I meant that a perfect circle would have to be one with a stated margin of
error of zero; even at a submolecular level, you couldn't get that (God
knows I've tried!). Maybe a sharper pencil would do the trick. Now, where's
my sub-molecular sharpener?
ppl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian J Greely" <Ian@tirnanog.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: 11 October 2000 00:40
Subject: Re: MD 1+1=2
> This is interesting. By what law do you say that there can be no
> perfect circle?
>
> A limitation is here that is being stated as if it could/should be
> taken for granted. Nothing is for granted. If it can be conceived it
> can be achieved.
>
> This is the joy of language (of which math is one).
>
> A lone individual conceives of an idea/l. Individual describes the
> idea. People rally round the description. The description is realised.
>
> regards,
> Ian
>
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:31:27 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >I think you've rather succinctly said some thing I was trying to get at :
> >maths is more absolute and therefore less 'real', than 'reality'. Thus,
for
> >example, a circular thing is 'never' a perfect circle. Only a perfect
circle
> >manages this.
> >cheers,
> >ppl
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Ghitus" <ghitus@libero.it>
> >To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> >Sent: 10 October 2000 20:53
> >Subject: Re: MD 1+1=2
> >
> >
> >> Ed, Sasu, David, Peter, and all
> >>
> >>
> >> > If S=0.999..., then we can say 10S=9.999..., and if we subtract the
> >former
> >> > from the latter we obtain 9S=9, which means S=1.
> >>
> >>
> >> hmmm.... IMO if we subtract the former from the latter we get:
> >>
> >> 9.999... - 0.999... = 9.000...
> >>
> >> and I'm not sure we can say it's exactly like 9.
> >>
> >>
> >> This aside, I would like to say I hope it's clear to all that
arithmetic
> >is
> >> abstract... it's the most abstract science. All the mathematicians know
it
> >> very well. No serious scientist or philosopher will ever say that
> >arithmetic
> >> is a concrete reality.
> >>
> >> This is the point of view in a SOM. I think that in a MOQ we should say
> >that
> >> all abstractions are real, as intellectual static patterns of quality.
> >Real,
> >> just like the rocks, the cells and the nations. And all that is real,
in
> >the
> >> precise moment we talk about it, is an intellectual static pattern of
> >> quality. So it's not very amusing to attack the "truth" of arithmetic,
as
> >> the SOM's and MOQ's viewpoints are similar. It's better to attack the
> >> "truths" of physics: platypi like the gravitation, the big bang, the
light
> >> speed and so on.
> >>
> >> ghitus
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------- End of forwarded message -------
> >>
> >>
> >> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> >> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> >> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> >> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> >Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> >MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
> >
> >To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> >http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:48 BST