Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13 Ideology: Trotskyism Pioneer
FW:
Quote: 1. You haven't yet explained it, so no wonder I 'don't get it'. 2. The things I say about John follow from the confused things theorists like Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao say about those obscure 'unity of opposites' you keep mentioning. Of course, if I have gone wrong, then a towering intellect like you should be able to put me straight, and show me where my argument goes astray. If so, why haven't you? Quote: As I have said several times, show me and the comrades here why the odd things Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao say about change  how it is produced by a struggle between opposites, how these opposites all change into one another, and how every object and process changes into that with which they struggle, their opposites  do not imply the things I have pointed out. If so, and Johntheboy changes in to Johntheman, he must struggle with Johntheman. But, to do that, Johntheman must already exist (or no struggle can take place). But, Johntheboy can't change into Johntheman since Johntheman already exists! My argument just generalises this obvious flaw in the dialectical 'theory' of change  which implies that if this it were true, change would be impossible. where does this proof go wrong? [It's no good saying that I 'don't understand'. It should be easy to explain this to me and show me where I go wrong. The fact that you keep dodging this no matter how many times I ask for clarification suggests that you just do not know the answer, and are just playing for time  or both.] Aha, at last, an 'attempt' to put me right: Quote: it's not a contradiction if this is takes place at different times, or in a time interval, which you have already conceded is the case with dt. That is why Engels added this comment (in AntiDühring): Quote: Hegel agreed: Quote:[Science of Logic, pp.43941, §955§960.] Bold added to help you get the point. Notice "at one and the same moment it is here and not here..." This is something you keep forgetting about, which makes your version of this 'theory' a revisionist version. Now, a sort of case could be made for Engels's version being a sort of contradiction (but I show at my site that even this isn't so), but not yours, since you omit the vital clause: "at one and the same moment of time". Your dt is an interval, and so no contradiction can ensue, for the object could be at the first of your two places at the beginning of this interval, and at the second place at the end of that interval. You need your dt to be zero, just like Engels. He even tells us this later on in the same book (and I have quoted this at you already, but you ignored it): Quote: You can find the link on page one of this thread. So, yours isn't a contradiction, whereas Engels's version might be. Quote: 1. But, you have yet to explain why x and dx are opposites, and what the 'contradiction' here is. Sure, you certainly assert it is, and repeatedly, but, alas, with no explanation. I'm beginning to think that you can't explain it, just like every other Hegelfan who has put pen to misuse over this. 2. If they are opposites, then according to the dialectical classics, quoted in my earlier threads, they should 'struggle' with one another. Do they really? Is this 'struggle' to be found in standard 'math' texts you keep banging on about. Worse, still, they should turn into one another too. Do they do that, too? But, you have an 'answer': Quote: 1. Then you disagree with the dialectical classics and Hegel (quoted at length in a previous thread), all of whom argue that these opposites change into one another, and with the former arguing that they also struggle with each other. 2. This comment of yours is rather puzzling: "to avoid the ambush of language". What do you propose we use, then? Semaphore, Aldis Lamp, smoke signals? You perhaps need to take Marx's advice, here: Quote: Which I think might help account for the fact that you seem not to be able to explain yourself no matter how many times you are asked to do so  the distorted language you halfinherited from Hegel has crippled your thought processes  "halfinherited", since your account of motion contradicts his (rather fittingly!). Quote: I'll be only too happy to 'understand' this just as soon as you explain how they can be in contradiction with one another, as opposed to merely asserting they are. Quote: You mean just like you are befuddled, since you seem not to be able to explain yourself. Quote: That reminds me of a passage from the New Testament: Quote: http://bible.cc/matthew/183.htm So, only those with a simple faith will be able to see the truth, and it will set them free... Alas for you, nature is complex, and our attempt to understand it can't fail to be either. But, let us suppose you are right; even then we still lack a simple explanation why this is a contradiction. Just asserting it is one is no help at all. By the way, have you been able to locate a standard physics or mathematics text that tells us that a moving body can occupy dx? FW: Quote: Ah, I see you have returned to type and are beginning tell fibs again. Where did I say we see time in dx? I said this: Quote: Bold added. Even you linked these variables on page two of this thread: Quote: Let, y = f(x) and dy/dt = F(t)  but, by the chain rule, dy/dt = dy/dx.dx/dt. Now, dy/dx = f'(x), so dy/dt= f'(x).dx/dt = F(t). QED! Hence, even your revisionist theory has a functional relationship between time and displacement. Ok, so now as promised, you can proceed to explain this: Quote: [Don't forget to cite a standard text that tells us a moving body can be in dx.] Finally, I am still waiting for an explanation of this: Quote: Rosa, this is the last time I clean your posts of sarcastic remarks. I'm very sure you can have a healthy debate without demeaning whomever disagrees with you. First World, the same goes for you. "The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Again, you have the trajectory x = f(t) and dx/dt = F(t) and you claim that dx is a function of t because dx = F(t)dt, is that it? How is dx a single point (to not contradict the single point x, which is also a function of t) and not an interval?
