Why does everyone disagree with you

oy there ain't nothing wrong with trefolux or a junior hackenshmit. Hmm Myford.

One perennial topic that is guaranteed to cause a wailing and gnashing of teeth is whether a three jaw chuck needs a tight or loose register with it's backplate.

Does it. ??? I have a backplate that came with the machine but the register is undersize.

Steve.

Steve, all of the three jaw chucks for the museum's lathe and the er25 collet plate have their registers intentionally reduced to allow fine adjustment of their concentricity if required. Some people get so incensed about my butchery that I'm in danger of being excommunicated, or having a fatwa against me.

.

Ooops ... That should have read Blowlamp’s cuppa

Sincere apologies

MichaelG.

Actually that was Bishop Berkeley and an important idea in philosophy that is still studied and argued today. He is considered one of the great thinkers of all time. And his ideas were a precursor to Einstein's theory of relativity.

Berkeley's argument went something like this:

(1) We perceive ordinary objects (houses, mountains, etc.).

(2) We perceive only ideas.

Therefore,

(3) Ordinary objects are ideas.

Something to think about.

Edited By Hopper on 30/01/2020 00:41:30

Edited By Hopper on 30/01/2020 00:43:00

That way lies nothing but solipsism, in the end.

.

Good morning , Mick

Did you read my post of 17:17:53 yesterday ?

I am still interested to see your version of Euclid’s definition.

MichaelG.

Likewise!

In the end, we are all dead. And when I'm dead, you lot cease to exist. So you'd better be nice to me!

Philosophy is an interesting field, certainly worth exploring. Whilst much less reliable than Science or Mathematics, philosophy is more respectable than Theology. Bottom of the intellectual pile I'd say is Astrology. But as it turned out, the history of Astrology is a warning against dismissing even daft ideas at the outset - Astrology led to Astronomy.

Dave

Bottom of the pile is Economics.

JA

Logic was studied in philosophy first then maths took it on and has become the foundation of computing.

Mike

[This posting has been removed]

No, no! It's the other way around!

Yes I did, but thought it a challenge based on a conflation. Even if I knew enough Greek, it would probably not be possible to improve on Bill Phinn's. What I was finding verbose and indigestible was Joyce's pronouncements on it, considering where Euclid must've had to start from.

.

No, Mick ... it was just a simple straightforward response to your assertion:

Well, 'tain't really Euclid's definition, is it, but […]

... I read that ^^^ to be a claim that you knew better.

MichaelG.

.

P.S. the notes, which you seem to find objectionable, are meant to inform the modern reader ... they are not intended to belittle Euclid. 

Joyce’s closing sentence on that page explains his approach: This version of the Elements is based on Heiberg’s Greek edition which is based on pre-Theonic editions, and is, therefore, relatively authentic. Even though parts of it may have been added in the first 650 years after Euclid, in these notes we’ll treat Heiberg’s edition as authentic.

... Joyce is simply being a good scholar.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 30/01/2020 15:38:27

PostScript:

I confess that I did not know the exact meaning of pre-Theonic

... But thanks to Google, I found a man who does: **LINK**

MichaelG.

Well, I don't know much about angels but this thread certainly seems to have grown wings and ascended to a higher plane. Such erudition and eloquence is rare on the interweb; long may it continue . . . well, at least until the weather improves and the sheds warm up a bit.

As a 'farm boy' my knowledge and abilities are wide-ranging but generally lacking in depth so I do enjoy being prompted by such as MichaelG to investigate topics of which I was aware only as a few names and phrases.

Mike.

Blowlamp - my neice won the prize awarded by the BBC for inventing the name Legs and Co!! There's irrelevant fame for you!

rgds

Bill