[MD] the illusion of zero

[Ron Kulp]

[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: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Case
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:10 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
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/