Quote: Slightly off topic, but this makes so much more sense if you say it in Spanish because "estar" (the word you'd use for "to be" in this instance. Spanish has two copulae which is awesome) etymologically means to stand. To "stand" (or otherwise, to be located) at one point and another simultaneously is motion, and a clear contradiction. Just sayin. Amirite, prax? "Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway."  Loz
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13 Ideology: Trotskyism Pioneer
FW  still ducking the difficult questions I see. That's cool..., we all know why?
Quote: Well it follows from the formulae you posted; if you don't like it, may I respectfully suggest you pick a fight with yourself, not me. Quote: It's no use asking me what your quirky use of 'dx' implies. All I have to go on are the inconsistent (and odd) things you say about it. I am just as much at a loss about what you mean you seem to be. Goodness knows I have tried my level best to get you to come straight about this, but all that happens is you either ignore my sincere attempts in this direction, or you continue to post baseless assertions about motion (that no one seems to be able to find in standard texts) and these obscure 'dialectical contradictions' (which you have yet to explain to us), all the while blaming me for not being able to follow a single thing you say! One final point: Any luck yet finding a single standard text that tells us that a moving object is in dx, as you claimed? Or, do we just have to accept your word for this?  Mabool: Quote: I'm sorry, but why is this a 'contradcition'? If what you say is correct, then objects do not so much move as expand! Anyway, I covered this sort of reply earlier: Quote: "The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
So, indeed, a body being in one point x contradicts that same body is in the interval dx. You could say nothing against that. Thus, don't blame dialectics, don't even try to understand unity of opposites, let alone struggle of opposites and how this causes change, prior to understanding that contradiction. At this point you shouldn't even attempt to begin understanding what the classics in the subject have said (posting citations doesn't mean you understand what is said there). Blame only yourself for not being able to understand the most elementary notion of contradiction in the position of a body. Like I said, first and foremost, understand that when a body is in a single position x that situation is in contradiction with the situation when that same body is in the interval dx. This has nothing to do with the fact that both x and dx are functions of t but has everything to do with the fact that both x and dx pertain to the position of the body  x is a single position, while dx is not. This is the first thing to understand before we go any further.
EDIT: I saw you have again added your incorrect explanation which stems from failing to understand the contradiction between x and dx. Motion is not described the way you imagine but has strictly defined equations to describe it: x = f(t) and dx/dt = F(t). Try to understand what these equations express and don't invent things which fit your incorrect view of motion.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13 Ideology: Trotskyism Pioneer
FW:
Quote: 1. Why is this a contradiction? You keep saying it is, but have yet to explain why  despite being asked to do so many times. 2. And, you have yet to explain how an object can move in dx. Nor have you quoted or cited a single standard text that argues this way. Quote: It's far too vague and confused for me to do this. You might just as well have posted this for all the good it did: Quote: FW: Quote: In fact, I blame you for being terminally unclear. Your maverick 'theory' doesn't even agree with Hegel and Engels on this! Quote: So you keep saying, but I have asked you several times to show me where I go wrong. In response, all we get from you is deafening silence. So, the suspicion remains that you don't understand your own theory  and so it will remain until you manage to explain it. [And, 'explain' is not the same as 'assert'.] Quote: There's a very easy solution: explain it to me. But, we already know that if you could do this, you'd have done it by now. Quote: Yet another repetition without an explanation why this is a contradiction, when it doesn't even look like one. Quote: But this shows that dx isn't a quantity, or even an interval. You are plainly stuck in a pre19th century understanding of the derivative. Quote: Yet another assertion with no explanation! Quote: And yet another! Quote: It would help if you explained this. As things stand, there is no contradiction here. But I am sure you'll just repeat that assertion again (with no explanation why this is a contradiction). It's all you do. And we both know why. [Hint for neutral observers: FW hasn't a clue why this is a 'contradiction'. Hence his prevarication and avoiding tactics.] "The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
The fact that x is a function of t doesn't mean it isn't a quantity. The fact that dx is a function of t doesn't mean that dx isn't a quantity. This you should understand first before even touching on why x and dx are in contradiction. So, your problems are rooted in the very first introductory steps of scientific analysis while you're trying to tackle the advanced matters. No wonder there's such a mess in your texts. So, first things first  prior to continuing we have to establish that you understand that both x and dx are quantities.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13 Ideology: Trotskyism Pioneer
FW:
Quote: I think you are confusing a functional symbol with that it maps. Quote: Well, perhaps you can quote or cite a standard text that tells us that dx is a quantity, or even an interval, and that objects can move about in it. [But you'd have done that by now if you could.] Quote: As predicted, you have ducked this one, yet again. Quote: It would be even better if you learnt to be clear, and accurate, first. And, it would help if you managed to get your own theory right! We have already seen your quirky version disagrees with Hegel and Engels. "The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Well, now it's clear where your problem lies. You don't consider the quantity x to be a quantity and you don't consider the quantity dx to be a quantity. Like I said, don't blame it on anybody else, this is your own problem and nobody else's, least of which it is dialectic's problem. How can you ever understand anything pertaining to motion let alone its dialectical aspect if you aren't comfortable with the simple fact that x and dx are quantities? I mentioned standard texts such as the one by Planck which you may consult but I'm afraid you have to read something even more introductory than that text. For now, take it from me, both x and dx are quantities and they can be defined for every t through the equations I wrote couple of times which I won't repeat. This you have to understand, otherwise your trying to make anything of what anybody says about motion will be a futile effort on your part.
