On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 21:38:09 +0100
Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 08:16:38 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>in <sffr96$1ppp$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>>unless you want to describe or reason about what could be or has been
>>>done to the stick. Even if you have the concept of "half a stick" you do
>>>not necessarily have the more general concept of "half" that can be
>>>applied to other things.
>>
>>You're just playing with semantics in order to try and win the point. It
>>doesn't change anything - I could give you half a stick, half a banana or
>>half cake. Its still a half.
>
>In that statement, you have just abstracted the general concept of
>'half' from the various examples in order to describe the three kinds of
>half as having something in common.

They have something in common by dint of being half of something. I'm not sure
why you're finding this confusing.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 21:56:18 +0100
Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 15:35:31 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>in <sfgl03$1pqb$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 16:23:44 +0100
>>MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>On 17/08/2021 13:23, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>>> That phrase doesn't appear in the King James version - it uses
>>>> "ninety". "Threescore years and ten" does of course as the standard
>>>> human lifespan in Psalms 90:10.
>>>
>>>Isn't that just a function of the person who translated it. I doubt
>>>whether the original <insert old language> used that phrase.
>>
>>A bit like "Ye" and in Ye Olde Shoppe. No one ever said "Ye" , its spelt that
>>way because printing presses imported from Germany back in the middle ages
>>didn't have the letter thorn available so y was used as the nearest
>>substitute. Then eventually "th" took over for that sound anyway. In icelandic
>
>>thorn is still used.
>
>The use of Y for thorn due to the lack of the letter in the printing
>press could be described as a 'hack' - an expedient stopgap where, with
>a bit more time and effort you could have done the thing properly.

Well yes, you have to wonder how hard it would have been to make a letter
thorn. Perhaps printers were just lazy.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 22:28:21 +0100
Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 08:19:11 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>in <sffrdu$1s3b$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 00:12:43 +0100
>>Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 14:25:11 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>>>in <sfdsg7$20q$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:58:36 +0000 (UTC)
>>>>richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>>>>>In article <sfd69d$1g7m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, <mickspud@downthefarm.com>
>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Having 2 of something is not an abstraction.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course it is. That you see something in common between 2 cows and
>>>>>2 pigs requires abstracting away from the animals themselves. It's
>>>>>just an abstraction you're familiar with.
>>>>
>>>>If counting is an abstraction purely because its a way of refereing the
>>>>real world then everything is an abstraction - eg , whats a cow? Its just a
>>>>collection of atoms after all and atoms are just quarks. Which rather
>renders
>>>>the whole term meaningless and this argument moot.
>>>
>>>The concept 'cow' is an abstraction, a specific actual cow is not. We
>>
>>Neither is having 2 cows an abstraction. And so we go in a circle.
>
>Having 2 cows is an abstraction. Farmer Alice and Farmer Bob can each

No, it really isn't. You can count the 2 cows.

On 18/08/2021 10:00, mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 21:56:18 +0100
> Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 15:35:31 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>> in <sfgl03$1pqb$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>>> A bit like "Ye" and in Ye Olde Shoppe. No one ever said "Ye" , its spelt that
>>> way because printing presses imported from Germany back in the middle ages
>>> didn't have the letter thorn available so y was used as the nearest
>>> substitute. Then eventually "th" took over for that sound anyway. In icelandic
>>
>>> thorn is still used.
>>
>> The use of Y for thorn due to the lack of the letter in the printing
>> press could be described as a 'hack' - an expedient stopgap where, with
>> a bit more time and effort you could have done the thing properly.
>
> Well yes, you have to wonder how hard it would have been to make a letter
> thorn. Perhaps printers were just lazy.

I suspect that the people who made the master die for each letter were
craftsmen quite separate from the printers. I believe it took a day to
make each one.

--
Max Demian

On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 08:58:42 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com
wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 17:32:17 +0100
>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 13:32:27 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com
>>wrote:
>>>No, mathematics describes physics. Or at least most of it. Its bugger all use
>>>for understanding quantum mechanics for example other than at a probabalistic
>>>level. Maths decribes, it doesn't explain.
>>
>>Perhaps I didn't describe what I meant very well. By "mathematics" I
>>meant the properties of numbers. Our notation is simply a way of
>>describing them, but the properties themselves are what they are
>>regardless of our descriptions. Our mathematical notations and symbols
>>may describe what we observe in the physical world, but some things
>>are possible in the physical world and some things are not, so
>>something must determine this. There are plenty of things that are
>>only physically possible in particular ways because the relevant
>>numbers work the way that they do. I offered an example above, and
>>there are plenty more. It may turn out that since the possible
>>arrangements of atoms and molecules depend on geometry, and since the
>>properties of matter depend on these arrangements, maybe all of
>>physical reality ultimately depends on what is mathematically
>>possible.
>
>Or maybe maths is the best we can do to describe reality but is an
>incomplete description. AFAIK maths has nothing to say about things such as
>the quantum double slit paradox for example.

