]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
I think the most universal and mathematical number is '0'. Why that is, I
don't know, but why should a number that supposedly has quantitative value
represent 'nothing'. You can't put a value on something
Obviously, you have never had to deal with imaginary numbers.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the most universal and mathematical number is '0'. Why that is, I
don't know, but why should a number that supposedly has quantitative value
represent
Franklin
- Original Message -
From: Raimo Korhonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 10:47 AM
Subject: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
It is the other way round. Tell me one instance when a number has been
observed in the nature. Lots
Nonsense - yes, but on whose side? You are constantly saying that numbers are found in
nature. So what number do you find in nature instead of pi?
You are mixing things up: at first you talked about numbers, now you talk about
constants. Nobody here is doubting the existence of constants.
All
I do not know who you are but it is obvious that you do not know very much about the
philosophy of science.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL
: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
I think the most universal and mathematical number is '0'. Why that is, I
don't know, but why should a number that supposedly has quantitative value
represent 'nothing'. You can't put a value on something that does not
exist, yet we do. It means
Correct.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 30. joulukuuta 2002 15:23
Aihe: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
That was just the point some people are trying to make: numbers exist in nature.
Nobody has doubted that numbers and fomulas are extremely useful in describing natural
phenomena.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 09:14:16 -0500, Mark Roberts wrote:
David Hume to the white courtesy telephone, please!
David Hume could out consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel,
but Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just a sloshed as Schlegel.
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Hume is famous for a reason. (My own view, however, is probably more in
line with Kant's reply to Hume.) But this also fits well with the
modern scientific approach to human understanding. By this I mean
that what we think is a product of the brain which is a physical object
that works by some
/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 30. joulukuuta 2002 16:31
Aihe: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
Hume is famous for a reason. (My own view, however, is probably more in
line with Kant's
to boing old Pentax.
Perhaps some topics can be taken to private emails? Just a suggestion.
Brad
- Original Message -
From: Raimo Korhonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 2:27 PM
Subject: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
I am essentially a good
Here we go again - another Pythagorean.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: John Whicker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 30. joulukuuta 2002 20:22
Aihe: Re:
Raimo Korhonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here we go again - another Pythagorean.
Hmm, I would have said Platonist.
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: John Whicker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 30. joulukuuta 2002 20:22
Aihe: Re: Numbers and
. joulukuuta 2002 21:22
Aihe: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
Raimo Korhonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here we go again - another Pythagorean.
Hmm, I would have said Platonist.
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: John Whicker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL
viesti-
Lähettäjä: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 30. joulukuuta 2002 21:22
Aihe: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
Raimo Korhonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here we go again - another Pythagorean.
Hmm, I would have said Platonist
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 30. joulukuuta 2002 22:36
Aihe: Re: Vs: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
Raimo Korhonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not far off - but Plato´s theory was about ideas of things, not numbers.
Ah no! Plato's theory was about ideas *themselves*! Foremost among
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
I think the most universal and mathematical number is '0'. Why that is, I
don't know, but why should a number that supposedly has quantitative value
represent
Hi,
Tuesday, December 31, 2002, 11:48:43 AM, you wrote:
I'm glad you said that. It needed to be said.
At 06:07 AM 12/30/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Zero is not a number, it is a place holder. Funny thing is that without it
mathematics is very difficult.
you're confusing the value with the
You mean it doesn't???
At 07:47 PM 12/29/2002 +0100, you wrote:
It is the other way round. Tell me one instance when a number has been
observed in the nature. Lots of numbers can be found in the observations
of nature which describe it - but these numbers are just descriptions. The
laws
, December 30, 2002 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
You mean it doesn't???
At 07:47 PM 12/29/2002 +0100, you wrote:
It is the other way round. Tell me one instance when a number has been
observed in the nature. Lots of numbers can be found in the observations
of nature
- Original Message -
From: T Rittenhouse
Subject: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
Well, I saw a Seven running around in the woods the other day.
Or maybe it
was those mushrooms I et.
My wife is a 9.2.
William Robb
Not mine - unfortunately.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 29. joulukuuta 2002 19:27
Aihe: Re: Vs: Numbers
Raimo Korhonen wrote:
OK - if pi can really be found in the nature, it would have been
found a couple of thousands of years ago. Now we have only
approximations. Silly, isn´t it?
Excuse me? What _ever_ are you talking about?
Pi is the mathematical expression for the ratio between a
Another thing that is bothering me about all these threads:
why is nobody
complaining about all these religion posts?
We're busted.
WW
Yes, a dis-information tactic that failed. Once we got surrounded (circled)
we were defeated by Pi.
for more than twenty five hundred years.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
- Original Message -
From: T Rittenhouse
Subject: Re: Vs
. Just a thought.
Brad
- Original Message -
From: Bob Rapp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
Ok, That is it!
From:
http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/pi/pi.html
an excerpt:
Pi is one of the few
27 matches
Mail list logo
