Bill Hobba wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...
No, Hobbit, the reality is not in the application; that is only the
utility of the model. Math constructs are the backbone of
Theoretical
Physics and as such, they do not apply to real world situations
because
T.P. refuses to consider experimental research.

That is absurd.


Theoretical Physics, physics employing mathematical models and
abstractions rather than experimental processes.

Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.


Any theory that can not predict things that can be tested
is not a valid theory.


I did not say it was.


That is the reason the creationist idea that God
created the earth with dinosaur bones is not a valid theory - you are
not
able to test it.


And it predicts what?


You only think your imaginary math applies to real world
situations,
but it doesn't.

The fact it can make predictions that can be tested indicates
otherwise.


But the predictions are as often false as true, if not more so.


It is used to measure elements of the real world,

Theory does not measure anything - it makes predictions.


Not talking about theory, is your short-term memory so short that you
forgot we're talking about math constructs, or are you just trying to
get us off-track?


but
it cannot be used to make valid conclusions about the real world.

Theory obviously can be used to infer conclusions that can be tested.


Unfortunately for you, inferences are no more than guesses in physics.


You
keep insisting that math depicts the real world,


What I think about math is irrelevant -what is relevant is theirs
based on
math make predictions that can be tested.


If it's so irrelevant, why do you keep trying to support your arguments
with it? Ain't it stupid to do that and claim from the other side of
your mouth that what you think about it ain't relevant?


but that just shows
the faith you have which is wasted on science. You should waste
that
on religion, not physics.

All the above shows is, as usual, you are very confuted about
fundamental
things.


Ha ha ha. Ran out of irrelevant remarks, did we? Pot. Kettle.
Black.

TomGee

Whoa, I did not say they are the same thing - you said that, not me.
As you infer above with your question, I said they are not the same
thing.

A group is a number of things thought of as being or belonging
together, while discrete objects a

"1. completely separate: completely separate and unconnected
2. mathematics finite: used to describe elements or variables that are
distinct, unrelated, and have a finite number of values "
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.

A single apple is distinct as one apple. Two or more apples, however,
constitute not a single apple but a group of apples whenever they are
considered together. Thus, we can have 3 apples as a group, but not as
a single apple, speaking both physically and grammatically.

There is no such thing as a single "3apple" in Nature unless we create
it and arbitrarily name it as such. We could, I'm sure, graft seeds
such that we could grow 3-in-1 apples, but that is simply taking 3
discrete objects and merging their parts so as to create a single
object. Then there could exist a "3apple" single object, so named, but
AFAIK, it has not been done.

Dr *** wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dr *** wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
ups.com...
SNIP
tg
That may be a consideration, but remember that an electron does not
become or creates a positron leaving the atom empty of electrons.
The
positron is the next state beyond the most visible stable state
possible for the electron.
dr
As I understood the process wave energy i.e photons of sufficient
energy
could in collision produce a pair of structures call electron and
positron.


If so, how important is it that photons of such energy do not exist
naturally but are created with those energies in particle accelerators?
How relevant to our research are experiments which create unnatural
things and events to prove theories of "wave functions", artificial
creations of annihilating particles, etc.?


If there are any spare states in the shells of nearby nuclei then the
electron may be captured and remain a part of that structure the
positron
may then wander off and decay as the nuclei of the matter in our
cosmos at
the moment has no place for the predominantly positive charge/energy
of the
positron.


Confirmations of positron creations include the fact that the pair
annihilate immediately, which confirms the Uncertainty Principle, as it
must.


This might explain a shortage of electrons and the presence of
dark matter being electron starved and thus having no mechanism for
the
collection and emission of radiation.