EDIT: I guess, because of your having trouble in tackling infinitesimal math, it would be easier for you to understand this matter if deltax is used instead of dx. It is especially convenient when the trajectory is a parabola.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13 Ideology: Trotskyism Pioneer
FW:
Quote: Where have I said x isn't a quantity? More problematically, you continue to assert that dx is a quantity (and it seems it's a contained of some sort, too  so that objects can move about in it!), without citing or quoting a single standard text that depicts it this way  despite being asked repeatedly to do so. Quote: In fact, it's tour problem, since you refuse to quote or cite a single standard text that talks this way. Quote: Even more pertinent is this question: Why do you keep asserting dx is a quantity when you can't cite a single standard text that talks this way. Quote: Indeed, you did, and I then asked you on which page he said such things, and you went very quiet  as you usually do when you are confronted with questions you can't answer. But, you have failed even to cite an elementary text that says dx is a quantity or an interval. Quote: I'd like to take it from you, but since you can't even get Hegel and Engels right, I think it wise to retain a healthy scepticism.  FW: Quote: Once more, which standard text (page references please!) talks the way you do? "The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Together with the rest of the problems you have regarding scientific analysis you are unaware, as I already said, that even if there are standard texts, they cannot be used as arguments in a discussion such as this one. Arguments and counterarguments are exchanged, based on the claims at hand, excluding arguments from authority. It is especially easy in this case, because it is trivial. Like I said, dx is a quantity because it is defined through the equation dx = F(t)dt. The two letters, dx, symbolize a differential which is the main part of the change of F(t). Thus, the differential dx has a value; that is, it is a quantity. I shouldn't even have to explain that because it goes without saying. I'm doing it especially for you because, as evident, you're struggling with the infinitesimal math. I suggested that, because of the trouble you have with infinitesimal math, to consider deltax instead of dx. In this way you will clearly see the difference of two x's making up the deltax, which will also help you to comprehend it as a quantity.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13 Ideology: Trotskyism Pioneer
FW:
Quote: They can (and must) if you keep claiming nonstandard interpretations of dx (and one that I certainly didn't come across in my mathematics degree, and haven't seen since, even though I have taught mathematics for over 20 years). If your view of, say, dx is just standard 'math' as you claim, then you'd be able to cite or quote (with page references) a standard text that treats dx in the same way as you. The fact that you have serially refused to do this tells us all we need to know: you have simply made this up. Quote: Once more you confuse repetition with proof: if you are right in what you say, and this is all standardly accepted theory, then there'd be literally hundreds of texts that say what you say about dx, that it is a quantity, and an interval, and objects can move about in it! You need to stop prevaricating. "The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
I am right in what I say because it is obviously trivial. There's nothing more to it than noticing trivially that dx being equal to F(t)dt does have a value at a given t; that is, dx is a quantity. No need to cite anything with regard to trivialities such as this one. Your or anybody else's degree doesn't matter in this case so don't give it as an argument.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13 Ideology: Trotskyism Pioneer
Ok, I have downloaded a copy of Max Planck's book (in djvu format). However, I can't see in it any reference to dx being a quantity, or an interval, and that objects can move about in it, or that there is a contradiction in there somewhere.
