My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > High School Math Forum > Geometry

Geometry Geometry Math Forum


Thanks Tree10Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
September 25th, 2018, 08:28 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2018
From: UK

Posts: 103
Thanks: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by skipjack View Post
How do you define "exist"? Aren't you effectively saying that no measurement "exists"? For example, that "noon" doesn't exist?
- Measurements exist but not as part of the system being measured
- A measurement is the process of assigning a numerical quantity to a physical property
- So a measurement is a number rather than a geometric object
- So measurements do not have a length property
- Whereas I’d argue a point is a geometric object so must have non-zero length

Last edited by skipjack; September 25th, 2018 at 09:48 AM.
Devans99 is offline  
 
September 25th, 2018, 08:30 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 544
Thanks: 174

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devans99 View Post
- Measurement exist but not as part of the system being measured
- A measurement is the process of assigning a numerical quantity to a physical property
- So a measurement is a number rather than a geometric object
- So measurements do not have a length property
- Id argue a point is a geometric object so must have non-zero length

You still didn't mathematically define length.
Micrm@ss is offline  
September 25th, 2018, 08:34 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 544
Thanks: 174

So in mathematics, a plane geometry is a set of points and a set of lines such that

Axiom 1: Through every two points is exactly one line.
Axiom 2: For every line, there is a point not lying on the line.
etc etc etc

Now, I understand you find all of this garbage, since you made it clear you don't accept it.

So, what do you replace it with? What are the axioms you will replace this by?
Micrm@ss is offline  
September 25th, 2018, 08:46 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2018
From: UK

Posts: 103
Thanks: 1

Before working out new axioms, we need a clear definition of a point:

‘A point is a one dimensional object with an infinitesimal but non-zero length.’

Where an infinitesimal is a quantity approaching but never reaching 0.

I hope with a definition like this most of the existing axioms are still ok?
Devans99 is offline  
September 25th, 2018, 08:46 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2018
From: UK

Posts: 103
Thanks: 1

-
Devans99 is offline  
September 25th, 2018, 09:02 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
mrtwhs's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010

Posts: 692
Thanks: 132

Most standard developments for geometry start with point, line, plane as undefined terms. Then axioms (postulates) are stated using these undefined terms. Although Euclid starts with a definition of point, I think that this leads to a lack of rigor in the development.

You might want to read the article "How Big is a Point", The College Mathematics Journal, Vol. 14, No. 4, (1983), pp. 295-300.
Thanks from Benit13
mrtwhs is offline  
September 25th, 2018, 10:08 AM   #17
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,445
Thanks: 2499

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
He doesn't understand that mathematics' primary use is as a model, not reality. I don't know how well he'd accept the idea that a model that doesn't make simplifications is useless.
v8archie is offline  
September 25th, 2018, 10:26 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
romsek's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: USA

Posts: 2,121
Thanks: 1101

This whole refusal to understand what a model is and claim that no model has value because it's not a perfect representation of reality is just silly really.

No one claims you can do anything with a point of 0 length. I believe it's well established that length's shorter than the Planck length can never be measured. But looking around I'd say we've done pretty well using the model of a point we have.
romsek is offline  
September 25th, 2018, 10:51 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2008

Posts: 293
Thanks: 79

Beer soaked ramblings follow.

You could try "defining" the point as a cirle whose radius is equal to zero.
With the circle defined as a set of points equidistant from a fixed point, it's a good bet that you won't be going in squares any time soon.
jonah is offline  
September 25th, 2018, 11:15 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,148
Thanks: 479

As far as I can tell, the OP insists on physical validation of mathematical axioms. He does not seem to get that axioms and definitions are free creations of the human mind. It is one thing to say you personally do not accept an axiom because it cannot be observed in the physical world. Then develop your mathematics without that axiom.

It is something else entirely to legislate for others. The idealizations of mathematics have resulted in mathematical tools that have been found practically useful. I do not believe myself in the physical observability of irrational numbers, but working with the real number system is how I do mathematics nevertheless.
JeffM1 is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > High School Math Forum > Geometry

Tags
‘point’, contradictory, definition, geometry



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Two 3-D Trigo Geometry Problems without using vector or coordinate geometry whsvin Geometry 0 February 1st, 2017 07:07 AM
Contradictory Derivative vamosromil Calculus 9 October 18th, 2012 11:25 AM
Seemingly contradictory Dart Plegius Algebra 2 June 19th, 2012 12:24 PM
Fun contradictory(?) problem Aqil Applied Math 6 November 25th, 2011 09:21 PM
Algebraic Geometry Definition Question xianghu324 Abstract Algebra 1 August 8th, 2010 08:37 AM





Copyright © 2018 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.