0d Lines and Circles

[Eodnhoj7]

The counter is 0

Who are you talking to? As I thought there only you?

Who needs there "IQ revoked" now? or "English lessons"?:

"As I thought there only you?"




Really.....

[Dontaskme]

The counter is 0

Who are you talking to? As I thought there only you?

I'm talking to that you that you think into being.

[Atla]

You made the claim that .999... will "never halt."

No, I didn't. I made the claim that the algorithm for computing .999... (which I gave you) will never halt.

If .999... is already on the Turing machine's tape, you aren't so much "computing" it, as you are retrieving it from memory.

How did it get there?

By that (stupid) criterion NO real number is computable. Hence my observation that you've neither read Turing nor understood a word he wrote.

No infinite precision real number are computable. Because infinities don't exist! You can approximate real numbers to some finite range.

Subject to trade-offs. It's just a choice.

Again, as I pointed out earlier, you don't know the first thing about constructivism, which I've actually taken the trouble to study in some depth.

I practice constructivism. I construct models of reality using formalisms. I know more about constructivism than anybody who only reads books about it.

You seem to be talking strictly about mathematical constructivism though. I've said this before - all you know is mathematics.

Custructivism goes beyond maths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology

Nor have you even attempted to say a single word in defense of explanation of your link to linear logic. One might get the idea that you're linking Wiki pages without any understanding.

The link is for your education. One might get the idea that I am the luckiest person alive - since (despite my lack of understanding) I keep linking you to relevant context.

The resource interpretation of linear logic allows you to treat time as a resource which corresponds to the way a linear-bounded automaton experiences time.

Given finite time you can only perform a finite number of operations - like a CPU can only perform a finite number of instructions.
Given multiple CPUs - you can perform some tasks in parallel (which is how we use linear (temporal) logic in practice - concurrent programming ).

In order to compute any real number to infinite precision - you need to perform an infinite number of operations.
To arrive at infinite instructions/operations - you require infinite time, irrespective of parallelism.

You don't have infinite time. Computational complexity 101 stuff.

I'll let you have the last word. Nothing productive can come of this. You need to go learn some math. Standard math, constructive math, any flavor you like. Your ignorance is deep and broad.

My ignorance of your made-up, theoretical field is as deep and broad as my ignorance of all religions.

What good has it done you learning math? All you do is talk about it, but you offer nothing of practical value.

Your 'knowledge' lacks contact with the ground.

Timeseeker likes to mix constructivism (something he knows nothing about) with information theory, computers (something he knows nothing about), in order to take down philosophy (something he knows nothing about), so he can pretend to be a saviour of the world (something he knows nothing about).

[Eodnhoj7]

You made the claim that .999... will "never halt."

No, I didn't. I made the claim that the algorithm for computing .999... (which I gave you) will never halt.

If .999... is already on the Turing machine's tape, you aren't so much "computing" it, as you are retrieving it from memory.

How did it get there?

By that (stupid) criterion NO real number is computable. Hence my observation that you've neither read Turing nor understood a word he wrote.

No infinite precision real number are computable. Because infinities don't exist! You can approximate real numbers to some finite range.

Subject to trade-offs. It's just a choice.

Again, as I pointed out earlier, you don't know the first thing about constructivism, which I've actually taken the trouble to study in some depth.

I practice constructivism. I construct models of reality using formalisms. I know more about constructivism than anybody who only reads books about it.

You seem to be talking strictly about mathematical constructivism though. I've said this before - all you know is mathematics.

Custructivism goes beyond maths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology

Nor have you even attempted to say a single word in defense of explanation of your link to linear logic. One might get the idea that you're linking Wiki pages without any understanding.

The link is for your education. One might get the idea that I am the luckiest person alive - since (despite my lack of understanding) I keep linking you to relevant context.

The resource interpretation of linear logic allows you to treat time as a resource which corresponds to the way a linear-bounded automaton experiences time.

