A Kindergarten Physics Lesson, Again for the Likes of Yunguzi!

In my post that made mathematics disappear and still hasn't resurfaced, "Mathematics, the labor theory of value can certainly be criticized! (Tangfen: 2006-08-11)," I clearly stated that academic criticism of the labor theory of value is permitted, but one must follow academic norms and not deliberately distort things. Yet this Yunguzi continues as before, constantly fabricating others' academic views. For instance, in his latest post, he actually wrote: "In Capital, when Marx encountered two commodities with different use values that couldn't be compared, he set aside use value, and what remained was the labor product. At this point the labor product was no longer the original commodity." Excuse me, but when did Marx ever set aside use value? Are you aware that use value is part of the value structure?

But this is all too habitual for Yunguzi. What his post today reveals even more is that he doesn't even understand the most basic physics. Look at what he says: "That is to say, the different use values of two commodities means the two commodities have different dimensions. If two different use values (different dimensions) are both converted to the same numerical value, isn't the numerical value itself the same dimension?"

"Isn't the numerical value itself the same dimension?" "Different use values (different dimensions)?" Excuse me, Yunguzi, do you know what a dimension is? What domain does "numerical value" belong to as a dimension? "Isn't the numerical value itself the same dimension?" -- how can you have the nerve to say such a thing? Is showing off one's ignorance in fashion now?

Dimension, in layman's terms, is related to units, but dimension is more fundamental than units. For example, the unit of RMB is yuan, and the unit of US dollars is also a yuan-equivalent, but it's not the same yuan as RMB. This is somewhat like centimeters and millimeters -- both are specific units of length, but from the perspective of dimensions, they are the same, both having the dimension of length, which we can represent with L. Whether you measure in centimeters or millimeters doesn't affect the identity of the dimension. The yuan of RMB and the dollar of USD are like centimeters and millimeters in length -- they are specific measurement units, but they all belong to the same currency dimension, which we might represent with B.

But that Yunguzi has no idea what a dimension is, because two different dimensions can never be converted into the same dimension no matter what you do with the numerical values. Like 10 meters and 100 yuan -- no matter how you play with those 10 and 100, you can never make meters and yuan share the same dimension. Yunguzi's statement that "the different use values of two commodities means the two commodities have different dimensions, if two different use values (different dimensions) are both converted to the same numerical value, isn't the numerical value itself the same dimension?" -- what this reveals about the person, everyone can judge for themselves.

If different use values have no common dimension among them, it is impossible for the commodities corresponding to the two use values to produce a pure ratio relationship in exchange, because only things with the same dimension, when divided, yield a pure numerical ratio. Like 10 meters and 10 centimeters -- when divided they become 100, a pure numerical ratio. But 10 meters divided by 100 yuan -- no matter how you manipulate the numbers in front, its dimension remains L/B and can never be a pure numerical ratio! The thing that gives all different use values a common dimension is what value investigates -- but I won't elaborate on that here.