I had no looked at it as DM being "electron starved", but that is as
good a way as any to put it at this point. My model proposes that
positrons are only one event that occurs with DM. There must be a
myriad of latent DM particles which respond to the different types of
energies provided by different forces. We see that there are some
visible matter particles that respond to the four fundamental forces in
different ways. Why should that not be true also of DM particles?


dr
If events define the size of things then without events you have a
very very
small piece of non-existence:-)


I am not entirely sure of your meaning here, but I believe
non-existence as a physical effect can only exist for something that
once existed but has suffered entropic fate to the extent where for all
intents and purposes we must say it no longer exists.


and as generally events are waves and
size
is a function of wavelength a general lengthening of wavelength and
a
reduction in frequency would provide a mechanism by which the size
and
internal dimensions of our cosmos would expand ?
Dr ***


Very interesting, but are you saying that waves produced by events are
lengthened, which in turn produces a reduction in frequency, which
causes universal expansion? If so, what causes the lengthening, and
what relation would waves have to do with the expansion process?

tg
I think that is a good idea, but something would have to cause the
"general lengthening" and I cannot think what would do that.
dr
Maybe its simply a question of containment, a bit like water unless
contained energy/events spread and the space it defines spreads with
it.
Energy trying to find its lowest level.


I still find that interesting. Water overflowing its containment does
affect areas where it was contained from. And the analogy to energy
can be supported. We still need to think about what makes the water
overflow, or rather, what makes the wavelengths lengthen.

TomGee

"TomGee" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...
No, Hobbit, the reality is not in the application; that is only the
utility of the model. Math constructs are the backbone of
Theoretical
Physics and as such, they do not apply to real world situations
because
T.P. refuses to consider experimental research.

That is absurd.



TomGee
Theoretical Physics, physics employing mathematical models and
abstractions rather than experimental processes. Microsoft ® Encarta ®
Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.

That is not what I am objecting to. I objecting to your invalid inference
'as such, they do not apply to real world situations'. The fact those
models make predictions that can be tested show your reasoning is false.



Any theory that can not predict things that can be tested
is not a valid theory.



TomGee
I did not say it was.

You said: 'as such, they do not apply to real world situations'. Which is
obviously false since a theory must be able to make predictions to be
testable so must apply to real world situations.




That is the reason the creationist idea that God
created the earth with dinosaur bones is not a valid theory - you are
not
able to test it.



TomGee
And it predicts what?

For example the theory that Tom Gee is a brain dead moron predicts he will
carry on exactly the way you do.



You only think your imaginary math applies to real world
situations,
but it doesn't.

The fact it can make predictions that can be tested indicates
otherwise.



TomGee
But the predictions are as often false as true, if not more so.

No theory will be accepted as valid if it makes a prediction at variance
with experiment.



It is used to measure elements of the real world,

Theory does not measure anything - it makes predictions.



TomGee
Not talking about theory, is your short-term memory so short that you
forgot we're talking about math constructs, or are you just trying to
get us off-track?

We are talking about physical theories which are generally mathematical
models.



but
it cannot be used to make valid conclusions about the real world.

Theory obviously can be used to infer conclusions that can be tested.



Tom Gee
Unfortunately for you, inferences are no more than guesses in physics.

Translation: theories may not be correct which is why we test them. That is
fundamental to science.



You
keep insisting that math depicts the real world,


What I think about math is irrelevant -what is relevant is theirs
based on
math make predictions that can be tested.



Tom Gee
If t's so irrelevant, why do you keep trying to support your arguments
with it? Ain't it stupid to do that and claim from the other side of
your mouth that what you think about it ain't relevant?

I do not support my views with my ideas on what math is about. I support
them with the fact that theories in physics are mathematical models that
make predictions that can be tested.



but that just shows
the faith you have which is wasted on science. You should waste
that
on religion, not physics.

All the above shows is, as usual, you are very confuted about
fundamental
things.



Tom Gee
Ha ha ha. Ran out of irrelevant remarks, did we? Pot. Kettle.
Black.

At least my remarks are relevant - yours are not.

Bill

Bill Hobba wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...
No, Hobbit, the reality is not in the application; that is only
the
utility of the model. Math constructs are the backbone of
Theoretical
Physics and as such, they do not apply to real world situations
because
T.P. refuses to consider experimental research.

That is absurd.



TomGee
Theoretical Physics, physics employing mathematical models and
abstractions rather than experimental processes. Microsoft ® Encarta
®
Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.

That is not what I am objecting to. I objecting to your invalid
inference
'as such, they do not apply to real world situations'. The fact
those
models make predictions that can be tested show your reasoning is
false.


What if I had said, "they don't always apply....", or, "they don't
necessarily apply....", would that make my "inference" any the more
valid in your eyes?


Any theory that can not predict things that can be tested
is not a valid theory.


