steve waterman wrote:I would really like to have a common definition for x that we all agree upon.
So, I will cease posting until we all agree upon what x means, including any new depictions. I too, am quite tired of having this discussion go round in circles.
You and I (and probably every other person who has read/contributed to this thread) know why that will never happen. Half of your approach to this "debate" is to misunderstand what's going on, and once something has been explained perfectly clearly you then turn around and say "well... but but but we never agreed on the definitions."
There's nothing to AGREE on, you've been told how the terms and variables are being used and what they mean in context. You keep insisting on "agreement" because you only want to define them in ways that contradict their use. You will NEVER find agreement because you refuse to define them as everybody else does, and nobody else is going to agree to define them in ways that deliberately contradict their use because that would be the most brilliant idea ever (if by "brilliant" we can all agree we mean "absolutely moronic". Or perhaps we can all mean "kumquat".. does that work in context?
Math doesn't care if you agree with it. It works. If you want to set up a system based off of bad definitions and misunderstandings and then claim math doesn't work because of it, you're not disproving anything. Really, everyone here is trying to help you - when even a self-professed math-challenged moderator can make sense of this stuff, how do you think it looks when a self-proclaimed mathematician can't? Either this really isn't making sense to you - in which case many people here are willing to help you understand it, or you're deliberately misunderstanding it - in which case you're just sabotaging yourself ever being taken seriously as a mathematician. Anyone who reads any of your arguments over this topic will have to doubt anything you say because they won't know if you're using the same math as everyone else, or something different and calling it the same. Give up on the whole "we need to agree" kick, use the definitions that are obviously intended, and see if there's still a problem.
So, it appears that you all refuse to define x in words, and assert x is not the abscissa of S, given S(x,y,z).
You assert P has mapped coordinates S(x,y,z), yet the manifold no origin.
You assert x axis = x' axis in the manifold, yet x' = x-vt.
You will not tell me if YOUR x is the abscissa or the axis, or why x is not the given axis, and the given abscissa of S.
So be it. Then this discussion/thread is over for me.
I leave the thread with this, ( unless there is a willingness to mutually define x in words )
Given S(x,y,x) coincident S'(x',y',z'),
x = the distance along the first axis (of S) from S(0,0,0).
x' = the distance along the first axis (of S') from S'(0,0,0).
the x axis is of infinite length and ALWAYS intersects S(0,0,0).
x axis and x' axis and y axis and y' axis and z axis and z' axis ALL intersect in the manifold at one point,
which is not an origin. I personally view this denial of these intersections as the origin as pure mathematical bullshit!
PM me directly, if so inclined. I do not even want to look at this thread to see what parting shots might be taken.
However, I probably will, after a while, out of sheer curiosity.
Time to reflect what I have learned recently about your manifold, and manifest that understanding onto my site.Sorry
, but without a working definition for x, the idea of continuing, is totally useless, and will only bring out
more confusion, frustration, anxiety, anger, and negative thoughts from all sides and angles.
Schrollini wrote: His problem isn't conceptual, it's notational.
Indeed, 100 percent correct!
Given S(x,y,z) What does x mean mathematically to YOU! Please just tell me, without me having to keep guessing at what YOUR x means. You can disagree with my defined x, fine...but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, tell what YOUR x is, given S(x,y,z).
In the manifold x is...??????????
in S, x is...??????????
I am looking for the words to replace ????????, and NOT the notation!!!
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."