Yes. The term 'ring' has been misplaced in modernity. It was not His use. He would never have even presumed such terminology.

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 8:13:39 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> Yes. The term 'ring' has been misplaced in modernity. It was not His use. He would never have even presumed such terminology.

No takers here.

https://archive.org/details/cu31924001586282

/page/n47/mode/2up?ref=ol&view=theater

At 45 he defines a system S, and you can't help but think of a set.
Clearly his language is quite good. Obviously it is a word we can all reuse in our own way, and in doing so we would carefully lay down the rules by which it occurred. Because the modulo two system which is as well a modulo 10 system in its own terms which is an ambiguous statement, by the way. Regardless is it relevant that two is enough? Should this be the plea of the real valued mathematician, engineer, and physicist? Why then bow to it? Then too, angular realism and the notion of a maximum angle; the nature of the sinewave as its extension or consequence really. We may as well let in the sawtooth wave as fundamental and have our angle there in linear form. Somehow I am bumping into maximum angular velocity, or maybe even just constant angular velocity, yet that this thing can make circles to its hearts content is entirely feasible. To foresee the circular path is no surprise. Really, though, would the elliptical be so too? No, really: here lays some sort of dimensional creep of the continuous variety. Oddly it lets in the line into the thing. Hah. This is very akin to folding out dimensions. Yet what lays there in the unfolded form is the circle. To naturally run the shell is entirely of interest I think. There is a principle of the scrub stroke which covers the object of interest rapidly. It is a rough method that is not worked hard at but rather worked at rapidly. Under the early scrub method an early flat is developed. Its fairing is the first fairing. From which future selection can be made, and possible some high center is desirable so that the scrub served twice as good as the planer who had a need to take it down further to get his blade in. When the scrub is good enough it is very good.

The specialness of S as: "Such a system S (an aggregate, a manifold, a totality) as an object of our thought is likewise a thing (1); it is completely determined when with respect to every thing it is determined whether it is an element of S or not."
So clearly a set is in his mind, but it is a set which deserves respect. Sadly now I can say that the real value is no longer serving in this regard. That one R as a system is nonsense since it conceals several bags within it; one with clown's noses, and another with the skeleton teeth of dirty reradixers. The wand was lost long ago and there was a need of gathering attention.

On Monday, March 21, 2022 at 12:42:39 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 8:13:39 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > Yes. The term 'ring' has been misplaced in modernity. It was not His use. He would never have even presumed such terminology.
> No takers here.
>
> https://archive.org/details/cu31924001586282
>
> /page/n47/mode/2up?ref=ol&view=theater
>
> At 45 he defines a system S, and you can't help but think of a set.
> Clearly his language is quite good. Obviously it is a word we can all reuse in our own way, and in doing so we would carefully lay down the rules by which it occurred. Because the modulo two system which is as well a modulo 10 system in its own terms which is an ambiguous statement, by the way. Regardless is it relevant that two is enough? Should this be the plea of the real valued mathematician, engineer, and physicist? Why then bow to it? Then too, angular realism and the notion of a maximum angle; the nature of the sinewave as its extension or consequence really. We may as well let in the sawtooth wave as fundamental and have our angle there in linear form. Somehow I am bumping into maximum angular velocity, or maybe even just constant angular velocity, yet that this thing can make circles to its hearts content is entirely feasible. To foresee the circular path is no surprise. Really, though, would the elliptical be so too? No, really: here lays some sort of dimensional creep of the continuous variety. Oddly it lets in the line into the thing. Hah. This is very akin to folding out dimensions. Yet what lays there in the unfolded form is the circle. To naturally run the shell is entirely of interest I think. There is a principle of the scrub stroke which covers the object of interest rapidly. It is a rough method that is not worked hard at but rather worked at rapidly. Under the early scrub method an early flat is developed. Its fairing is the first fairing. From which future selection can be made, and possible some high center is desirable so that the scrub served twice as good as the planer who had a need to take it down further to get his blade in. When the scrub is good enough it is very good.
>
> The specialness of S as: "Such a system S (an aggregate, a manifold, a totality) as an object of our thought is likewise a thing (1); it is completely determined when with respect to every thing it is determined whether it is an element of S or not."
> So clearly a set is in his mind, but it is a set which deserves respect. Sadly now I can say that the real value is no longer serving in this regard.. That one R as a system is nonsense since it conceals several bags within it; one with clown's noses, and another with the skeleton teeth of dirty reradixers. The wand was lost long ago and there was a need of gathering attention.

Damn. I am so wrong. Next page he partitions S.
Oops.

On Monday, March 21, 2022 at 12:42:39 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 8:13:39 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > Yes. The term 'ring' has been misplaced in modernity. It was not His use. He would never have even presumed such terminology.
> No takers here.
>
> https://archive.org/details/cu31924001586282
>
> /page/n47/mode/2up?ref=ol&view=theater
>
> At 45 he defines a system S, and you can't help but think of a set.
> Clearly his language is quite good. Obviously it is a word we can all reuse in our own way, and in doing so we would carefully lay down the rules by which it occurred. Because the modulo two system which is as well a modulo 10 system in its own terms which is an ambiguous statement, by the way. Regardless is it relevant that two is enough? Should this be the plea of the real valued mathematician, engineer, and physicist? Why then bow to it? Then too, angular realism and the notion of a maximum angle; the nature of the sinewave as its extension or consequence really. We may as well let in the sawtooth wave as fundamental and have our angle there in linear form. Somehow I am bumping into maximum angular velocity, or maybe even just constant angular velocity, yet that this thing can make circles to its hearts content is entirely feasible. To foresee the circular path is no surprise. Really, though, would the elliptical be so too? No, really: here lays some sort of dimensional creep of the continuous variety. Oddly it lets in the line into the thing. Hah. This is very akin to folding out dimensions. Yet what lays there in the unfolded form is the circle. To naturally run the shell is entirely of interest I think. There is a principle of the scrub stroke which covers the object of interest rapidly. It is a rough method that is not worked hard at but rather worked at rapidly. Under the early scrub method an early flat is developed. Its fairing is the first fairing. From which future selection can be made, and possible some high center is desirable so that the scrub served twice as good as the planer who had a need to take it down further to get his blade in. When the scrub is good enough it is very good.
>
> The specialness of S as: "Such a system S (an aggregate, a manifold, a totality) as an object of our thought is likewise a thing (1); it is completely determined when with respect to every thing it is determined whether it is an element of S or not."
> So clearly a set is in his mind, but it is a set which deserves respect. Sadly now I can say that the real value is no longer serving in this regard.. That one R as a system is nonsense since it conceals several bags within it; one with clown's noses, and another with the skeleton teeth of dirty reradixers. The wand was lost long ago and there was a need of gathering attention.

So do I stand wrong then that a system S is to be respected? Is its specialness a misnomer? When it became R did it achieve anything in particular? The gray value says no; that it was already had and that we are engaged upon the continuum in a game of chasing digits. These are known as numbers and their digits are to be respected. As such when the dirty reradixer comes to town it is a fine time to duck out of town; hit the woods; have a hike; maybe even crash in the duff. Be careful where you light your fire when it is dry out. Skip it altogether, really.

onsdag 16 mars 2022 kl. 01:13:39 UTC+1 skrev timba...@gmail.com:
> Yes. The term 'ring' has been misplaced in modernity. It was not His use. He would never have even presumed such terminology.
so? Terminology changes over time.