point in math

MarkFL said:
You're not with me at all if you continue to insist that a location implies a size. These are two independent attributes.
Click to expand...
sorry sir I'm already said my math isn't good or my logic !
location isn't implying size?! so what location means ? lets close this gap about point ..
all what you said I'm with you ! but lemme understand you sir ! I really want to learn
what do you mean by location? if it didn't imply a size or value of entity then what it implies?!
 
Ryan$ said:
sorry sir I'm already said my math isn't good or my logic !
location isn't implying size?! so what location means ? lets close this gap about point ..
all what you said I'm with you ! but lemme understand you sir ! I really want to learn
what do you mean by location? if it didn't imply a size or value of entity then what it implies?!
Click to expand...

Location refers to a particular place or position...it says nothing of size. Suppose time is continuous...for how long it is 3:00 pm?
 
Ryan$ said:
sorry sir I'm already said my math isn't good or my logic !
location isn't implying size?! so what location means ? lets close this gap about point ..
all what you said I'm with you ! but lemme understand you sir ! I really want to learn
what do you mean by location? if it didn't imply a size or value of entity then what it implies?!
Click to expand...
Your location is your address - where you live.

Your size is your height (that may or may not include your weight).

Your other attributes could be color of eyes or size of your feet or your blood-type.

Attributes could be constant with respect to time (your blood type or color of your eyes) or it could be function of time (your height or your address).
 
Ryan$ said:
in brief.. how can I imagine a point while solving and avoid the confusing things about point ?! like what I have been asked in this thread .. I want a good analogy to imagine it by solving to overcome on that confusing things!
maybe help me please? thanks alot
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing the number line with a ruler. The lines on the ruler have width. If they didn't we would not see them. The points on the number line DO NOT HAVE WIDTH.

Let's consider this number line: 0-----1-----2
Would you agree that point 1 is where 1 'ends' and 2 'begins'?
Assuming you agree...
Let's assume point 1 has a width of epsilon, e > 0. Something like this: 0--------------1==e==--------------2
Where is the middle of the epsilon segment =====?
It's at 1 + e/2. But if e > 0 this number would be in the 2 territory. We have a contradiction. Therefore, our assumption that "point 1 has a width of epsilon, e > 0" is FALSE. QED.
 
Instead of working with the task at hand (that is, dealing with queries in terms of a specific exercise, as they arise), Ryan$ uses vague references and thoughts to discuss open-ended concerns involving multiple applications of something (eg: concept, model, definition, method), and then he wants us to provide a condensed, nicely-packaged "explanation" that relieves all his concerns at once. That's a common strategy among people who want to avoid work or mental effort. They long for a simple, one-size-fits-all remedy, and when that doesn't happen their hope becomes their reality. They have no interest in striving for success; they want it provided. (Example: Ryan wants us to look up words in a dictionary for him, instead of doing it himself).

I'm convinced that many of Ryan's concerns would resolve on their own over time, if he were to practice doing math -- one exercise at a time. Until we find a way to get Ryan to discuss matters related to understanding specific exercises, I don't think our efforts will amount to much.

"There are no shortcuts to any place worth going." ~ Anonymous

?
 
You don't need the idealized points of geometry to do arithmetic, algebra, calculus, or differential equations. You keep asking for analogies, but the relationship between points and n-tuples of numbers is the analogy. If the analogy confuses you, stop using it, and simply think of n-tuples and functions as numerical relations. Moreover, you make it worse by refusing to think in terms of the idealizations of geometry. Points that you draw on paper have physical dimensions; the points in geometry do not. The lines that you draw on paper have height and depth as well as length; the lines in geometry do not.

Frankly, you need to learn arithmetic and algebra before studying calculus. (In my opinion, very much a minority opinion, the introductory course in standard analysis that starts off the modern teaching of calculus is totally unnecessary and highly confusing. in your case, it has you doubting whether 7 - 5 = 2.)
 
MarkFL said:
Location refers to a particular place or position...it says nothing of size. Suppose time is continuous...for how long it is 3:00 pm?
Click to expand...
Yup I'm now totally with you ! and with your explanation about point.

last thing, sometimes it's hard to differentiate if the attribute are different and relative or not ... how math define two things relate or not?
I mean do you have from your experience how can I differentiate between things if they are different or relative?! sorry for that questions but I really not that good in thinking and you see by my explanation how worst I'm, but yeah I want to learn !
in brief is there a mechanism I can use to decide if two concepts are different or not different ?!
 
Subhotosh Khan said:
Your location is your address - where you live.