You have fallen behind the leaders, Lemming! You are now guilty of
nonconformist behavior, and there are some people looking to talk with
you about that. You are mouthing old stuff which did not work with
non-SRians and so had to be changed. The new phrase is that theories
must be _falsifiable_, not that they must predict testable events or
effects. How do you test curved space, or the existence of a real
space-time place? Or a static universe as predicted AE hisself? The
former is unfalsifiable, the second I have demolished as false, and the
latter was overthrown long ago. It seems you are either making up your
own definitions or you cannot understand what they are.


TomGee
I did not say it was.

You said: 'as such, they do not apply to real world situations'.
Which is
obviously false since a theory must be able to make predictions to be
testable so must apply to real world situations.


My reference was to math constructs and not to theories. See above.


That is the reason the creationist idea that God
created the earth with dinosaur bones is not a valid theory - you
are
not
able to test it.



TomGee
And it predicts what?

For example the theory that Tom Gee is a brain dead moron predicts he
will
carry on exactly the way you do.


The creationist idea predicts that? I'm gonna tell the Pope on you!


You only think your imaginary math applies to real world
situations,
but it doesn't.

The fact it can make predictions that can be tested indicates
otherwise.


But the predictions are as often false as true, if not more so.

No theory will be accepted as valid if it makes a prediction at
variance
with experiment.


So then you accept all theories until proven "at variance with
experiment"?

It is used to measure elements of the real world,

Theory does not measure anything - it makes predictions.




You are so slippery. Again, I referred to mathematics and your widdle
brain thinks I referred to theories. Why is that?


Not talking about theory, is your short-term memory so short that you
forgot we're talking about math constructs, or are you just trying to
get us off-track?

We are talking about physical theories which are generally
mathematical
models.


No we're not, you're doing that, not me. I am talking about math
constructs.


but
it cannot be used to make valid conclusions about the real world.

Theory obviously can be used to infer conclusions that can be
tested.


That's true, I agree, but the conclusions arrived at through the use of
math constructs often turn out to be false, just like in Logic it is
possible to have false conclusions. Thus, to apply a math construct to
the real world as if it were reality is no better than using Logic to
arrive at any conclusions.


Unfortunately for you, inferences are no more than guesses in
physics.

Translation: theories may not be correct which is why we test them.
That is
fundamental to science.


You
keep insisting that math depicts the real world,


What I think about math is irrelevant -what is relevant is theirs
based on
math make predictions that can be tested.



Tom Gee
If t's so irrelevant, why do you keep trying to support your
arguments
with it? Ain't it stupid to do that and claim from the other side of
your mouth that what you think about it ain't relevant?

I do not support my views with my ideas on what math is about. I
support
them with the fact that theories in physics are mathematical models
that
make predictions that can be tested.


but that just shows
the faith you have which is wasted on science. You should waste
that
on religion, not physics.

All the above shows is, as usual, you are very confuted about
fundamental
things.


Ha ha ha. Ran out of irrelevant remarks, did we? Pot. Kettle.
Black.

At least my remarks are relevant - yours are not.


Pot. Kettle. Black.
TomGee

"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dr *** wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dr *** wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
ups.com...
SNIP
tg
That may be a consideration, but remember that an electron does not
become or creates a positron leaving the atom empty of electrons.
The
positron is the next state beyond the most visible stable state
possible for the electron.
dr
As I understood the process wave energy i.e photons of sufficient
energy
could in collision produce a pair of structures call electron and
positron.


If so, how important is it that photons of such energy do not exist
naturally but are created with those energies in particle accelerators?
How relevant to our research are experiments which create unnatural
things and events to prove theories of "wave functions", artificial
creations of annihilating particles, etc.?
dr
As far as I am aware there are plenty of photons of energies .5Mev flying
about naturaly in space they just dont get to eat breakfast with us in wave
packet form very often .:-)


If there are any spare states in the shells of nearby nuclei then the
electron may be captured and remain a part of that structure the
positron
may then wander off and decay as the nuclei of the matter in our
cosmos at
the moment has no place for the predominantly positive charge/energy
of the
positron.


Confirmations of positron creations include the fact that the pair
annihilate immediately, which confirms the Uncertainty Principle, as it
must.
dr
I have no data on compulsory mutual annihilation although the separation of
charge pairs may not have been a major consideration in the experiments but
I see no reason why the electron could not be recovered and retained if
required.


