sci.physics

On Feb 28, 11:21=C2=A0pm, "zzbun...@"
wrote:
> On Feb 28, 6:36=C2=A0am, Grouchy wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 12:38=C2=A0am, "Androcles" wrot=
e:
>
> > > "Grouchy" wrote in message
>
> > >news:46b9083f-9aa5-4feb-85f4-6d5d64232168@.=
..
> > > On Feb 25, 9:46 am, Douglas Eagleson
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > I am answering as a general reply to an axiomatic physics. Can all
> > > > valid relation be applied as cause to axiom. S a relation was named
> > > > and so to allow all relation to then cause the next appears the axio=
m
> > > > applied. I write a little abstract so hang in there.
>
> > > > S as the named relation will axiomatically cause the next relations
> > > > existance, said more in first order theory. An operation to cause th=
e
> > > > relation was a task. As they go it would hurt as a task to challenge=

> > > > this large. Few would claimed success and my suggestion appear as
> > > > follows. A second abstracted formal relative can be parted as first
> > > > order predicate theory.
>
> > > > Few people really like to count abstract order and it is hard to
> > > > apply. So a common relative would be the solution. Just pretend a
> > > > larger relative exists.
>
> > > > gyrations begin:
>
> > > > So take a deep breath. Apply the abstract S and name the symbol as
> > > > the new relation. So apply means to form a certain first order
> > > > statement. Next pretend an abstract placemarker exists for the
> > > > solution, to startwith. What ever the solution relation go as
> > > > abstract solved relation. So use Any in the abstract.
>
> > > > It requires ap as the solution name to first mean any ap. I require
> > > > the thinker to form an exact class as the inference. So the first
> > > > relation has the any as always relative.
>
> > > > Start with left and right handedness. Form the sided relation. Now
> > > > you begin to see the thought. How does one cause the first relation
> > > > axiomatically? Let along begin with my suggestion.
>
> > > > A classical dilemma appears the first relations thought relative to =
an
> > > > axiom itself. So name the first relation S as handedness and define
> > > > its cause. Now we begin. How was abstract axiom to cause? What is
> > > > solution to handedness? Let alone find the next relation ap relative=

> > > > to handedness.
>
> > > > So how to begin!? And the dilemma was to construct the appearance of=

> > > > relation. What comes to mind as possible solution is irrelevent, we
> > > > seek a common axiom. SO take my suggest once more and form the any
> > > > abstraction. And here lies a cause to handedness. An unidentifed
> > > > element as abstract any causes, guarantteeed. Learn to solve in the
> > > > fashion as defined. Solve, what relative to hand. And then begin
> > > > failing again for the symmetric formal hand appears to confuse.
>
> > > > answer:
>
> > > > All these thought pattern gyrations are solved when the rule set I
> > > > give is utilized. All in relation to any was an exact universal as
> > > > transform. A set as all relative to the abstract element, any was
> > > > universal applied to the symmetric set.
>
> > > > Step 1: Form the abstracted All to any set relative inference.
> > > > Step 2: All handedness relative to any side appears the answer. I us=
e
> > > > memory appearance as the correct answer.
>
> > > > So when this inference is used the answer was a glimmer of memory.
> > > > "The first guess is the right guess"
> > > > This is called subconicous polling. A memory thought was answer. So
> > > > the correctness appears YOUR depth of reliance on subconcious memory=
.
> > > > I use it intuitively. I guess as a poll. And my intuitional answer
> > > > was always correct.
>
> > > > So thought-memory-thought was the application. One thought, listen/
> > > > watch for memory to give and answer, think relative to apply.
>
> > > > Step 3. Side as geometric relative causes all handedness to exist.
> > > > Side causes hands.
>
> > > > I applied the glimmer that appeared, "side" as an axiom.
>
> > > > Now it should be easy to always relate in this first order fashion.
> > > > It is called memory sequence polling.
> > > > Now relate handedness to its next relation.
>
> > > > Step 1: Any
>
> > > > Douglas Eagleson
> > > > Gaithersburg, MD USA
>
> > > | Mr. Eagleson,
>
> > > | I'm not exactly sure I understand what you're getting at... so pardo=
n
> > > | me if I've misunderstood the purpose of your post.
>
> > > | "Axiom" is simply an unproven assumption
>
> > > Nonsense, an axiom is so primitively simple that no proof is possible.=

>
> > > "You can read" is an example of an axiom. It is not an unproven
> > > assumption, it is self-evident to you both you and I. If it were false=