Or it has nothing to say about something we haven't discovered yet?

Whatever is the cause of the behaviour of double slits, it must be
something immutable, which means it must be dependent on something,
whatever it might be, that determines how it behaves. If an experiment
always behaves the same way, the most rational assumption is that it's
the only way it *can* behave - otherwise it would sometimes be
different - so *something* must be constraining it to one behaviour,
even though we don't know what that is yet.

Rod.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 12:30:23 +0100
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 08:58:42 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com
>wrote:
>>Or maybe maths is the best we can do to describe reality but is an
>>incomplete description. AFAIK maths has nothing to say about things such as
>>the quantum double slit paradox for example.
>
>Or it has nothing to say about something we haven't discovered yet?
>
>Whatever is the cause of the behaviour of double slits, it must be
>something immutable, which means it must be dependent on something,
>whatever it might be, that determines how it behaves. If an experiment
>always behaves the same way, the most rational assumption is that it's
>the only way it *can* behave - otherwise it would sometimes be
>different - so *something* must be constraining it to one behaviour,
>even though we don't know what that is yet.

Well thats a given. But I doubt the reason will be mathematical. After all
mathematics can describe newtons laws and einsteins relatively nicely but
what it doesn't do is give us the "Why?". As I've said, maths is a description
not an explanation.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 08:59:20 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
in <sfii58$fh6$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 21:38:09 +0100
>Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 08:16:38 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>>in <sffr96$1ppp$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>>>unless you want to describe or reason about what could be or has been
>>>>done to the stick. Even if you have the concept of "half a stick" you do
>>>>not necessarily have the more general concept of "half" that can be
>>>>applied to other things.
>>>
>>>You're just playing with semantics in order to try and win the point. It
>>>doesn't change anything - I could give you half a stick, half a banana or
>>>half cake. Its still a half.
>>
>>In that statement, you have just abstracted the general concept of
>>'half' from the various examples in order to describe the three kinds of
>>half as having something in common.
>
>They have something in common by dint of being half of something. I'm not sure
>why you're finding this confusing.

I am not finding it confusing at all. Isolating the common feature and
being able to discuss it separately is abstraction.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:01:02 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
in <sfii8e$gl6$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 22:28:21 +0100
>Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 08:19:11 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>>in <sffrdu$1s3b$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 00:12:43 +0100
>>>Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 14:25:11 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>>>>in <sfdsg7$20q$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:58:36 +0000 (UTC)
>>>>>richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>>>>>>In article <sfd69d$1g7m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, <mickspud@downthefarm.com>
>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Having 2 of something is not an abstraction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course it is. That you see something in common between 2 cows and
>>>>>>2 pigs requires abstracting away from the animals themselves. It's
>>>>>>just an abstraction you're familiar with.
>>>>>
>>>>>If counting is an abstraction purely because its a way of refereing the
>>>>>real world then everything is an abstraction - eg , whats a cow? Its just a
>>>>>collection of atoms after all and atoms are just quarks. Which rather
>>renders
>>>>>the whole term meaningless and this argument moot.
>>>>
>>>>The concept 'cow' is an abstraction, a specific actual cow is not. We
>>>
>>>Neither is having 2 cows an abstraction. And so we go in a circle.
>>
>>Having 2 cows is an abstraction. Farmer Alice and Farmer Bob can each
>
>No, it really isn't. You can count the 2 cows.
>