This might explain a shortage of electrons and the presence of
dark matter being electron starved and thus having no mechanism for
the
collection and emission of radiation.


I had no looked at it as DM being "electron starved", but that is as
good a way as any to put it at this point. My model proposes that
positrons are only one event that occurs with DM. There must be a
myriad of latent DM particles which respond to the different types of
energies provided by different forces. We see that there are some
visible matter particles that respond to the four fundamental forces in
different ways. Why should that not be true also of DM particles?
dr
I expect they do but the effect of nuclei excitation is mainly low level
ultraviolet which I'm not sure the astronomers are looking for and would be
able to see if they where.


dr
If events define the size of things then without events you have a
very very
small piece of non-existence:-)


I am not entirely sure of your meaning here, but I believe
non-existence as a physical effect can only exist for something that
once existed but has suffered entropic fate to the extent where for all
intents and purposes we must say it no longer exists.
dr
non-existence as a physical effect is non-existent from my pov :-)


and as generally events are waves and
size
is a function of wavelength a general lengthening of wavelength and
a
reduction in frequency would provide a mechanism by which the size
and
internal dimensions of our cosmos would expand ?
Dr ***


Very interesting, but are you saying that waves produced by events are
lengthened, which in turn produces a reduction in frequency, which
causes universal expansion? If so, what causes the lengthening, and
what relation would waves have to do with the expansion process?
dr
The tendency for the cosmos to flatten out energy wise.

tg
I think that is a good idea, but something would have to cause the
"general lengthening" and I cannot think what would do that.
dr
Maybe its simply a question of containment, a bit like water unless
contained energy/events spread and the space it defines spreads with
it.
Energy trying to find its lowest level.


I still find that interesting. Water overflowing its containment does
affect areas where it was contained from. And the analogy to energy
can be supported. We still need to think about what makes the water
overflow, or rather, what makes the wavelengths lengthen.
dr
If the cosmos was in a state of overflow then the energy it contained would
or may be destributed over a larger event set.
Dr ***
TomGee

"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...
Whoa, I did not say they are the same thing - you said that, not me.
As you infer above with your question, I said they are not the same
thing.

Whoa, I did not say that you said that they were the same thing.

A group is a number of things thought of as being or belonging
together, while discrete objects a
group

group (gr?p) noun
Abbr. gr.

1.An assemblage of persons or objects gathered or located together; an
aggregation: a group of dinner guests; a group of buildings near the
road.
2.Two or more figures that make up a unit or design, as in sculpture.
3.A number of individuals or things considered together because of
similarities: a small group of supporters across the country.
4.Linguistics. A category of related languages that is less inclusive
than a family.
5.a. A military unit consisting of two or more battalions and a
headquarters. b. A unit of two or more squadrons in the U.S. Air Force,
smaller than a wing.
6.A class or collection of related objects or entities, as: a. Two or
more atoms behaving or regarded as behaving as a single chemical unit.
b. A column in the periodic table of the elements. c. A stratigraphic
unit, especially a unit consisting of two or more formations deposited
during a single geologic era.
7.Mathematics. A set with an associative binary operation under which
the set is closed, which contains an identity element and an inverse for
every element in the set.

adjective
Of, relating to, constituting, or being a member of a group: a group
discussion; a group effort.

verb
grouped, grouping, groups


verb, transitive
To place or arrange in a group: grouped the children according to
height.

verb, intransitive
To belong to or form a group: The soldiers began to group on the
hillside.

[French groupe, from Italian gruppo, probably of Germanic origin.]

Usage Note: Group as a collective noun can be followed by a singular or
plural verb. It takes a singular verb when the persons or things that
make up the group are considered collectively: The dance group is ready
for rehearsal. Group takes a plural verb when the persons or things that
constitute it are considered individually: The group were divided in
their sympathies.

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic
version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further
reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the
Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

You initially said: "Take 3 apples". That's a group.

"1. completely separate: completely separate and unconnected
2. mathematics finite: used to describe elements or variables that
are
distinct, unrelated, and have a finite number of values "
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.