Your size is your height (that may or may not include your weight).

Your other attributes could be color of eyes or size of your feet or your blood-type.

Attributes could be constant with respect to time (your blood type or color of your eyes) or it could be function of time (your height or your address).
Click to expand...

in brief is there a mechanism I can use to decide if two concepts are different or not different ?!
 
Ryan$ said:
in brief is there a mechanism I can use to decide if two concepts are different or not different ?!
Click to expand...
Yeah, get a textbook at the 4th and 5th grade level. That's where many of your answers are are taught. (And no, I am not being condescending. I'm just stating a fact.)

-Dan
 
But as others have already told you, that "*' is NOT a point in the mathematical sense. A "point", in mathematics, is a concept, not a physical object like your "*".

And if you refuse to acccept that 0.999999...= 1 (notice the "..." which you have in your first reference to this but not in your second, i have to ask "What do you think "0.999999..." means? What is its definition?

(If you do not know the definition of something then you have no business having any opinion at all about it.)
 
Hi guys, could you please bear me? maybe this thread I deeply believe it's useless, but it's really struggling me and Im not joke or something like that ? if so then I wouldn't take my time to post this thread.


I have really confusion and problem while solving questions, the problem is like this, lets assume I have electrical graph (x,y), which x axis is the power, and y axis is the time!

lets assume that the graph is linear like y=a*x+c which a>x then the graph is going up, lets assume I have took one of the points of this graph, the middle point of the line is equal to (x0,y0), what's now confusing me, How could I say that "point" is equal to (x0,y0) which means that this point has value, but I already known from math that "point" doesn't have value, size,width,it's nullity not having anything, so how we say to something like point which doesn't have any size or width it's equal to value? if it's equal to value then we contrast the definition of point which it says that point hasn't value, size , not having anything.


Well, what I want is to learn!!!!, how could I imagine point or actually analog it when I say that point equal to something? what's confusing me how we say to something that doesn't have value like point , it's equal to value .. so we are in contrast logic! , So please guys could someone explain to me how should I imagine a point or actually when I say that point equal to "something" how should I imagine it? it's really struggling me whenever I say while solving that "point" equal to (x0,y0) on the graph .. but in the other side, how point could be equal to something if it's doesn't have value?! here's my problem !!! could anyone please help me to understand or to learn how should I look at point conceptually ? thanks alot.
 
Harry_the_cat said:
It doesn't represent value as such. It represents position. We don't say a point has the value (a, b), we say it has the position (a, b).
Click to expand...
Hi ! but once again if you are even referring to it position, so you are implicitly it's equal to (a,b) .. so it's has value ..and from its definition it musn't have value (contrast!)
 
Ryan$ said:
Hi ! but once again if you are even referring to it position, so you are implicitly it's equal to (a,b) .. so it's has value ..and from its definition it musn't have value (contrast!)
Click to expand...
The point's coordinates have values a and b. The point itself does not have a value. Does a circle have a value? No. Why would a point have a value?
 
lets assume that the graph is linear like y=a*x+c which a>x then the graph is going up,
Click to expand...
Did you intend "a> 0"? "a> x" doesn't make sense because a is a constant and x is a variable. a might be greater than some values of x and less than others.

When we say "the middle point of the line is equal to (x0,y0)" we are saying that in the particular coordinate system used in this problem, the x and y coordinates have the values x0 and y0.
 
Ryan$ said:
Hi ! but once again if you are even referring to it position, so you are implicitly it's equal to (a,b) .. so it's has value ..and from its definition it musn't have value (contrast!)
Click to expand...
No it doesn't imply equality. Any point on earth has coordinates eg Brisbane Australia is at 27.4698° S, 153.0251° E. That does not imply that
Brisbane = 27.4698° S, 153.0251° E. It means that is where it is located, ie its position.
 
Hi, think of it like this : we are not giving a value to the point itself, we are giving a value to the position of the point using the x and y coordinates that describe how far our point is from the x and y axis. x and y are simply distances.
 
Coefficient said:
Hi, think of it like this : we are not giving a value to the point itself, we are giving a value to the position of the point using the x and y coordinates that describe how far our point is from the x and y axis. x and y are simply distances.
Click to expand...
so if I want to point any point lets assume this point on x axis, can I call any point there by anything I want, name it by whatever I want? I mean lets assume in my problem I want the max x distance, lets assume I have x axis which represent distance, so if I marked a point on x axis by Xmax, how it's logically right and not contrast? because it's given the axis x and not the axis of Xmax .. understand my problem?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top