Given finite time you can only perform a finite number of operations - like a CPU can only perform a finite number of instructions.
Given multiple CPUs - you can perform some tasks in parallel (which is how we use linear (temporal) logic in practice - concurrent programming ).

In order to compute any real number to infinite precision - you need to perform an infinite number of operations.
To arrive at infinite instructions/operations - you require infinite time, irrespective of parallelism.

You don't have infinite time. Computational complexity 101 stuff.

I'll let you have the last word. Nothing productive can come of this. You need to go learn some math. Standard math, constructive math, any flavor you like. Your ignorance is deep and broad.

My ignorance of your made-up, theoretical field is as deep and broad as my ignorance of all religions.

What good has it done you learning math? All you do is talk about it, but you offer nothing of practical value.

Your 'knowledge' lacks contact with the ground.

Timeseeker likes to mix constructivism (something he knows nothing about) with information theory, computers (something he knows nothing about), in order to take down philosophy (something he knows nothing about), so he can pretend to be a saviour of the world (something he knows nothing about).

Actually if math is grounded in counting zero's through the number line, it is equating 1 to 0 and falls under it's own contradiction.

So you really have no foundations for claiming to know anything when you are counting 0's.

[Atla]

No, I didn't. I made the claim that the algorithm for computing .999... (which I gave you) will never halt.

If .999... is already on the Turing machine's tape, you aren't so much "computing" it, as you are retrieving it from memory.

How did it get there?


No infinite precision real number are computable. Because infinities don't exist! You can approximate real numbers to some finite range.

Subject to trade-offs. It's just a choice.


I practice constructivism. I construct models of reality using formalisms. I know more about constructivism than anybody who only reads books about it.

You seem to be talking strictly about mathematical constructivism though. I've said this before - all you know is mathematics.

Custructivism goes beyond maths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology


The link is for your education. One might get the idea that I am the luckiest person alive - since (despite my lack of understanding) I keep linking you to relevant context.

The resource interpretation of linear logic allows you to treat time as a resource which corresponds to the way a linear-bounded automaton experiences time.

Given finite time you can only perform a finite number of operations - like a CPU can only perform a finite number of instructions.
Given multiple CPUs - you can perform some tasks in parallel (which is how we use linear (temporal) logic in practice - concurrent programming ).

In order to compute any real number to infinite precision - you need to perform an infinite number of operations.
To arrive at infinite instructions/operations - you require infinite time, irrespective of parallelism.

You don't have infinite time. Computational complexity 101 stuff.


My ignorance of your made-up, theoretical field is as deep and broad as my ignorance of all religions.

What good has it done you learning math? All you do is talk about it, but you offer nothing of practical value.

Your 'knowledge' lacks contact with the ground.

Timeseeker likes to mix constructivism (something he knows nothing about) with information theory, computers (something he knows nothing about), in order to take down philosophy (something he knows nothing about), so he can pretend to be a saviour of the world (something he knows nothing about).

Actually if math is grounded in counting zero's through the number line, it is equating 1 to 0 and falls under it's own contradiction.

So you really have no foundations for claiming to know anything when you are counting 0's.

Who asked you

[Eodnhoj7]

Timeseeker likes to mix constructivism (something he knows nothing about) with information theory, computers (something he knows nothing about), in order to take down philosophy (something he knows nothing about), so he can pretend to be a saviour of the world (something he knows nothing about).

Actually if math is grounded in counting zero's through the number line, it is equating 1 to 0 and falls under it's own contradiction.

So you really have no foundations for claiming to know anything when you are counting 0's.

Who asked you

Who asked you?

The number line, with infinite 0d points composing the lines, is not a quantification of zero where counting 0 effectively equivocates it to one.

The basic method of counting, that which number is derived from as an objective entity, is grounded in equating 1 to 0. Number begins with a fallacy, by it's own definition, and as such proves all of this "enlightenment" work not only has zero foundations but breaks it's own rules.

