studiot

Two separate issues. Firstly pengkuan has confirmed that I have more or less correctly deduced the thrust of his argument (post 19) I did not expect his reply so quickly, I will come back to that. Secondly pengkuan has correctly identified the continuity question, which was unsolved by Euclid and remained so although discussed for nearly two thousand years before Dedekind in 1872 "Stetigkeit und irrationale Zahlen", but is stuck at the same issue Euclid was. translated the Dedekind postulate of continuity reads. "If all points of a straight line fall into two classes such that every point of the first class lies to the left of every point of the second class, there exists one and only one point that produces this division of all the points into two classes, this division of a straight line into two parts. Daedalus, can you help with the Greek? I'm sorry I lost all the spacing of the words when pasting in. Computer typology is not all it's cracked up to be.

If I told you that in a box of 50 apples, 5 were red, and asked you what percentage of apples were red how would you calculate the %? You have yet to show us a single calculation. What is the molecular weight of chlordane? What % of this is chlorine? Hypervalent iodine. Whilst it may be more elegant to work in the direction you offer, working in the opposite direction is perhaps conceptually easier for some.

Drat it's lost all the spaces Which translated (Sir Thomas Heath 1908) reads That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles are less than two right angles.

I'm sorry, which exact postulate, definition, axiom or common notion of Euclid states that? The only one that actually mentions meeting is postulate 5, and it does not say they meet at a point.

First let me say thank for for asking this question without assuming something is wrong. +1 I was responding to the claim in the quote by pengkuan that lines are not made up of points. So I ask you to look carefully at the region indicated as it has no length in any direction so cannot qualify to be classed as a line. Yet it appears to be part of two lines. So is a segment of a line not a line? And if not what is it?

Was this a former windows recovery drive?

Don't the characteristics of points and lines depend on your definitions of them? I see you are following the ancient Greeks in this respect. Euclid Definition 1 : A point is that which hath no part. Euclid Definition 2 : A line is a breadthless length. The only trouble with this (which Euclid never answered satisfactorily) is describing what happens when two lines intersect. That is answering the question do they have anything in common?

Hold the windows key down and hit the letter R Type diskmgmt.nmsc into the box and hit return Select the partition to eliminate (hatched w in my pic) and action form the list as shown Delete the partition You may also need to follow through by deleting the partitions with the green surround if it is part of a larger partition grouping.

I might be forgiven for wondering what I get for nearly £2,000 local taxes and nearly £1,000 water taxes per year and thinking I might be better off without the organisation some suggest I should be compelled to vote for. Any sort of vote is after all an implicit endorsement of the system.

Can you provide some simple example calculations to show what you mean?

Have you done this? If not, why not, and if so why did you not post the calculation as sensei asked? Well I would say using the start I offered, you could calculate the number of grams of chlorine in the original sample, in terms of x. Can you do this?

A good start might be to say Let x be the number of grams of chlordane in the sample Then 100(x/2.017) = required % chlordane What do you think comes next?

One of my dislikes of the current system is that I dislike the party system itself. I prefer the no party system with candidates presenting themselves on, dare I say it, merit? This served the ancient kings of Wessex well for 600 hundred years. Certainly the party system has no place in local politics, in my view.

Look up the Linear Combination of Atomic Orbitals (LCAO method) It is the simplest calculational one. https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=lcao+method+pdf&gbv=2&oq=LCAO+method&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.2.0l4j0i22i30l6.2532.8313.0.14110.11.10.0.1.1.0.203.1155.2j6j1.9.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..1.10.1202.iMTmLjEJPCs

Strictly speaking, in spacetime all the axes have the dimensions of distance.

Thanks for the information, folks. Please feel free to morph this thread into a general discussion on voting methods. I would be prepared to consider seriously mandatory voting if I could register that I was being forced to accept candidates, none of whom I wanted to see successful.

I was listening to a BBC interview with an American this morning, who said that he was going to put is choice in the "Little box at the bottom marked none of these" Is it true that the Americans have this advanced option on their ballot papers? I would love to see them introduced here.

You have not provided enough background information to offer a sensible comment, but I can tell you that I was once faced with a similar choice and made the wrong decision. This is important so pm someone if you want to keep stuff private.

Here is the catch. The religious fraternity have a advantage over the scientific ones that believe in absolute determinism. If you believe that every event has a cause then you cannot believe in the big bang since you cannot answer the question what caused the first event unless there was no first event. If you are religious you have an explanation for creation. I am not religious.

But your claim is false.

Then perhaps you should study it more closely. Look at the exchange between myself and Strange in this thread which already covers this exact point. Posts 80, 82,86,87,88

We seem to have moved on to relativistic motion from the original specification of newtonian physics. OK But the above proposal should be in speculations since it runs contrary to current knowledge. It is the whole of space in a particular direction along with everything in it, that is viewed as undergoing a particular contraction (why say dilation? that is confusing). when measured in any particular frame.

Thank you for this and your previous post on my actual v potential infinities suggestion. Off the top of my head, I don't think so. It should be realised that the analogy is not exact. The mathematical concept has properties not present in the relativistic universe and vice versa. But like all analogies they have exploitable properties in common. In particular mathematically the concept was developed to handle infinities. The universe by contrast does not need to be infinite, but we can apply the idea however it is. We should really return to my drawing analogy for the good part. I can draw an actual infinity, say all the real numbers between 0 and 1, but I can't draw a line representing all the integers, even though there are more real numbers between 0 and 1 than there are integers. The guy in my original example drawing the line y=x2 between x=0 and x=1 is in the same position. The rest of the line is still available even though he hasn't drawn it. Exactly like the block universe idea.

To measure or specify a length you have to know where the other end (in relation to the first) is at the same time. In other words the above sentence must have meaning. So you cannot do this without time.

Are you in any way claiming that the statement is in any way incompatible with the statement or with the statement All of which refer to the same thing?