A single apple is distinct as one apple. Two or more apples, however,
constitute not a single apple but a group of apples whenever they are
considered together. Thus, we can have 3 apples as a group, but not
as
a single apple, speaking both physically and grammatically.

There is no such thing as a single "3apple" in Nature unless we create
it and arbitrarily name it as such. We could, I'm sure, graft seeds
such that we could grow 3-in-1 apples, but that is simply taking 3
discrete objects and merging their parts so as to create a single
object. Then there could exist a "3apple" single object, so named,
but
AFAIK, it has not been done.

What has that got to do with a 3apples? Especially since the definition
of "distinct objects" that you provide claims that the objects are
unrelated (they are all apples). But even if they were distinct objects,
by "taking 3 apples" as you have done, you've created a group of 3
apples. When you "take 3 apples", the quantity is intrinsic to the group
and is a part of it.

Your claim: "The apples are real, but the no. 3 is their quantity and
not part of them. There is no such thing as a 3apples."
By your original definition that began "take 3 apples" it can only be
concluded that it is a group of 3 apples.
Therefore, the no. 3 is part of the group. It is even part of the name
3apples.

Are you are trying to say that by creating a group of 3 apples you don't
change the apples? That is in effect wrong. You change something merely
by the act of measuring it (hence the uncertainty principle).

I ask again, what is a 3apples if not a group of 3 apples.

Dean Elliot wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...
Whoa, I did not say they are the same thing - you said that, not
me.
As you infer above with your question, I said they are not the same
thing.

Whoa, I did not say that you said that they were the same thing.

A group is a number of things thought of as being or belonging
together, while discrete objects a
group

group (gr?p) noun
Abbr. gr.

1.An assemblage of persons or objects gathered or located together;
an
aggregation: a group of dinner guests; a group of buildings near the
road.
2.Two or more figures that make up a unit or design, as in sculpture.
3.A number of individuals or things considered together because of
similarities: a small group of supporters across the country.
4.Linguistics. A category of related languages that is less inclusive
than a family.
5.a. A military unit consisting of two or more battalions and a
headquarters. b. A unit of two or more squadrons in the U.S. Air
Force,
smaller than a wing.
6.A class or collection of related objects or entities, as: a. Two or
more atoms behaving or regarded as behaving as a single chemical
unit.
b. A column in the periodic table of the elements. c. A stratigraphic
unit, especially a unit consisting of two or more formations
deposited
during a single geologic era.
7.Mathematics. A set with an associative binary operation under which
the set is closed, which contains an identity element and an inverse
for
every element in the set.

adjective
Of, relating to, constituting, or being a member of a group: a group
discussion; a group effort.

verb
grouped, grouping, groups


verb, transitive
To place or arrange in a group: grouped the children according to
height.

verb, intransitive
To belong to or form a group: The soldiers began to group on the
hillside.

[French groupe, from Italian gruppo, probably of Germanic origin.]

Usage Note: Group as a collective noun can be followed by a singular
or
plural verb. It takes a singular verb when the persons or things that
make up the group are considered collectively: The dance group is
ready
for rehearsal. Group takes a plural verb when the persons or things
that
constitute it are considered individually: The group were divided in
their sympathies.

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language,
Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic
version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further
reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the
Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

You initially said: "Take 3 apples". That's a group.


Yes, and I meant to say that, so as to make the distinction between a
group and the fact that there is no such thing as a single "3apples".
Are you arguing that there is such a thing? Or what?

"Take 3 apples. The apples are real, but the no. 3 is their quantity
and not part of them. There is no such thing as a 3apples."


"1. completely separate: completely separate and unconnected
2. mathematics finite: used to describe elements or variables that
are
distinct, unrelated, and have a finite number of values "
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004
Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.

A single apple is distinct as one apple. Two or more apples,
however,
constitute not a single apple but a group of apples whenever they
are
considered together. Thus, we can have 3 apples as a group, but
not
as
a single apple, speaking both physically and grammatically.

There is no such thing as a single "3apple" in Nature unless we
create
it and arbitrarily name it as such. We could, I'm sure, graft
seeds
such that we could grow 3-in-1 apples, but that is simply taking 3
discrete objects and merging their parts so as to create a single
object. Then there could exist a "3apple" single object, so named,
but
AFAIK, it has not been done.

