3 ms·

Did you even bother reading any of the references you asked for or googled any of the terms/axioms/theorems I quoted? Half of the things you claim I said are qu

Did you even bother reading any of the references you asked for or googled any of the terms/axioms/theorems I quoted? Half of the things you claim I said are quite willful misquotes of what I wrote. Look, I tried to read what you wrote charitably (hence the smileys and multiple mentions of the limitations of online comments as a medium). Without you doing the same, I have trouble imagining how we can agree on the truth. Again, check the actual rigorous logically coherent textbook references I shared, not a popsci page (which is indeed from a reputable source, but popsci nonetheless). By the way, that popsci page defines just the unit of Kelvin, not the concept of temperature - if you deny there is a difference between these two notions, there is hardly a chance this conversation would go anywhere.

lisper 4y ago
> Half of the things you claim I said are quite willful misquotes of what I wrote. All of the things I claim you said are verbatim copies of things you wrote, copied and pasted directly from your comments, with one exception: I changed a lower case p to an upper case P, but even there I indicated the edit with [brackets] as is customary. No reasonable person could consider that a "willful misquote". > check the actual rigorous logically coherent textbook references I shared What textbook references? You linked to one paper by Pogliani and Berberan-Santos, and one mathexchange article. All of your other links were to Wikipedia. BTW, I just browsed through the P&B-S paper, and it is also logically incoherent. > ... his famous second axiom, that constitutes the real novelty of his work ... “In the neighborhood of any equilibrium state of a system (of any number of thermodynamic coordinates), there exists states that are inaccessible by reversible adiabatic processes”. ... It can be noticed that in the axioms and definitions of the new method there is no mention of heat, temperature or entropy whatsoever But that is not true. The axiom is framed in terms of "adiabatic processes" and "equilibrium state", both of which depend on the concept of heat. I'm sorry, but if this is the best you have, then the whole field of axiomatic thermodynamics is utterly bankrupt.

lisper 4y ago

> Half of the things you claim I said are quite willful misquotes of what I wrote. All of the things I claim you said are verbatim copies of things you wrote, copied and pasted directly from your comments, with one exception: I changed a lower case p to an upper case P, but even there I indicated the edit with [brackets] as is customary. No reasonable person could consider that a "willful misquote". > check the actual rigorous logically coherent textbook references I shared What textbook references? You linked to one paper by Pogliani and Berberan-Santos, and one mathexchange article. All of your other links were to Wikipedia. BTW, I just browsed through the P&B-S paper, and it is also logically incoherent. > ... his famous second axiom, that constitutes the real novelty of his work ... “In the neighborhood of any equilibrium state of a system (of any number of thermodynamic coordinates), there exists states that are inaccessible by reversible adiabatic processes”. ... It can be noticed that in the axioms and definitions of the new method there is no mention of heat, temperature or entropy whatsoever But that is not true. The axiom is framed in terms of "adiabatic processes" and "equilibrium state", both of which depend on the concept of heat. I'm sorry, but if this is the best you have, then the whole field of axiomatic thermodynamics is utterly bankrupt.