Which two cows, A's or B's? Saying that A and B each have two cows
dissociates the "have two cows" from any specific instance.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 14:03:13 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com
wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 12:30:23 +0100
>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 08:58:42 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com
>>wrote:
>>>Or maybe maths is the best we can do to describe reality but is an
>>>incomplete description. AFAIK maths has nothing to say about things such as
>>>the quantum double slit paradox for example.
>>
>>Or it has nothing to say about something we haven't discovered yet?
>>
>>Whatever is the cause of the behaviour of double slits, it must be
>>something immutable, which means it must be dependent on something,
>>whatever it might be, that determines how it behaves. If an experiment
>>always behaves the same way, the most rational assumption is that it's
>>the only way it *can* behave - otherwise it would sometimes be
>>different - so *something* must be constraining it to one behaviour,
>>even though we don't know what that is yet.
>
>Well thats a given. But I doubt the reason will be mathematical. After all
>mathematics can describe newtons laws and einsteins relatively nicely but
>what it doesn't do is give us the "Why?". As I've said, maths is a description
>not an explanation.

It's pointless to ask why the properties of numbers are what they are,
as they simply are what they are because they have to be. Why, for
example, is the value of seven seven? (Because that's what it is). hy
is it prime? (Because it fits the definition of what a prime number
is). Why are the numbers in the three times table spaced three numbers
apart? (Because that's what multiplying by three means). Why is the
cube, the logarithm, the reciprocal or the square root of anything the
particular value that it is? There comes a point when there's nothing
to be gained by asking why, because we are dealing with things that
are what they are because that's what they are and could not be
anything else.

What we usually mean by "mathematics" is simply our notation, or
language, for discovering and dealing with the properties of numbers.
The properties themselves are already determined.

Mathematical language no more determines the properties of numbers
than verbal language determines the properties of anything else. If
something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck (and shits on your
patio like a duck) then it's a duck, whether you name it in French,
English or Chinese. We might all have different words for it, but it's
still a duck, because it's a duck. It's close to tautology to ask "Why
is a duck like a duck?"

Rod.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 19:28:39 +0100
Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:01:02 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>in <sfii8e$gl6$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 22:28:21 +0100
>>Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 08:19:11 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>>>in <sffrdu$1s3b$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 00:12:43 +0100
>>>>Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 14:25:11 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>>>>>in <sfdsg7$20q$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:58:36 +0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>>>>>>>In article <sfd69d$1g7m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, <mickspud@downthefarm.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Having 2 of something is not an abstraction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course it is. That you see something in common between 2 cows and
>>>>>>>2 pigs requires abstracting away from the animals themselves. It's
>>>>>>>just an abstraction you're familiar with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If counting is an abstraction purely because its a way of refereing the
>>>>>>real world then everything is an abstraction - eg , whats a cow? Its just
>a
>>>>>>collection of atoms after all and atoms are just quarks. Which rather
>>>renders
>>>>>>the whole term meaningless and this argument moot.
>>>>>
>>>>>The concept 'cow' is an abstraction, a specific actual cow is not. We
>>>>
>>>>Neither is having 2 cows an abstraction. And so we go in a circle.
>>>
>>>Having 2 cows is an abstraction. Farmer Alice and Farmer Bob can each
>>
>>No, it really isn't. You can count the 2 cows.
>>
>
>Which two cows, A's or B's? Saying that A and B each have two cows
>dissociates the "have two cows" from any specific instance.

Now you're just gibbering.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 08:21:30 +0100
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 14:03:13 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com
>wrote:
>>mathematics can describe newtons laws and einsteins relatively nicely but
>>what it doesn't do is give us the "Why?". As I've said, maths is a description
>
>>not an explanation.
>
>Mathematical language no more determines the properties of numbers
>than verbal language determines the properties of anything else. If
>something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck (and shits on your
>patio like a duck) then it's a duck, whether you name it in French,
>English or Chinese. We might all have different words for it, but it's
>still a duck, because it's a duck. It's close to tautology to ask "Why
>is a duck like a duck?"

You might want to tell all the physicists trying to understand why the
universe is the way it is are wasting their time then. They should just
accept its the way it is because it is. End of. Right?

In article <485nhgh9ipc5tlkjgsdj8g5fuagu75bi5u@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> To take just one example, the minimum distance there can be between
> physical particles depends on the geometry of spheres, which does depend
> on properties of mathematics. Whether it's oranges in a box or atoms in
> a crystal lattice, there is a maximum packing density that depends on
> mathematical rules. Physics is subservient to mathematics.

