Kevin, "You assume a truth where there is none." That’s exactly my point ..although admittedly my Terms are rather clumsy "ƒ(x) + ƒ(y) does not always equal ƒ(x+y) where the intent is the function that rounds to the nearest whole number".
In that way ƒ = (y) in that they are both the function of the limit. (x) + (x) does not allways equal ƒ. (x) + (x) may equal ƒ(x) , (x) + (x) may equal ƒ(y). (x)+(x) may equal 0 It all Depends on the "values" of "x" in realtion to an assumed limit...It's all variable, the closest we can get to Precision is an assumed limit with an assumed "mean" and that depends on the value of the measurement In relation to the intent of the subject with the object. The emphisis I'm making is that ƒ is not an absolute value ...that the value [(x) + (x)] is the The "real" value and not absolute. Only when a limit to perception/precision is applied is anything Useable and senseable. I'm seeing paralells to Bohrs philosophy. Is [(x) + (x)] the function Of Quality? Please let me know if I am overlooking something. Thanks, -Ron -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Perez Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 6:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MD] Heads or tails? Hello Ron, > The statement is, "2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2." It's a joke > about rounding and estimating. <snip> > 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. Ron, I see your approach to the math as saying ƒ(x) + ƒ(y) = ƒ(x+y) where ƒ is the function that rounds to the nearest whole number. So if x = 2.4 then ƒ(x) = 2. And if y = 2.3 then ƒ(y) = 2. And if x + y = 4.7 then ƒ(x + y) = 5. In this way your approach can say 2 + 2 = 5. But look at your assumption. You assume a truth where there is none. ƒ(x) + ƒ(y) does not always equal ƒ(x+y) where ƒ is the function that rounds to the nearest whole number. I also see in your approach a misapplication of tolerances. In other words the statement 2 + 2 = 5 is a misapplication of 2±½ + 2±½ = 4±1. Notice how the two ±½s combine to become ±1. So 2.4 + 2.3 = 4.7 is conveyed as 2±½ + 2±½ = 4±1 not 2 + 2 = 5. Hope this helps. Kevin --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. 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/
