welcome to
Four Geometries Subject: RE: Coordinate systems Author: Jesse Yoder < jesse@flowresearch.com> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:54:31 -0500 On Feb. 8, John Conway wrote: > I think that what you call "selecting a Point size to suit a > particular measurement" is obviously very sensible, but that it's > silly to use "Point" and "point" with different meanings. Have you > any strong reason for doing this rather than using the same language > as everyone else - for instance saying something like "working to > within a tolerance of 1/100 of an inch"? I thought you had, namely > that you felt Euclid's "points" didn't exist, but perhaps some > absolute "Points" did. > > I'm surprised that you regard changing a coordinate-system as > "extreme": to me it seems a rather trivial and practical matter. > > I have a suggestion to make. If it's really the case that > your distinguishing between "points" and "Points" is practical > rather than theoretical, why not just drop it and use a more > traditional language in the interests of better communication > even if (like many other people) you'd really prefer it if language > hadn't developed in the way it has? I say this because talking > about the use of words is much less valuable than talking about > the things they represent, and your present terminology has made > it very difficult (at least for me) to understand what you're > really trying to say. > RESPONSE: As I have pointed out in previous discussion, there is an anti-Eucldean and an anti-Cartesian element to what I call Circular Geometry: The anti-Euclidean element consists of saying that Points have area (unlike points, which have no area), and that Lines have width and length (unlike lines, which have only length. The anti-Cartesian element consists of analyzing circular area in terms of round inches rather than square inches. These makes four possible geometries: 1.Euclidean and Cartesian (our current geometry) 2. NonEuclidean and Cartesian (Using Points and Lines, but sticking with square inches instead of round inches) 3. Euclidean and Non-Cartesian (Sticking with Euclidean points and lines, but using round inches instead of square inches) 4. Non-Euclidean and Non-Cartesian (Circular Geometry, i.e., using Points and Lines AND starting with round inches instead of square inches). I have been arguing for 4, partly because I think it's the most interesting of the four possibilities. But I could drop the terminology of Points and Lines altogether and even accept Euclidean concepts of point and line, and still have an interesting alternative geometry (#3). I am willing to consider your suggestions, though, since they usually turn out to be good ones. As for your suggestion of dropping the terminology of Points for points, Lines for lines, and Circles for circles, I have no problem with this (as I've said) except that since I claim that Points have area and Lines have width, it still seems like a useful technique (one inspired by your suggestion, as I've noted). Does "Points have area" just mean "When any measurement is made, it's made within a certain tolerance", the answer is basically yes, EXCEPT THAT I want to block the possibility of saying there are infinitely many points on a line (I claim there are finitely many, and how many there are varies with the measurement being made). Jesse Yoder P.S. I think that Circular Geometry is a lot more compelling if you can view the graphic of the Coordinate Systems, which unfortunately didn't come across on the Geometry-Research post, so I will repeat my offer to fax this to anyone who sends me their fax number. Eventually, I expect to be able to post this on a website. I also have a Word for Windows document I can email that does have the graphic--again, this didn't make it through the forum posting.
©1999-2007
Flow Research
27 Water Street
Wakefield, MA 01880
781-245-3200
781-224-7552 (fax)
email: jesse@flowresearch.com