From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: PV equation (was Re: e-meter)
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:29:39 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <GISLE.92Dec17172343@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
> In article <1992Dec17.023948.4656@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>> In article <GISLE.92Dec16161900@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
> 
>>> I should think that a "clear defintion" should _at_least_ name the
>>> units one should use to express "PV", "I", "D" and "x" quantatively,
>>> and how these quantities should be measured/estimated.  Since that is
>>> left out in the book, it is _not_ "fairly well explained right in the
>>> book".  The way it explained in the book it doesn't make sense at all
>>> (at least not within the framework of any accepted standard of algebra
>>> or logic).
> 
>> It wasn't intended that way.  You aren't supposed to use the equation
>> to come up with an answer like "4957 Survival Units".  Read it over again,
>> and quit trying to force it into the wrong frame of reference.
>   
>>> The thread died when I offered Bill a bet (my $8888 against his $1)
>>> if he could show, using standard algebra, that the equation was
>>> computable.  Bill declined the bet, stating that he didn't have the
>>> time to put together such a proof.  The bet is still open if you want
>>> to have a go.
> 
>> No thanks.  I agree with you that to compute this equation you need
>> some type of units, BUT thats not the purpose.
>>
>> The equation was written for an AUDITOR not a mathmetician.  An auditor
>> listens and computes, he doesn't sit and do math problems.
> 
> So, what are your point?  Do you mean to say that when an "auditor"
> computes, he uses a DIFFERENT sort of mathematics than a "mathematican"?
> I'm familiar with Douglas Adam's concept of "bistromatics", but in all
> honesty -- I think Mr. Adams' intented that to be taken as a joke.
>

   If you'd try to understand what I'm telling you instead of just trying
to make me wrong, you'd see that I'm telling you the auditor DOESN'T
use ANY mathematics at all.   

   Gisle, I agree that the PV equation makes no sense the way you are
interpreting it.  But, its not meant to be done that way.  If you'd just
quit being so above it all and drop the idea that you know better, you
just might be able to see what we're talking about.  

   Get a CLUE about what is being discussed in the PV equation and then
if you want to say its wrong, I won't mind.  But its a very stupid thing
to do to just insist something is incorrect when you haven't understood
it.

    Its NOT a difficult concept.  Quit trying to make it that way.
 
> [[ Deleted to save bandwidth:  long  argument, concluding that Adolf
>    Hitler must have been a pretty valuable guy for humanity if I
>    should believe John's definition of human value.]]
> 
>> There is something wrong with your understanding.  I guess you just missed
>> the part that answers that argument.  Its right under your nose.  Read it
>> again.  PV can have a positive or negative vector depending on how it aligns
>> with the other Dynamics (Which is why you have the x, its NOT an exponent)
> 
> PLEASE MAKE UP YOUR MIND!
> 
> At the beginning of your post, you explain that we're not supposed
> to associate specific magnitutes with the terms in this "equation".
> Now you`re telling me that what we're dealing with is a vector --
> which is something that certainly has magnitude (and in several
> dimensions too!).
>

   Thats a physics definition, not a Dianetics definition.  I sure wouldn't
get very far in math if I continually substitued the Scientology definition
for words where another definition was intended.

   Maybe, if I just wanted to "prove" to everyone that math was wrong,
I might try something like that, but I'd probably only end up appearing
very stupid and wearing out the patience of the people who actually knew.
 
> So what is it?  Is it or isn't it a vector?  And if it is a vector:
> Please name how many dimensions it extend in, and the units one should
> use to express "PV", "I" and "D" quantatively, and how these
> quantities should be measured/estimated.

    In math or physics, this question would have some validity.  In Dianetics,
it doesn't.  Get a dictionary and clear the words.

    Honestly, if you'd clear the words you'd see that what LRH is saying
is very simple.  Also, you wouldn't ask questions that are answered in the
previous paragraph(s).

    I'd also recomend that you get a good dictionary and clear the words
in what people write here.   That way, you might not distort the meaning
of what people are saying to you quit so often.  You'd probably feel a lot
less frustrated as well.

-John Holifield