, the trinity is right, the tao te ching is right. Value my friend, right Here in river city. [Case] That's a capital V and that rhymes with P and that stand for Pool. [Ron] Beginning and end, zero, and any absolute is a contruct for understanding An illusionary tool. 1+1 is allways going on . 1+1 can equal 3. 1+1 can equal 2. 1+1 can equal 1. Three outcomes depending on the value of 1 . "one" is not absolute. it is the value of one that can never be known [Case] But 1 is absolute. It signifies a single specific point on the number line. It is exact. Rounding error fizzes all around it but it is complete and unambiguous. Just like every other point on the line well except for the square root of 2 and its ilk. 1 to the minus gazillion is no less absolute but a gazillion times more obscure. [Ron] The dynamic value. That's what is so interesting about fractile geometry It randomly flipflops the rounding error creating interesting nature-like Mathmatical constructs when compounded geometricly, thus it seems infinately Large and infinately small with great detail limited only by the decimal Place allowed for rounding. [Case] Exactly, rounding error and the number iterations you select for each point. [Ron] The same thing goes for language you assume an absolute definition So that communication is understandable but in reality terms mean different Things to different people. The "value" of the term must be established Before communication can be more accurate especially when involved In abstract thought when the variation in the value of a term can Compound instantly. [Case] Word meanings seem more like fuzzy sets than fractals to me but what the heck I am in the mood to almost agree with everyone today. moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