> > > you would be unable to reply to Eagleson. Perhaps a more famous
> > > example is Rene Descartes' "I think, therefore I am".
>
> > > Einstein's third postulate: =C2=A0'the "time" required by light to tra=
vel
> > > from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A'
> > > is an unproven assumption (and a rather silly one at that because it
> > > can be disproven).
>
> > > Newton's three laws are axioms, you have neither proof nor disproof
> > > that:
> > > "Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in
> > > a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces
> > > impressed thereon."
>
> > > Both contain the axiomatic notion of the passage of time,
> > > Newton with "perseveres" and Einstein with his attempt to
> > > quantify time. Hence "time passes" is an axiom. That is not
> > > "simply an unproven assumption".
>
> >/Axiom
>
> > "The word "axiom" comes from the Greek word =CE=B1=CE=BE=CE=B9=CF=89=CE=
=BC=CE=B1 ("axioma"), which
> > means that which is deemed worthy or fit or that which is considered
> > self-evident. The word comes from =CE=B1=CE=BE=CE=B9=CE=BF=CE=B5=CE=B9=
=CE=BD ("axioein"), meaning to deem
> > worthy, which in turn comes from =CE=B1=CE=BE=CE=B9=CE=BF=CF=82 ("axios"=
), meaning worthy.
> > Among the philosophers of the ancient Greeks an "axiom" was a claim
> > which could be seen to be true without any need for proof. In
> > epistemology, an "axiom" is a self-evident truth upon which other
> > knowledge must rest, from which other knowledge is built up. To say
> > the least, not all epistemologists agree that axioms, understood in
> > that sense, exist. As the word "axiom" is understood in modern
> > mathematics, an axiom is "not" a proposition that is self-evident.
> > Rather, it simply means a starting point in a logical system. For
> > example, in some rings, the operation of multiplication is
> > commutative, and in some it is not; those rings in which it "is" are
> > said to satisfy the "axiom of commutativity of multiplication."
> > Another name for an axiom is "postulate". An axiom is an elementary
> > basis for a formal logic system that together with the rules of
> > inference define a logic. For instance, (misquoting Peano) simple
> > arithmetic including addition can be defined and many theorems proven
> > by assuming # a number called 0 exists # every number X has a
> > successor called inc(X) # X+0 =3D X # inc(X) + Y =3D X + inc(Y) Using
> > these axioms, and defining the customary short names 1, 2, 3, and so
> > on for inc(0), inc(inc(0)), inc(inc(inc(0))) respectively, we can show
> > that: :inc(X) =3D X + 1 and :1 + 2 =3D 1 + inc(1) Expansion of
> > abbreviation (2 =3D inc(1)) :1 + 2 =3D inc(1) + 1 Axiom 4 :1 + 2 =3D 2 +=
1
> > Abbreviation (2 =3D inc(1)) :1 + 2 =3D 2 + inc(0) Expansion of
> > abbreviation (1 =3D inc(0)) :1 + 2 =3D inc(2) + 0 Axiom 4 :1 + 2 =3D 3 A=
xiom
> > 3 and Use of abbreviation (inc(2) =3D 3) Any fact that we can derive
> > from the axioms is not needed as an axiom. Anything that we cannot
> > derive from the axioms and for which we also cannot derive the
> > negation might reasonably be added as an axiom. Probably the most
> > famous very early set of axiom are the 4+1 postulates of Euclid. These
> > turn out to be fairly incomplete, actually, and many more postulates
> > are necessary to completely characterize his geometry (Hilbert used
> > 23). I say 4+1 since the fifth postulate (through a point outside a
> > line there is exactly one parallel) was suspected to be derivable from
> > the first 4 for nearly two millennia. Ultimately, the fifth postulate
> > was found to be independent of the first four. Indeed, one can assume
> > that no parallels through a point outside a line exist, that exactly
> > one exists, or that infinitely many exist. These choices give us
> > alternative forms of geometry in which the interior angles of a
> > triangle add up to less than, exactly or more than a straight line
> > respectively and are known as elliptic, Euclidean and hyperbolic
> > geometries. The general theory of relativity is essentially a claim
> > that mass gives space hyperbolic geometry. The fact that alternative
> > forms of geometry might exist was very troubling to mathematicians of
> > the 19th century and in similar developments, say Boolean algebra,
> > there were generally elaborate efforts taken to derive the system from
> > normal arithmetic systems. Galois showed just before his untimely
> > death that these efforts were largely wasted but that the grand
> > parallels between axiomatic systems could be put to good use as he
> > algebraicly solved many classical geometrical problems. Ultimately,
> > the abstract parallels between algebraic systems were seen to be more
> > important than the details and modern algebra was born. In the
> > twentieth century, G=C3=B6del's incompleteness theorem showed that no
> > explicit (. recursive) set of axioms sufficiently large for
> > ordinary mathematics could be both (1) complete (. every statement
> > can be either proved or disproved) and (2) consistent (. no
> > statement can be both proved and disproved). "
>
> > Nonsense, eh?
>
> > Newton very clearly writes (in the latin) "Axioms, or Laws of Motion"
> > in PMNP. =C2=A0He also clearly states WHY he uses the convention of the
> > term "Law" and what his usage relates to and is qualified by. Newton
> > also covers his understanding of "time" in the same section of the
> > book.- Hide quoted text -
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0Why he used the term "Law" is quite trivial.
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0Since in Newton's time, "Law" and "Aristotle" were one and th=
e same
> thing.
>
> > - Show quoted text -

/wiki/Philosophiae_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica/D=
efinitions

"Hitherto I have laid down the definitions of such words as are less
known, and explained the sense in which I would have them to be
understood in the following discourse. I do not define time, space,
place, and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe,
that the common people conceive those quantities under no other
notions but from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And
thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which it will be
convenient to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and
apparent, mathematical and common...."

zzbunker,

I'm fairly sure that the author of the Stanford encyclopedia entry on
Newton's PM leans more towards your reading of Newton than my own, so
I'm sort of left deferring to the text (I can link the latin) as a
primary source. If your reading of the above translation (which is
only one of several available) is such that you still find no grounds
to reconsider, I can put up some additional links.

Best