Recent content by Jon Richfield

Welll... suppose you give an example? What did I say that contradicts, or does not follow, from commonsense everyday transactions on the one hand, or formal mathematics or logic on the other? I didn't invent, say, post-Galileo physics or maths, or astronomy, and I invoke nothing novel, nor...

>this is an inappropriate response to a request for a reference. It was entirely appropriate for the offensive context and tone of your demand, which I simply echoed. This subject matter is no more the stuff of peer review than 2K=mv^2; it is standard material available in various forms and...

😆

You can no more (or less fuss about the definition of a point than about anything else; if your definition is not precise enough to distinguish it from every other point you don't have a point, just hand-waving. Sort of like a high-school geometry problem that you try to solve by saying that...

Same for the amount of info required to distinguish a point. Elementary.

The examples you cite are OK in everyday utility, much as you can go to the grocer to buy "a kilo of butter" or "a litre of milk", but, like the map I mentioned, they are fictions. Would you show me an exact hand? And then undertake to show me that hand again? (Or two hands for that matter?) I...

Sorry, but your personal opinion on the matter is unconvincing. Do you have an actual peer reviewed reference to support that assertion? Show me a peer-reviewed reference to establish that 6798214808651328230664709384*460955058223172535940812848=...

What I said was "Points are fictions, because it would take infinite information to identify any point". If the point that you reckon is identified by ##\sqrt 2## because it has the notional coordinate value ##\sqrt 2## is defined, then you imply that there is no other point that can be confused...

There is not sufficient existing information to define such situations, Brownian motion etc, so any definition that excludes those aspects from "true" randomness, cannot be internally consistent.

It is physical, which forces it to be finite. Mathematical infinities are formal fictions, and like every fiction, are finite. Points are fictions, because it would take infinite information to identify any point. Same with every irrational etc etc

As some folks point out, randomness is slippery because there are independent definitions. I refer you to the book by the late I. Prigogine: "The End of Certainty". Following its logic, you are left without practically no fully non-random events. As I see it, the difference between random...

Yippee! That was my guess, and I am not even an Aussie! :biggrin:

They are the pouring of bulk cold CO2; try it on warm CO2 someday :biggrin: Remember what I said about buoyancy being a bulk effect. If you make it cold and plentiful enough, you could get the same effect with nitrogen, and remember that N2 is marginally less dense than air at the same...

In a word, no. Not a hope ever. If it were light enough, it would not be strong enough. And if there were, it would only be slightly better than H2. H2 can lift about 15 times its own mass. Actually, if we could create and contain an electron gas, we could make a balloon that could lift...

Significant for what? Yes, every gram of added mass affects the buoyancy, but the value of the light gas compared to the not-so-light gas is not the 2:1 difference of H2:He, but the amount of air it displaces minus the load of the lifting gas. To pay for that is necessary, but can be done by...