Law of Measurement

[Guadalupe]

Originally Posted by Turtle

oh but you did. that you deny it or simply don't see it goes to no rigor & no merit. yes, i strongly feel this belongs in strange claims.

Hi! Turtle

Would you please be so kind enough as to show where I posted such a claim that the mark is a number?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Guadalupe

Hi! Turtle

Would you please be so kind enough as to show where I posted such a claim that the mark is a number?

your first post that i quoted in my first post. again; that you don't understand why this is so is exactly why your postings have no mathematical merit. pure word salad; not even wrong.

Word salad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not even wrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Guadalupe]

Originally Posted by Turtle

your first post that i quoted in my first post. again; that you don't understand why this is so is exactly why your postings have no mathematical merit. pure word salad; not even wrong.

Word salad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not even wrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi! Turtle

I’m sorry for not respond to your post #5. I’ve been waiting for the information that may help me better understand modest post #10.

So far the information I have gathered has been favorable. All I’m waiting for now is a response from Dr. Ronald Staszkow.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Guadalupe

Hi! Turtle

I’m sorry for not respond to your post #5. I’ve been waiting for the information that may help me better understand modest post #10.

So far the information I have gathered has been favorable. All I’m waiting for now is a response from Dr. Ronald Staszkow.

Ron Staszkow Faculty Website: Faculty Profile - Ron Staszkow, Professor Emeritus, Math - Ohlone College, Fremont, Newark, East Bay Area, California

erhm...yeah, a community college teacher with a BA in math, yours in particular, is not going to hold any weight against what has already been presented by hypog members. your premise is flawed from the git go, we have shown it so, and no amount of delaying and word-salad tossing is going to make it any different.

[Guadalupe]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Ron Staszkow Faculty Website: Faculty Profile - Ron Staszkow, Professor Emeritus, Math - Ohlone College, Fremont, Newark, East Bay Area, California

erhm...yeah, a community college teacher with a BA in math, yours in particular, is not going to hold any weight against what has already been presented by hypog members. your premise is flawed from the git go, we have shown it so, and no amount of delaying and word-salad tossing is going to make it any different.

Hi! Turtle

Hmm. Here is a question for you. If someone from a prestigious institution, university or even a member of this forums that has a PhD in Mathematics were to concur with my Law of Measurement would it make any difference?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Guadalupe

Would you please be so kind enough as to show where I posted such a claim that the mark is a number?

Turtle was referring to the the first paragraph in your original post in this thread:

Originally Posted by Guadalupe

It occurred to me that on a number line I should be using half the marker instead of the whole marker that’s located above the number Zero (0). After all, isn’t the whole marker that is located above the number Zero (0) half negative and half positive?

Clearly here, you are talking quite literally about the "mark" on the ruler.

The reason this is meaningless from a mathematical point of view is that a ruler or number line is a physical oversimplification that must have markers that are visible for purposes of understanding and perception. But in the underlying mathematical conceptual realization of the number line, markers are infinitely thin, and as a result, there is nothing to "split into halves."

By trying to use the physical approximation to deal with an abstract mathematical concept, you have--either through ignorance or intention to mislead--made an argument that has no mathematical validity.

I hope this clarifies the issue that Turtle has been trying to describe to you.

I'm just trying to make a smudge on the collective unconscious,
Buffy

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Guadalupe

Hi! Turtle

Hmm. Here is a question for you. If someone from a prestigious institution, university or even a member of this forums that has a PhD in Mathematics were to concur with my Law of Measurement would it make any difference?

not a whit. i've read it & it is... erhm... severley wanting to put it nicely.

[stereologist]

Guadalupe is asking questions long since considered. I refer Guadalupe to the Greek discusses on magnitudes. I believe it was Erastosthenes who compiled the study on magnitudes. In short, about 3000 years ago it was determined that your claim is wrong.

[TheBigDog]

Turtle, I have given this one some thought. You are an accoplished carpenter, and I am a hobbyist on woodworking. When we use a meaure we know that the hash marks are always "on center" (or they should be). So when I am marking a point at 20 1/8" I use the center of that hash mark to find the spot. If that is the "Law of Measurement" then I guess we have been following it for years. Also, when using a ruler I do not measure from the end, but from one hash mark to another. This is a more certain distance than trying to line up from the edge. Of course some precision tools are built to measure from an edge, but the hash marks are still on center.

Guadalupe, are you talking about a "Rule of Measuring with a Ruler" or a "Law of Measure"?

Bill

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Turtle, I have given this one some thought. You are an accomplished carpenter, and I am a hobbyist on woodworking. When we use a meaure we know that the hash marks are always "on center" (or they should be). So when I am marking a point at 20 1/8" I use the center of that hash mark to find the spot. If that is the "Law of Measurement" then I guess we have been following it for years.

let's just say it is a law of measurement and not the law. for example another law of measurement for woodworkers is: ~ measure twice, cut once.

Originally Posted by B-Dawg

Also, when using a ruler I do not measure from the end, but from one hash mark to another. This is a more certain distance than trying to line up from the edge.

the choice of using an end or edge of a ruler or tape measure is one i make depending on the specifics at the time.

Originally Posted by bILL

Of course some precision tools are built to measure from an edge, but the hash marks are still on center.

Bill

notice also that such precision rules have no hash mark on the end or edge. why you ask? well this goes somewhat to galupe's misunderstanding about zero, as the end is the end and there is no more or less than the end. it's the end. zero. period. . . . . .