Allow me please, one more remark:
my ID for an axiom is *a ground-rule derived to facilitate the acceptance
of a theory.*
I suspect the axioms were invented AFTER the theoretical considerations to
make them acceptable. They are called axioms because we cannot justify
their acceptability.
I am not
On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if
we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically
On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't
John,
Allow me please, one more remark:
I allow you an infinity of remarks. But not one more :)
my ID for an axiom is a ground-rule derived to facilitate the
acceptance of a theory.
Hmm... That is not the standard idea. An axiom is simply an
hypothesis. Like the hypothesis that
John,
On 24 Feb 2013, at 21:07, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno you wrote (among a big HOOPLA of indentations galore, an art
to measure each one into a proper participant):
...Explain us what is an electrical reaction in a brain without
using 2+2=4
Bruno
Explain, why 2+2=4 - without
On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 4:24:54 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John,
On 24 Feb 2013, at 21:07, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno you wrote (among a big HOOPLA of indentations galore, an art to
measure each one into a proper participant):
*...Explain us what is an electrical reaction in a
On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume them,
or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them.
I'm not sure how you mean that? We know that we experience individual objects
Bruno, I appreciate your effort to reply to my silly questions.
I accept your positions, nothing 'new' or 'surprising' in them now.
Yet I raised one little suspicion in
*...How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we
don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything
Brent:
you jumped into 'counting'. What would that be without numbers?
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we
don't assume them, or equivalent
On 2/26/2013 2:41 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent:
you jumped into 'counting'. What would that be without numbers?
It's a one-to-one relation between objects. If you invent a special set of tokens (1, 2,
3) that everybody agrees on (i.e. a part of language) to use in the one-to-one relation
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It is not ad hominem if it really is blather. I would define blather
as a sound or a sequence of ASCII symbols with zero informational content
because it means nothing, as in a burp, or because it means something self
On Monday, February 25, 2013 12:58:31 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I guess you are serious then that you think that a computer can tell
whether an mp3 is supposed to be music or graphics.
If the
On Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:21:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/24/2013 1:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:24:47 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess you are serious then that you think
On 2/25/2013 11:19 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:21:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/24/2013 1:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:24:47 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
On 23 Feb 2013, at 00:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2013 4:54:05 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
What to you think with, your elbow?
my point was that you have a double standard about which
On 23 Feb 2013, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/22/2013 6:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2013 7:45:58 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/22/2013 3:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2013 4:54:05 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:25 AM,
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
If the condition of being threatened by a predator is delivered to me as
a flashing red light or the lilt of angelic chimes in my ear it doesn't
make any difference whatsoever.
But it makes a very big difference to
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
it's just blather. = ad hominem
It is not ad hominem if it really is blather. I would define blather as a
sound or a sequence of ASCII symbols with zero informational content
because it means nothing, as in a burp, or because it
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess you are serious then that you think that a computer can tell
whether an mp3 is supposed to be music or graphics.
If the computer can not tell the difference between a picture file and a
music file then it will have a
Bruno you wrote (among a big HOOPLA of indentations galore, an art to
measure each one into a proper participant):
*...Explain us what is an electrical reaction in a brain without using
2+2=4*
*Bruno *
Explain, why 2+2=4 - without (human?) quantizing - even without using dots
or marks and
On Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:24:47 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
I guess you are serious then that you think that a computer can tell
whether an mp3 is supposed to be music or graphics.
If the computer can not
On Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:06:17 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
it's just blather. = ad hominem
It is not ad hominem if it really is blather. I would define blather as
a sound or a sequence of ASCII symbols
On 2/24/2013 1:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:24:47 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
I guess you are serious then that you think that a computer can tell
whether
an mp3
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The more upset you become, the more I know that the flaws in your argument
have been exposed. What you are arguing is that a computer has to know
whether an mp3 file is sound or graphics before it can analyze the
On Friday, February 22, 2013 10:44:59 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/22/2013 6:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2013 7:45:58 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/22/2013 3:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2013 4:54:05 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:56:44 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
A successful evolutionary outcome doesn't have anything to do with the
veracity of the content of a signal.
If the interpretation your brain
On 2/23/2013 5:33 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2013 10:44:59 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/22/2013 6:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2013 7:45:58 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/22/2013 3:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On
On Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:50:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/23/2013 5:33 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2013 10:44:59 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/22/2013 6:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2013 7:45:58 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On
On Friday, February 22, 2013 1:05:14 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
unlike the other sciences or even art mathematics does not require
experimentation.
