Rights

TortoiseDream · Sep 13, 2010

RoccoR said:
TortoiseDream,

Lesson 1
(SALIENT POINTS)

There are 52 Marks (as indicated). Each Mark is a pronoun.

Most Respectfully,
R

Close...close.

Read the statement of the rule very carefully. All copies... So if I were to ask you how many pronouns there are, you could not answer correctly. For one, there are zillions of copies of the mark 'a' all over the world, and some are getting erased, some are being printed as we speak. The number of pronouns is ever changing.

52 is the correct answer to the question: how many types of pronouns are there. Does this make sense?

RoccoR · Sep 13, 2010

TortoiseDream

Yes - understood.

TortoiseDream said:
Close...close.

Read the statement of the rule very carefully. All copies... So if I were to ask you how many pronouns there are, you could not answer correctly. For one, there are zillions of copies of the mark 'a' all over the world, and some are getting erased, some are being printed as we speak. The number of pronouns is ever changing.

52 is the correct answer to the question: how many types of pronouns are there. Does this make sense?

(OBSERVATION)

In the quotation box, supra, there are 22 mark "a". That is 22 pronouns of type "a" characteristic.

v/r
R

Ignoramus · Sep 13, 2010

TortoiseDream said:
It has not discarded the ideas of Euclidean geometry. We formulate them in different ways within a different, more general, more encompassing framework. For example, Euclid could never do differential geometry.

You have a mastery of the irrelevant that staggers the imagination. My original statement was

Apparently you don?t consider geometry mathematics. It is my understanding that "point", "line" and "plane" belong to the set of undefined elements in geometry. This cite may give an example

http://www.emis.de/monographs/jablan/chap11.htm

Notice, that neither the cite nor my statement limits "point", "line" and "plane" to Euclidean Geometry, as a matter of fact, the cite deals with non-Euclidean Geometry and specifically states, in all geometries.
To which you blithely reply,

You are right, I would not consider Euclidean Geometry mathematics, as in modern mathematics founded upon set theory. That is when I say mathematics, I really mean set theory (I probably should've said this earlier).

As I stated before, I believe you have a problem with English. Thankfully, I?m not a mathematician so I?m spared an analysis of your mathematics. I merely set aside the contradictions that appear to my untrained eye as the results of my ignorance.

That's incorrect, there are no undefined elements in mathematics. The undefined concept, as I put forth before, is the idea of a mark. If I get far enough with Rocco, you will see what I mean. I'm sorry but I simply cannot explain why this is the case without going into the full blown nitty gritty details of the foundations.

Considering your statements to this point, spare me. I have already exceeded my quota of pain and suffering. How about the set of undefined elements? Try Googling it. You should be able to understand the results, after all, you are a mathematician.
Oh, by the way, can you give me a reference to "mark" as a mathematical concept? I?m not having any luck finding one.

Mathematical words and sentences serve the same purpose as those in English, i.e. pointers. In mathematics they always point to imaginary things (like numbers, or functions). The problem arises when one pretends to do math by heavily relying on English. In informal proofs, English is used to remind the mathematician of a formal proof in the real language. If a formal proof cannot be produced from an informal one, the informal one should be rejected.

The language of the forum is English, remember. However, I don?t see any relevance, but then, ...?

The conversation about undefined elements and the definition of rights is fundamentally disjoint. I'm not sure why this conversation got blown so far
out of context either. I just wanted to know what "rights" were.

You are the one that started it with an absurd demand that rights be defined. Your rationale seemed to be that all concepts in mathematics could be defined, thus rights should be definable. When I rejected that, I merely made an aside remark that not all elements of mathematics were definable. You keep insisting that they are, in opposition to every book on mathematics that I have.
To ask what something is and to define it are two different things. The dictionary gives definitions taken from general usage. They don?t have to be accurate, only used.
The requirements of semantics and logic are a bit more rigorous.

AK_ID · Sep 14, 2010

This conversation reminds me of turnips and Mr. Greeley.

White Rabbit · Sep 14, 2010

Ignoramus said:
If you will go back to my reply to White Rabbit on page eight, read that, and if you have a question, then post it in the context of that post.

That reply was what convinced me to bail out of this thread and this forum.

Beem me up Scotty!

obtuseobserver · Sep 14, 2010

AK_ID said:
This conversation reminds me of turnips and Mr. Greeley.

Reminds me that I need to go to Target

apparently White Rabbit too

AK_ID · Sep 14, 2010

He may need to visit another green grocer.

Ignoramus · Sep 14, 2010

Posted on the wrong thread. Senility in action.

george · Aug 13, 2011

rights are the features which make you human.rights and laws go hand in hand but sometimes laws contradict rights.

Rights

Similar threads