Na, The mathsis based on the physics of the reality. :-)

That said, the 'packing' in multidimensional spaces is often used in books
on Information Theory to 'help' explain Shannon's Equation. Sadly, it turns
out that this explanation is flawed. Happily, there are much simpler
explanations.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <595d621ba7charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <sfg1t3$t58$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > <mickspud@downthefarm.com> wrote in message
> > news:sffu9m$13s6$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> > > On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 09:37:39 +0100 Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> > > wrote:
> > >>Complex numbers are just utilising another of the available
> > >>dimensions.
> > >
> > > Those other dimensions only exist in the human mind.

> > Where I worked in my first job, the head of department was called Bill
> > Taylor but people referred to him as j-omega. Then I saw his initials
> > J W T and it dawned on me: the universal j-omega-t term used in many
> > electronic engineering equations - they use j rather than i for
> > sqrt(-1), because i tends to be used for instantaneous current. I
> > think he must have become an electronic engineer by nominative
> > determinism ;-)

> I had a collegue - Jim Cooke - his ininitials were JWC - another J omega
> C

John W Campbell (editor of 'Analog') comes to mind as well.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sfgefc$k7o$1@gioia.aioe.org>, <mickspud@downthefarm.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 14:35:48 +0100 Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

> >>
> >>> Complex numbers are just utilising another of the available
> >>> dimensions.
> >>
> >> Those other dimensions only exist in the human mind.
> >
> >That's odd. Most people I know physically exist in at least three.

> Ah ok, you're losing the argument so its time for goalpost moving is it?
> Unless you really are claiming that the complex plane somehow maps onto
> 1 of the 3 spacial dimensions?

Two,

https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/info/signals/complex/cmplx.html

BTW The email address probably no longer works. I ceased having Uni account
when I retired.

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:33:39 +0100
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <sfgefc$k7o$1@gioia.aioe.org>, <mickspud@downthefarm.com>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 14:35:48 +0100 Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >>> Complex numbers are just utilising another of the available
>> >>> dimensions.
>> >>
>> >> Those other dimensions only exist in the human mind.
>> >
>> >That's odd. Most people I know physically exist in at least three.
>
>> Ah ok, you're losing the argument so its time for goalpost moving is it?
>> Unless you really are claiming that the complex plane somehow maps onto
>> 1 of the 3 spacial dimensions?
>
>Two,

Not really.

>https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/info/signals/complex/cmplx.htm
>l

Thats probably one of the best demonstrations of why complex numbers are a
hack that I've seen.

On 17/08/2021 00:12, Owen Rees wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 14:25:11 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
> in <sfdsg7$20q$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:58:36 +0000 (UTC)
>> richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>>> In article <sfd69d$1g7m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, <mickspud@downthefarm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Having 2 of something is not an abstraction.
>>>
>>> Of course it is. That you see something in common between 2 cows and
>>> 2 pigs requires abstracting away from the animals themselves. It's
>>> just an abstraction you're familiar with.
>>
>> If counting is an abstraction purely because its a way of refereing the
>> real world then everything is an abstraction - eg , whats a cow? Its just a
>> collection of atoms after all and atoms are just quarks. Which rather renders
>> the whole term meaningless and this argument moot.
>
> The concept 'cow' is an abstraction, a specific actual cow is not. We
> could not discuss cows in general if that were not the case.

But what do you call the animal, if you don't know its gender?

--
Max Demian

On 19/08/2021 14:38, Max Demian wrote:
> On 17/08/2021 00:12, Owen Rees wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 14:25:11 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>> in <sfdsg7$20q$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:58:36 +0000 (UTC)
>>> richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>>>> In article <sfd69d$1g7m$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
>>>> <mickspud@downthefarm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Having 2 of something is not an abstraction.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is.  That you see something in common between 2 cows and
>>>> 2 pigs requires abstracting away from the animals themselves.  It's
>>>> just an abstraction you're familiar with.
>>>
>>> If counting is an abstraction purely because its a way of refereing the
>>> real world then everything is an abstraction - eg , whats a cow? Its
>>> just a
>>> collection of atoms after all and atoms are just quarks. Which rather
>>> renders
>>> the whole term meaningless and this argument moot.
>>
>> The concept 'cow' is an abstraction, a specific actual cow is not. We
>> could not discuss cows in general if that were not the case.
>
> But what do you call the animal, if you don't know its gender?

'Ermintrude' or 'Jesus Christ!'

Best to know your genders really.

