Simplest possible notion of a formal system

[Skepdick]

These are also required for quantification as the basic elements of counting.

The Incas weren't much into abstractions... They preferred to count on ropes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quipu

The dot is a symbol. Like all symbols - it has no meaning until somebody interprets it.

[Eodnhoj7]

These are also required for quantification as the basic elements of counting.

The Incas weren't much into abstractions... They preferred to count on ropes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quipu

Yeah...a point and line...ROFL!!! You just keep proving my point.

The dot is a symbol. Like all symbols - it has no meaning until somebody interprets it.

False, it is the beginning state of assumptive awareness synonymous to zen empty mind or Socrates blank slate.

It is the foundation for measurement by it's own self reflective capacity much in the same way a point diverging produces both quantity and quality (through distance) simultaneously.

[Skepdick]

Yeah...a point and line...ROFL!!! You just keep proving my point

A rope is a point and a line?

You are missing a dimension.

False, it is the beginning state of assumptive awareness through zen empty mind or Socrates blank slate.

Did you get that quote from http://wisdomofchopra.com ?

[Eodnhoj7]

Yeah...a point and line...ROFL!!! You just keep proving my point

A rope is a point and a line?

You are missing a dimension.

not really of you view it as a two dimensional entity from a distance. All phenomenon can be observed as flat anyhow, according to some theories in physics, and the 3rd dimension of depth is just change.

But yes

•-•-•-•-•

Is a recursive form.

False, it is the beginning state of assumptive awareness through zen empty mind or Socrates blank slate.

Did you get that quote from http://wisdomofchopra.com ?

No, I found it out myself the hard way. No thought turns the mind to a boundless state. This is the same nature of a point, boundless state.

It only becomes quantifiable and qualifiable when it separates, but even then each point is still an infinity.

So tell me, what is it like being so afraid of reality that you have to spend every waking hour trying to cram it into a box? I mean on the bright side, it is easier for 8 year olds too send porno to eachother instead of hiding the magazine under the bed from mom...what a meaningful life.

[Skepdick]

Point line and circle.

Maybe you want to look into topology ?

The point is a 0-dimensional space.
The line is a 1-dimensional space.

The circle is an odd one out, but it's technically a 2-dimensional space.

[Eodnhoj7]

Point line and circle.

Maybe you want to look into topology ?

The point is a 0-dimensional space.
The line is a 1-dimensional space.

The circle is an odd one out, but it's technically a 2-dimensional space.

Yeah and I have argued that the point can also be 1 dimensional and the line negative dimensional.

Was working on negative dimensional points and 0 dimensional lines, but it is absurd even for me...plus the 1d point and negative d line is a stretch for most.

[Skepdick]

Yeah and I have argued that the point can also be 1 dimensional and the line negative dimensional.

Was working on negative dimensional points and 0 dimensional lines, but it is absurd even for me...plus the 1d point and negative d line is a stretch for most.

Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative- ... onal_space

[Eodnhoj7]

Yeah and I have argued that the point can also be 1 dimensional and the line negative dimensional.

Was working on negative dimensional points and 0 dimensional lines, but it is absurd even for me...plus the 1d point and negative d line is a stretch for most.

Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative- ... onal_space

I said for most. Arguing a 0d line exists as well as a -1d point is not going to be understood by most. It pushes the limits of reason itself, but works according to some prior work.

[Skepdick]

I said for most. Arguing a 0d line exists as well as a -1d point is not going to be understood by most. It pushes the limits of reason itself, but works according to some prior work.

Is just f(-1).

Anything goes in the universe of abstractions.

[Eodnhoj7]

I said for most. Arguing a 0d line exists as well as a -1d point is not going to be understood by most. It pushes the limits of reason itself, but works according to some prior work.

Is just f(-1)

0d line, keep in mind the standard for geometry is that the point is 0d.