Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: mirrors: two or more?

Listening to Mr. Denker, I am reminded of Humpty Dumpty talking to
Alice:

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't --
till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for
you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice
objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful
tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor
less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words
mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master
-- that's all."

I suppose Humpty Dumpty was just "generalizing" glory.

Subject: Re: mirrors: two or more?
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:17:31 -0400
From: John Denker <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>


* The un-generalized reflection operator is *obviously* the only
non-continuous distance-preserving symmetry of Euclidean space
... therefore antimatter does not exist.


Excellent. It seems, to paraphrase John McLaughlin, Mr. Decker has
lurched uncontrollably into a definition: A "generalized" reflection
operator (GRO) is any non-continuous distance-preserving symmetry of
Euclidean space.

Is the assertion, then, that the matter-antimatter transformation is
such a GRO?

What does "enantiomorph" mean for this GRO?

Glenn A. Carlson, P.E.
St. Charles County Community College
St. Peters, MO
GACarlson@mail.win.org