On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Jonathan Jones <
eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Escape Landsome <
escaaape@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> "In a mathematical sense, a circle defined parametrically in a positive
>> >> Cartesian
>> >>
>> >> plane<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system#Orientation_and_.22handedness.22>by
>> >> the equations
>> >> *x* = cos *t* and *y* = sin *t* is traced counterclockwise as *t*
>> >> increases
>> >> in value."
>> >>
>> >> That's pure math right there.
>>
>> Well, that's Wikipedia maths.
>>
>> In University and Ecole Normale, we are taught tensor algebra, which
>> clearly states that the notion of clockwise and counterclockwise is
>> arbitrary. If the only thing you can oppose to me is a commonplace
>> cyclopedia collected by amateurs, and not the works of high-status
>> mathematicians, then I consider you have contributed no critique at
>> all.
>>
>> Buy a book of high grade mathematics, and come back later.
>
>
> Your tone is dismissive and inflammatory, serves no useful or beneficial
> purpose to anyone including yourself, and merely provokes a response to be
> equally dismissive of you /in general/.
>
> It doesn't matter what "grade" of math is being used. (And by the way, it's
> not "Wikipedia maths". It's a parametric equation, which is calculus. The
> fact that I found it on Wikipedia is incidental.) You asked for a purely
> mathematical way of describing rotational motion that distinguishes counter-
> and clock-wise directions. I have done so.
>
>
> --
> mu'o mi'e .aionys.
>
> .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
> (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
>