"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:io7aagFtrk0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> The concept 'cow' is an abstraction, a specific actual cow is not. We
>>> could not discuss cows in general if that were not the case.
>>
>> But what do you call the animal, if you don't know its gender?
>
> 'Ermintrude' or 'Jesus Christ!'
>
> Best to know your genders really.

Near where I live there is a manufacturer of ice cream called Mr Moo's. Yes,
"Mr", not "Mrs". I don't like to think about what milky substance a bull
might produce that could be used for making ice cream. I wonder if I'm
over-thinking it, or whether other people think this is an unfortunate brand
name.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 08:57:27 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
in <sfl6dn$1bh9$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:33:39 +0100
>Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <sfgefc$k7o$1@gioia.aioe.org>, <mickspud@downthefarm.com>
>>wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 14:35:48 +0100 Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>
>>> >>
>>> >>> Complex numbers are just utilising another of the available
>>> >>> dimensions.
>>> >>
>>> >> Those other dimensions only exist in the human mind.
>>> >
>>> >That's odd. Most people I know physically exist in at least three.
>>
>>> Ah ok, you're losing the argument so its time for goalpost moving is it?
>>> Unless you really are claiming that the complex plane somehow maps onto
>>> 1 of the 3 spacial dimensions?
>>
>>Two,
>
>Not really.
>
>>https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/info/signals/complex/cmplx.htm
>>l
>
>Thats probably one of the best demonstrations of why complex numbers are a
>hack that I've seen.
>

The Cambridge Dictionary gives various definitions of 'hack' as a noun.
Since the context here is not journalism, politics, horse riding or taxi
service we are left with "a good solution or piece of advice".

I agree that complex numbers are a good solution and that the cited web
page gives a nice explanation.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 08:17:50 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
in <sfl43e$e2b$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 19:28:39 +0100
>Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:01:02 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>>in <sfii8e$gl6$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 22:28:21 +0100
>>>Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 08:19:11 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>>>>in <sffrdu$1s3b$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 00:12:43 +0100
>>>>>Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 14:25:11 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>>>>>>in <sfdsg7$20q$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:58:36 +0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>>>>>>>>In article <sfd69d$1g7m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, <mickspud@downthefarm.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Having 2 of something is not an abstraction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Of course it is. That you see something in common between 2 cows and
>>>>>>>>2 pigs requires abstracting away from the animals themselves. It's
>>>>>>>>just an abstraction you're familiar with.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If counting is an abstraction purely because its a way of refereing the
>>>>>>>real world then everything is an abstraction - eg , whats a cow? Its just
>>a
>>>>>>>collection of atoms after all and atoms are just quarks. Which rather
>>>>renders
>>>>>>>the whole term meaningless and this argument moot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The concept 'cow' is an abstraction, a specific actual cow is not. We
>>>>>
>>>>>Neither is having 2 cows an abstraction. And so we go in a circle.
>>>>
>>>>Having 2 cows is an abstraction. Farmer Alice and Farmer Bob can each
>>>
>>>No, it really isn't. You can count the 2 cows.
>>>
>>
>>Which two cows, A's or B's? Saying that A and B each have two cows
>>dissociates the "have two cows" from any specific instance.
>
>Now you're just gibbering.

Sine you seem to be having difficulty with the concept of abstraction I
used an explanation based on the definition of 'abstract' in the online
Merriam-Webster dictionary.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abstract

Other dictionaries are available with definitions of 'abstract' and
'abstraction' if you prefer but all the ones I have seen say more or
less the same thing.

Perhaps 1.b of the cited MW entry is the problem - "difficult to
understand". Having worked with many kinds of abstraction over the years
perhaps I have fallen into the common trap of assuming that everybody is
familiar with the ideas.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 14:38:20 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote in <8M2dndZ7wtRNw4P8nZ2dnUU78fvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>:

>On 17/08/2021 00:12, Owen Rees wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 14:25:11 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>> in <sfdsg7$20q$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:58:36 +0000 (UTC)
>>> richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>>>> In article <sfd69d$1g7m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, <mickspud@downthefarm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Having 2 of something is not an abstraction.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is. That you see something in common between 2 cows and
>>>> 2 pigs requires abstracting away from the animals themselves. It's
>>>> just an abstraction you're familiar with.
>>>
>>> If counting is an abstraction purely because its a way of refereing the
>>> real world then everything is an abstraction - eg , whats a cow? Its just a
>>> collection of atoms after all and atoms are just quarks. Which rather renders
>>> the whole term meaningless and this argument moot.
>>
>> The concept 'cow' is an abstraction, a specific actual cow is not. We
>> could not discuss cows in general if that were not the case.
>
>But what do you call the animal, if you don't know its gender?