But they require thinking,
Obviously.
which you are
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
What to you think with, your elbow?
my point was that you have a double standard about which brain
activities represent nothing but evolutionary driven illusions
Illusions? Evolutionary drive is what made you the
On Friday, February 22, 2013 4:54:05 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
What to you think with, your elbow?
my point was that you have a double standard about which brain
activities represent nothing
On 2/22/2013 3:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2013 4:54:05 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
javascript:
wrote:
What to you think with, your elbow?
my point was that you have
On Friday, February 22, 2013 7:45:58 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/22/2013 3:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2013 4:54:05 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
What to you think with, your elbow?
On 2/22/2013 6:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2013 7:45:58 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/22/2013 3:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2013 4:54:05 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Craig Weinberg
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
A successful evolutionary outcome doesn't have anything to do with the
veracity of the content of a signal.
If the interpretation your brain performs on a sequence of impulses that
come from your eyes is not compatible with the
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
What physical mechanism is there available that could allow for
experience?
The laws of physics as I understand them neither forbid nor demand any form
of consciousness, they simply have nothing of interest to say on the
On Thursday, February 21, 2013 4:44:21 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
What physical mechanism is there available that could allow for
experience?
The laws of physics as I understand them neither forbid nor demand
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
unlike the other sciences or even art mathematics does not require
experimentation.
But they require thinking,
Obviously.
which you are saying is nothing but the brain.
What to you think with, your elbow?
The act of
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The laws of physics as you understand them forbid any form of
consciousness
The laws of physics as I understand them neither forbids nor demands any
form of consciousness.
The only thing you know about the brain is the way
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:33:23 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
The laws of physics as you understand them forbid any form of
consciousness
The laws of physics as I understand them neither forbids nor demands
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I would assume that geometric truths don't contradict arithmetic truths.
And arithmetical truths don't contradict geometrical truths, and a 3D
geometrical machine can provide answers to arithmetical questions, and a 1D
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:39:14 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
I would assume that geometric truths don't contradict arithmetic truths.
And arithmetical truths don't contradict geometrical truths, and a 3D
On 2/19/2013 12:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:39:14 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
I would assume that geometric truths don't contradict
arithmetic truths.
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:44:23 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 2/19/2013 12:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:39:14 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
I would assume that geometric
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
With complex numbers you can make a one to one relationship between the
way numbers add subtract multiply and divide and the way things move in a
two dimensional plane. What more could you want arithmetic to do in support
of
On Sunday, February 17, 2013 1:52:13 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
With complex numbers you can make a one to one relationship between the
way numbers add subtract multiply and divide and the way things move in a
two
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
all that says is that the geometry which we experience in the universe
does not arise from my conscious control
I thought you were the fellow who said consciousness was behind everything.
a universe which is purely
On 13 Feb 2013, at 19:23, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Then why can't a one dimensional Turing machine do geometry,
It can solve geometry problems,
Yes.
but it can't generate geometric forms.
Can you generate geometric forms? Your
On 11 Feb 2013, at 21:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/11/2013 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb 2013, at 20:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:16:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Feb 2013, at 22:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 9,
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Then why can't a one dimensional Turing machine do geometry,
It can solve geometry problems,
Yes.
but it can't generate geometric forms.
Can you generate geometric forms? Your fingers can draw a triangle but are
you
On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 1:23:14 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
Then why can't a one dimensional Turing machine do geometry,
It can solve geometry problems,
Yes.
but it can't generate geometric forms.
On 10 Feb 2013, at 20:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:16:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Feb 2013, at 22:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 3:32:52 PM UTC-5, Simon Forman wrote:
But then doesn't that leave subjectivity fundamentally
On Monday, February 11, 2013 10:23:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb 2013, at 20:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:16:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Feb 2013, at 22:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2013
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
all those concepts of geometry, like the trigonometric functions, can be
derived from one dimensional numerical sequences with no pictures or
diagrams involved and if told that a particle with N degrees of freedom
changes in a
On 2/11/2013 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb 2013, at 20:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:16:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Feb 2013, at 22:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 3:32:52 PM UTC-5, Simon Forman wrote:
But then
On Monday, February 11, 2013 1:29:55 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
all those concepts of geometry, like the trigonometric functions, can be
derived from one dimensional numerical sequences with no pictures or
On 09 Feb 2013, at 22:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 3:32:52 PM UTC-5, Simon Forman wrote:
But then doesn't that leave subjectivity fundamentally mysterious?
I think that human subjectivity is a range of qualities of
experience, some rooted in the sub-personal,
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
They [mathematicians] are just elaborating existing concepts of
geometry, not creating it from mathematical scratch.
But all those concepts of geometry, like the trigonometric functions, can
be derived from one
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 1:55:15 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
They [mathematicians] are just elaborating existing concepts of
geometry, not creating it from mathematical scratch.
