|
|
>
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> > In sci.math, huangxienchen@xxxxxxxxx
> > <huangxienchen@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote
> > on 30 Dec 2006 19:15:21 -0800
> >
> <1167534921.343346.288890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >:
> > > Why the hell is it that everybody shuts up right
> when things are
> > > getting interesting ?
> > >
> > > You guys are scientists ? I've had more
> interesting conversations with
> > > bricks.
> > >
> > > Ahem -
> > >
> > > I believe that I made the claim that
> indeterminacy is inherent to
> > > mathematics.
> > >
> > > Does anyone out there have a pulse ?
> > >
> >
> > I dunno...how does one determine that? :-)
> >
> > As for your third question -- define
> "indeterminacy" in this context.
> > I'm frankly far from sure what you mean here.
> >
> > As for your second question...no, we're not; we're
> mathematicians,
> > presumably. What did you think this is,
> sci.physics? :-)
> >
> > --
> > #191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Useless C++ Programming Idea #1123133:
> > void f(FILE * fptr, char *p) { fgets(p, sizeof(p),
> fptr); }
> >
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account from
> http://www.teranews.com
>
>
>
> Signs of life !! (thank Gxd)
>
>
> I've done some looking and cant find anything on sets
> where set
> membership is probabilistic. I know that this plays
> hell with
> everything known to man, but was wondering if there
> is such a critter
> in the woods somewhere.
>
> I found something called O-theory, and fuzzy sets
> obviously, I dont
> know if there are any others.
>
> I think that space is "fuzzy" in a way. That is to
> say that for each
> point in space there corresponds a probability that
> the point exists.
> Fuzzy space. Energy is nothing more than functions on
> the fuzz.
You really wonder why no one who has knowledge of
physics and the mathematics which supports it, wants to
engage in dialogue with you? It's not the facts that
are fuzzy -- your language is fuzzy. The fact in this case
is that every point of space exists with probability 1.
You may mean to say something else -- but you are not
saying it. If you are simply talking about quantum
nonlocality, that's not news. I don't think anyone
can really tell what you are trying to say, however.
It's your job to be clear, not the job of your listener
to understand what you are not saying.
>
> Nobody on sci.physics will even talk to me anymore,
> except Mati, and he
> thinks I'm crazy. Those wack jobs are still hung up
> on the unholy
> quadrangle of the "four fundamental forces". That's
> as whack as earth
> wind fire and water. What a bunch of alchemists. Then
> you got your
> string theorists - that's one heck of a yarn.
>
You might want to try a philosophy group. Seriously.
It doesn't have any effect here for you to call people
geese, or to pretend that you're winning a debate where
there is no debate, or to criticize sources that you deem
to be too elementary when it's more than obvious that
you fail to acknowledge elementary facts.
Every worthwhile exchange in this forum depends on the
application of precise terms. Don't take my word for it
-- browse the threads.
Tom
|
|