|
welcome to |
|
Do Points
Have Area? Comment to John Conway Subject: Re: Reply to "Do Points Have Area? Author: Kirby Urner <pdx4d@teleport.com> Date: 18 Dec 97 20:07:13 -0500 (EST) > = Conway = Urner >meaningless. To learn the appropriate questions to ask about >real physical space, you first have to learn a lot of physics. >Euclidean 3-space is only an approximation that's valid when no >dimensions are two large or too small. Re: "Euclidean 3-space" I find it confusing when people into the standard academic notions of dimensionality and real numbers appropriate the adjective "Euclidean" for their exclusive use. As I've posted above (or below, as the case may be), I don't see how serious students of Euclid's Elements are suddenly less serious if they don't buy that volume is "three dimensional" for example. Nowhere in The Elements is volume so defined. I say the linear algebra conventions which treat "positive" and "negative" spokes of the Cartesian six-spoked "jack" asymmetrically, calling only the former "basis vectors" and the latter not, because the result of an operation (direction reversal by means of multiplication by -1) is all conceptual apparatus which we might want to take with a grain of salt. And Euclid should not be saddled with necessarily arguing on behalf of such conventions. Kirby
http://mathforum.org/kb/forum.jspa?forumID=130 Back to "Do Points Have Area?"
©1999-2007 |
|
|