What has that got to do with a 3apples? Especially since the
definition
of "distinct objects" that you provide claims that the objects are
unrelated (they are all apples).


So are you arguing that there is such a thing as a single "3apples", or
are you arguing that the 3 apples are a group? If the latter, I made
that statement and you agree with it. If the former, I disagree.


But even if they were distinct objects,
by "taking 3 apples" as you have done, you've created a group of 3
apples. When you "take 3 apples", the quantity is intrinsic to the
group
and is a part of it.


I never said it was not. In fact, I insist that is so. It is the fact
that you are considering more than one apple which makes it a group.
If you think I said that 3 apples don't make a group, you are mistaken.


Your claim: "The apples are real, but the no. 3 is their quantity and
not part of them. There is no such thing as a 3apples."
By your original definition that began "take 3 apples" it can only be
concluded that it is a group of 3 apples.


Yes, that's exactly what I said, but you apparently misunderstood what
you read.


Therefore, the no. 3 is part of the group. It is even part of the
name
3apples.


No, that's patently false. You cannot support your conclusions above
with any sort of proper logic or reasonable thought. That is your own
opinion and in my opinion, you're wrong about that. The number 3 is
part of the group, as I have already said, but being part of a name
does not mean that the named object is real. Again, there is no such
thing as a "3apples", and if that is your argument, you're wrong.


Are you are trying to say that by creating a group of 3 apples you
don't
change the apples? That is in effect wrong. You change something
merely
by the act of measuring it (hence the uncertainty principle).


No, sorry, the Uncertainty Principle has to do with quantum events and
not - repeat - not macro events. You cannot elevate the Principle to
the level of our everyday world just by a magical wave of your hand. I
know many have done that very same thing, but that is one reason why I
post here, because your teachers did not stop you all from making such
errors, probably because they themselves believe that to be true, but
someone has to do it.


I ask again, what is a 3apples if not a group of 3 apples.


I have already explained it to you, but you apparently cannot
understand it and so you argue that 3 apples are a group, which is what
I said from the beginning. For whatever reason you cannot see your
errors, it is beyond my being able to change your mind, no matter how
reasonable are my arguments.

"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dean Elliot wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...
Whoa, I did not say they are the same thing - you said that, not
me.
As you infer above with your question, I said they are not the same
thing.

Whoa, I did not say that you said that they were the same thing.

A group is a number of things thought of as being or belonging
together, while discrete objects a
group

group (gr?p) noun
Abbr. gr.

1.An assemblage of persons or objects gathered or located together;
an
aggregation: a group of dinner guests; a group of buildings near the
road.
2.Two or more figures that make up a unit or design, as in sculpture.
3.A number of individuals or things considered together because of
similarities: a small group of supporters across the country.
4.Linguistics. A category of related languages that is less inclusive
than a family.
5.a. A military unit consisting of two or more battalions and a
headquarters. b. A unit of two or more squadrons in the U.S. Air
Force,
smaller than a wing.
6.A class or collection of related objects or entities, as: a. Two or
more atoms behaving or regarded as behaving as a single chemical
unit.
b. A column in the periodic table of the elements. c. A stratigraphic
unit, especially a unit consisting of two or more formations
deposited
during a single geologic era.
7.Mathematics. A set with an associative binary operation under which
the set is closed, which contains an identity element and an inverse
for
every element in the set.

adjective
Of, relating to, constituting, or being a member of a group: a group
discussion; a group effort.

verb
grouped, grouping, groups


verb, transitive
To place or arrange in a group: grouped the children according to
height.

verb, intransitive
To belong to or form a group: The soldiers began to group on the
hillside.

[French groupe, from Italian gruppo, probably of Germanic origin.]

Usage Note: Group as a collective noun can be followed by a singular
or
plural verb. It takes a singular verb when the persons or things that
make up the group are considered collectively: The dance group is
ready
for rehearsal. Group takes a plural verb when the persons or things
that
constitute it are considered individually: The group were divided in
their sympathies.

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language,
Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic
version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further
reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the
Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

You initially said: "Take 3 apples". That's a group.


Yes, and I meant to say that, so as to make the distinction between a
group and the fact that there is no such thing as a single "3apples".
Are you arguing that there is such a thing? Or what?