Perhaps you dreamt it? Or, serial fibber that you are, you just made this up. Unless, of course, you can give me a page reference... [Ha! Some hope!] Quote: So, we only have your word for it that dx is a quantity, or an interval, and that objects can move about in it. Now, why didn't you say so at the beginning, instead of pretending that this is standard 'math'? "The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
No, it is not only my word that dx is a quantity but this is standard math. That's the basis of calculus. As I said more than once, you should stop asking me for references on that matter because they are plentiful and you can find them in any calculus book. Of course, authors such as Planck take that elementary fact for granted and will not spend time on defining elementary things. I gave Planck's text as a reference to show you how motion is described by observing the motion of a material point, which you spent a lot of time denying. Also we can do without the uncalled for snide remarks.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13 Ideology: Trotskyism Pioneer
FW:
Quote: Well, until you provide the missing citations from standard texts (not even Max Planck calls dx an interval, nor does he tell us that bodies can move about in it), this repeated claim of yours can be seen for what it is: pure invention. It would be very easy to shut me up: provide a quotation from or a citation to a standard text (in physics or mathematics)  and provide page references (since we know by know how slippery you are)  that speaks of the calculus in the way you do. I can't find such a reference in any of the many books on the calculus I have in my library (both Introductory and Advanced texts). Ah, now we come to the giveaway: Quote: But, not even elementary books on the calculus argue the way you do  or if they do, you will surely be able to cite one that does. None of the ones I have used (which I have employed to teach 1618 year olds basic Differentiation  printed by Cambridge University Press, too) tell us that dx is a quantity, or that it is an interval, or that objects can move about in it. Sure, Max Planck describes the motion of a point (but he does not call it a 'mathematical point', so we still require a standard text that tells us mathematical points can move  when I have shown they can't) in Chapter One: 'Motion Along A Straight Line', but he nowhere tells us that dx is a quantity, or that it is an interval and that bodies can move about in it. So, no advanced or elementary text can be cited that supports your odd claims about dx  or if they can, you have yet to offer one in your defence  in which case it looks like you have just made this up. Or, which is much more likely, you are still stuck in a pre19th century view of the calculus, where theorists did used to talk this way (but even they didn't talk about dx being an interval in which bodies could move!). Check out these standard texts: Baron, M. (1969), The Origins Of The Infinitesimal Calculus (Pergamon Press). Edwards, C. (1979), The Historical Development Of The Calculus (SpringerVerlag). Boyer, C. (1959), The History Of The Calculus And Its Conceptual Development (Dover). Or, this philosophically/mathematically illuminating study: Kitcher, P. (1984), The Nature Of Mathematical Knowledge (Oxford University Press). So, and once more, stop prevaricating: if this is indeed standard mathematics, as you claim, then you will be able to cite or quote a standard text (elementary or otherwise)  giving page references  that argues the way you do. "The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Like I said, a discussion need not get into elementary notions such as what dx is in mathematics. Nevertheless, and probably this should be the last time to get into such freshman type trivialities, here's the first link of many that popsup when typing 'dx in mathematics': http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/user ... rs/dx.html. Read it and somehow try to understand it to avoid sidetracking the discussion. Now, as for 'material point', you can consult, for instance, most of the standard physical chemistry textbooks such as Atkins, Moore etc. This is a nonissue and we should not waste any more time on it.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13 Ideology: Trotskyism Pioneer
FW:
Quote: So, you can't point even to an elementary text that speaks of dx in the way you do. Fine, at least we now know you made this all up  as suspected. So, what do you do instead? You do a hurried Google search  which means that you can't cite a standard text in support of your quirky view of mathematics, since citing just one such text would have taken you far less time to do  or, what is far more likely, you actually tried to find a standard text that talks the way you do, and found that none of them do: Quote: Unfortunately, the above is not a standard text  or if it is, perhaps you can tell me when and where it was published, so I can obtain a copy and check it for myself. Indeed, for all we know, this could be a page you wrote! It certainly hasn't been peer reviewed. Or if it has, can we have the details? But, what does this nonstandard page actually say: Quote: But, this is precisely the pre19th century view of the calculus (with the word 'limit' thrown in for good measure) I mentioned earlier. Even so, we have established that you are physically capable of citing a text that seems to support your view (except even the above does not say a moving object is capable of moving about in dx), so what it stopping you citing a published standard text that does this? By citing this nonstandard source, you have conceded the point that it is important to substantiate your odd claims about dx, so why not do this properly: cite a standard, or even an elementary (standard) published text that does this? [Well, we both know why  there aren't any  or, at least, none that were published after Cauchy and Weierstrass's work in this area.] FW: Quote: So, now you switch to a few vague allusions to physical chemistry books (with no page references  no surprise there!). Fortunately, I have a copy of Atkins (2006 edition) and it nowhere tells us that material points are mathematical points. Or, if you think it does, can you tell me which page to turn to? [Ha! Some hope!] Quote: It can't be a nonissue since it is central to your quirky view of physics, mathematics and now physical chemistry. I have the books in front of me, so this is an ideal opportunity for you to shut me up  give me an exact citation. [Prediction: expect yet more prevarication...] "The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Rosa, Belligerent behavior will not win you an argument or and friends here. Remember our forum rule about being CIVIL at all times

Alternative Display:
Mobile view