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/cow_1?q=cow

The oxford learners dictionary definition of 'cow' includes male animals
(in particular it is usually males that are farmed for beef).

Other dictionaries give the usage including males as informal and some
omit it.

When discussing more that one, 'cattle' would be a suitable word -
'kine' if you wish to be a bit archaic.

The other point is that convenient short names have been given to the
abstractions that are most useful and commonly encountered in normal
life. It seems that there has been little need for a word for an
individual of the species Bos Taurus that does not specify or imply sex.

In article <sfl489$fvu$1@gioia.aioe.org>, <mickspud@downthefarm.com> wrote:

> You might want to tell all the physicists trying to understand why the
> universe is the way it is are wasting their time then. They should just
> accept its the way it is because it is. End of. Right?

Depends on how you use the word "why?". :-)

Physics is about finding more 'useful' descriptions of the way what we
observe behaves. However the term 'useful' here has a number of related
meanings.

e.g. GM is more 'useful' than Newton's Laws because they work over a wider
range of situations with greater descriptive and predictive accuracy /
reliability.

Similarly, in Math, complex numbers are useful for situations involving 2D,
oscillation, or rotation because of the way you can map rotation easily
with them.

Consider the sequence of repeatedly multiplying by i.

1 x i = i
i x i = -1
-1 x i = -i
-i x i = 1
etc.

as a set of orthogonal rotations in 2D space. Very handy.

The snag is that the Math of some ideas like GM or i may be difficult for
many to grasp and use. But it remains useful if you can. And the Universe
doesn't care one way or the other. :-)

Even potatoes have i's - but of course they may not be able to see... 8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 10:31:36 +0100
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <sfl489$fvu$1@gioia.aioe.org>, <mickspud@downthefarm.com> wrote:
>
>> You might want to tell all the physicists trying to understand why the
>> universe is the way it is are wasting their time then. They should just
>> accept its the way it is because it is. End of. Right?
>
>Depends on how you use the word "why?". :-)
>
>Physics is about finding more 'useful' descriptions of the way what we
>observe behaves. However the term 'useful' here has a number of related
>meanings.
>
>e.g. GM is more 'useful' than Newton's Laws because they work over a wider
>range of situations with greater descriptive and predictive accuracy /
>reliability.
>
>Similarly, in Math, complex numbers are useful for situations involving 2D,
>oscillation, or rotation because of the way you can map rotation easily
>with them.

I never said complex numbers arn't useful , they're extremely useful. They're
also a hack.

On 19/08/2021 20:15, Owen Rees wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 14:38:20 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
> wrote in <8M2dndZ7wtRNw4P8nZ2dnUU78fvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>:
>> On 17/08/2021 00:12, Owen Rees wrote:

>>> The concept 'cow' is an abstraction, a specific actual cow is not. We
>>> could not discuss cows in general if that were not the case.
>>
>> But what do you call the animal, if you don't know its gender?
>
> https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/cow_1?q=cow
>
> The oxford learners dictionary definition of 'cow' includes male animals
> (in particular it is usually males that are farmed for beef).

Learner=ignorant I assume.

> Other dictionaries give the usage including males as informal and some
> omit it.
>
> When discussing more that one, 'cattle' would be a suitable word -
> 'kine' if you wish to be a bit archaic.

That's the point. There's a plural but no singular.

If one of the animals wandered into your garden and started eating the
flowers, and you couldn't see what sex it was from where you were
sitting, what would you say when you rang up the farmer? You'd have to
wait until another wandered in, then you could say, "Two of your cattle
are in my garden; please come and get them," by which time you wouldn't
have any flowers left.

--
Max Demian

On 20/08/2021 13:34, Max Demian wrote:
>> The oxford learners dictionary definition of 'cow' includes male animals
>> (in particular it is usually males that are farmed for beef).
> Learner=ignorant I assume.
>

Never seen it, I always use the proper OED.

I can't any suggestion that used for the male animal.

" 1. a. The female of any bovine animal (as the ox, bison, or buffalo);
most commonly applied to the female of the domestic species ( Bos Taurus)."