"Take 3 apples. The apples are real, but the no. 3 is their quantity
and not part of them. There is no such thing as a 3apples."


"1. completely separate: completely separate and unconnected
2. mathematics finite: used to describe elements or variables that
are
distinct, unrelated, and have a finite number of values "
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004
Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.

A single apple is distinct as one apple. Two or more apples,
however,
constitute not a single apple but a group of apples whenever they
are
considered together. Thus, we can have 3 apples as a group, but
not
as
a single apple, speaking both physically and grammatically.

There is no such thing as a single "3apple" in Nature unless we
create
it and arbitrarily name it as such. We could, I'm sure, graft
seeds
such that we could grow 3-in-1 apples, but that is simply taking 3
discrete objects and merging their parts so as to create a single
object. Then there could exist a "3apple" single object, so named,
but
AFAIK, it has not been done.

What has that got to do with a 3apples? Especially since the
definition
of "distinct objects" that you provide claims that the objects are
unrelated (they are all apples).


So are you arguing that there is such a thing as a single "3apples", or
are you arguing that the 3 apples are a group? If the latter, I made
that statement and you agree with it. If the former, I disagree.


But even if they were distinct objects,
by "taking 3 apples" as you have done, you've created a group of 3
apples. When you "take 3 apples", the quantity is intrinsic to the
group
and is a part of it.


I never said it was not. In fact, I insist that is so. It is the fact
that you are considering more than one apple which makes it a group.
If you think I said that 3 apples don't make a group, you are mistaken.


Your claim: "The apples are real, but the no. 3 is their quantity and
not part of them. There is no such thing as a 3apples."
By your original definition that began "take 3 apples" it can only be
concluded that it is a group of 3 apples.


Yes, that's exactly what I said, but you apparently misunderstood what
you read.


Therefore, the no. 3 is part of the group. It is even part of the
name
3apples.


No, that's patently false. You cannot support your conclusions above
with any sort of proper logic or reasonable thought. That is your own
opinion and in my opinion, you're wrong about that. The number 3 is
part of the group, as I have already said, but being part of a name
does not mean that the named object is real. Again, there is no such
thing as a "3apples", and if that is your argument, you're wrong.


Are you are trying to say that by creating a group of 3 apples you
don't
change the apples? That is in effect wrong. You change something
merely
by the act of measuring it (hence the uncertainty principle).


No, sorry, the Uncertainty Principle has to do with quantum events and
not - repeat - not macro events. You cannot elevate the Principle to
the level of our everyday world just by a magical wave of your hand. I
know many have done that very same thing, but that is one reason why I
post here, because your teachers did not stop you all from making such
errors, probably because they themselves believe that to be true, but
someone has to do it.


I ask again, what is a 3apples if not a group of 3 apples.


: have already explained it to you, but you apparently cannot
: |understand it and so you argue that 3 apples are a group, which is
what
: I said from the beginning. For whatever reason you cannot see your
: errors, it is beyond my being able to change your mind, no matter how
: reasonable are my arguments.

Fascinating non-sense. You say that you have already explained it, which
you haven't and claim that that's the reason for not explaining it. You
say that that's the reason why I argue that 3apples is a group and then
say that that's what you said from the beginning, which you didn't. You
say that it's not a group. You say that it doesn't exist. What you don't
say anywhere at any time is what a 3apples is. You can make spurious
claims all that you want, but it doesn't change the truth. It's very
simple, since you have demonstrated that you incapable of stating the
difference between a 3apples and a group of 3 apples: Tell me what you
think a 3apples is. Then even I will understand what you're trying to
say. Don't equivicate. Don't make excuses.

TomGee:
Whoa, I did not say they are the same thing - you said that, not me.
As you infer above with your question, I said they are not the same
thing.

A group is a number of things thought of as being or belonging
together, while discrete objects a

A group is a collection of elements and an operation, ``*'', on the
elements, which satisfy four conditions:

(1) If A and B are elements of a group G, A*B is an element of G.

(2) There is an element, I, caled the identity, such that A*I = I*A = A.

(3) If A is an element of a group G, then there is an element, A^-1,
also in G, called the inverse such that (A)*(A^-1) = (A^-1)*(A) = I.

(4) If A, B and C are elements of a group G, then A*(B*C) = (A*B)*C.