But all
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:16:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Feb 2013, at 22:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 3:32:52 PM UTC-5, Simon Forman wrote:
But then doesn't that leave subjectivity fundamentally mysterious?
I think that human subjectivity
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If geometry did not exist. Could you invent it with mathematics alone?
Mathematicians have invented geometries of 5, 6, 7, or even a infinite
number of dimensions as in Hilbert space even though they have no tactile
experience
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 1:31:55 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
If geometry did not exist. Could you invent it with mathematics alone?
Mathematicians have invented geometries of 5, 6, 7, or even a infinite
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 1:31:55 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
If geometry did not exist. Could you invent it with mathematics alone?
Mathematicians have invented geometries of 5, 6, 7, or even a infinite
But then doesn't that leave subjectivity fundamentally mysterious?
If form/geometry is first and math second (which fits my own
understanding at this time) the what is it that is apprehending math?
And does it have form?
~Simon
On 2/9/13, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 3:32:52 PM UTC-5, Simon Forman wrote:
But then doesn't that leave subjectivity fundamentally mysterious?
I think that human subjectivity is a range of qualities of experience, some
rooted in the sub-personal, some in the super-personal, and some reflected
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:34:36 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/6/2013 11:42 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 2:29:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/6/2013 5:09 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 5:13:03 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona
On 06 Feb 2013, at 17:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:55:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Feb 2013, at 11:19, Simon Forman wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 12:22:53 PM UTC-8, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 3:09:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto
On 06 Feb 2013, at 20:46, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2013/2/6 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 05 Feb 2013, at 11:19, Simon Forman wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 12:22:53 PM UTC-8, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 3:09:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
but
On 07 Feb 2013, at 00:12, Simon Forman wrote:
On 2/6/13, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 05 Feb 2013, at 11:19, Simon Forman wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 12:22:53 PM UTC-8, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 3:09:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona
wrote:
but
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-02-04, 15:09:16
*Subject:* Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
I think that geometry is a form of accelerated calculation and
presentation of distances and angles by/in the mind, of the external
mathematical reality.�
Within
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 5:13:03 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
2013/2/5 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net javascript:
Hi Alberto G. Corona
Your concept is incomplete, because geometry is what Plato called forms,
which he gave the Greek name of ideas. So you have a thought
On 05 Feb 2013, at 11:19, Simon Forman wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 12:22:53 PM UTC-8, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 3:09:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
but there is a self reference when we try to imagine how the brain
or a computer process geometry, and
: 2013-02-04, 15:09:16
Subject: Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
I think that geometry is a form of accelerated calculation and
presentation of distances and angles by/in the mind, of the external
mathematical reality.�
Within this mental geometrical representation, 爓e locate the rest
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 5:19:01 AM UTC-5, Simon Forman wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 12:22:53 PM UTC-8, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 3:09:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
but there is a self reference when we try to imagine how the brain or a
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:55:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Feb 2013, at 11:19, Simon Forman wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 12:22:53 PM UTC-8, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 3:09:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
but there is a self
2013/2/6 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 05 Feb 2013, at 11:19, Simon Forman wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 12:22:53 PM UTC-8, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 3:09:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
but there is a self reference when we try to imagine how the
On 2/6/2013 11:42 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 2:29:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/6/2013 5:09 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 5:13:03 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
2013/2/5 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net
On 2/6/13, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 5:19:01 AM UTC-5, Simon Forman wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 12:22:53 PM UTC-8, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 3:09:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
but there is a self
On 2/6/13, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 05 Feb 2013, at 11:19, Simon Forman wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 12:22:53 PM UTC-8, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 3:09:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
but there is a self reference when we try to imagine
, 15:09:16
Subject: Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
I think that geometry is a form of accelerated calculation and presentation of
distances and angles by/in the mind, of the external mathematical reality.?
Within this mental geometrical representation, ?e locate the rest of the
elements
On Monday, February 4, 2013 12:22:53 PM UTC-8, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 3:09:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
but there is a self reference when we try to imagine how the brain or a
computer process geometry, and we imagine them embedded in the space and
On Monday, February 4, 2013 12:01:38 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Feb 2013, at 22:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have mentioned this before, but it keeps haunting me.
If geometry did not exist.
Could you invent it with mathematics alone?
And if you could do that...
Why would
On Monday, February 4, 2013 3:09:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
but there is a self reference when we try to imagine how the brain or a
computer process geometry, and we imagine them embedded in the space and
time that they create, which is not a correct intuition. we must imagine
I have mentioned this before, but it keeps haunting me.
If geometry did not exist.
Could you invent it with mathematics alone?
And if you could do that...
Why would you?
For instance: A triangle can be defined mathematically in different ways,
but without the inherently geometric
101 - 184 of 184 matches
Mail list logo