[Atla]

Actually if math is grounded in counting zero's through the number line, it is equating 1 to 0 and falls under it's own contradiction.

So you really have no foundations for claiming to know anything when you are counting 0's.

Who asked you

Who asked you?

The number line, with infinite 0d points composing the lines, is not a quantification of zero where counting 0 effectively equivocates it to one.

The basic method of counting, that which number is derived from as an objective entity, is grounded in equating 1 to 0. Number begins with a fallacy, by it's own definition, and as such proves all of this "enlightenment" work not only has zero foundations but breaks it's own rules.

Are you by any chance under the impression that your posts during the last 2 years made sense?

[Eodnhoj7]

Who asked you

Who asked you?

The number line, with infinite 0d points composing the lines, is not a quantification of zero where counting 0 effectively equivocates it to one.

The basic method of counting, that which number is derived from as an objective entity, is grounded in equating 1 to 0. Number begins with a fallacy, by it's own definition, and as such proves all of this "enlightenment" work not only has zero foundations but breaks it's own rules.

Are you by any chance under the impression that your posts during the last 2 years made sense?

Redhering through ad hominum as usual...predictable and insane by definition.

Are you under the impression you being here for multiple years and learning nothing (according to you) makes no sense? Insanity is the repitition of the same behavior that gives no results according to some....

So a line is not composed of infinite 0d points?

[Atla]

Who asked you?

The number line, with infinite 0d points composing the lines, is not a quantification of zero where counting 0 effectively equivocates it to one.

The basic method of counting, that which number is derived from as an objective entity, is grounded in equating 1 to 0. Number begins with a fallacy, by it's own definition, and as such proves all of this "enlightenment" work not only has zero foundations but breaks it's own rules.

Are you by any chance under the impression that your posts during the last 2 years made sense?

Redhering through ad hominum as usual...predictable and insane by definition.

Are you under the impression you being here for multiple years and learning nothing (according to you) makes no sense? Insanity is the repitition of the same behavior that gives no results according to some....

So a line is not composed of infinite 0d points?

Why do you think that calling your word salads word salads is an ad hominem?

[Eodnhoj7]

Are you by any chance under the impression that your posts during the last 2 years made sense?

Redhering through ad hominum as usual...predictable and insane by definition.

Are you under the impression you being here for multiple years and learning nothing (according to you) makes no sense? Insanity is the repitition of the same behavior that gives no results according to some....

So a line is not composed of infinite 0d points?

Why do you think that calling your word salads word salads is an ad hominem?

Predictable, your are acting like a madman stuttering out insults left and right...you cannot even provide an argument for or against something anymore.

So is a line composed of infinite 0d points? WTF says it is...

[Atla]

Redhering through ad hominum as usual...predictable and insane by definition.

Are you under the impression you being here for multiple years and learning nothing (according to you) makes no sense? Insanity is the repitition of the same behavior that gives no results according to some....

So a line is not composed of infinite 0d points?

Why do you think that calling your word salads word salads is an ad hominem?

Predictable, your are acting like a madman stuttering out insults left and right...you cannot even provide an argument for or against something anymore.

So is a line composed of infinite 0d points? WTF says it is...

If your last few thousand comments were word salads, which I debunked in a dozen ways, then why would you suddenly make sense now?

Insanity is the repitition of the same behavior that gives no results according to some.... that's the most ironic thing you said in a while

[Eodnhoj7]

Why do you think that calling your word salads word salads is an ad hominem?

Predictable, your are acting like a madman stuttering out insults left and right...you cannot even provide an argument for or against something anymore.

So is a line composed of infinite 0d points? WTF says it is...

If your last few thousand comments were word salads, which I debunked in a dozen ways, then why would you suddenly make sense now?

Sense is relative to the observer(s), to say something is senseless is to say "I am blind, deaf and dumb."

Insanity is the repitition of the same behavior that gives no results according to some.... that's the most ironic thing you said in a while

Predictable repeating the same thing again and again, I argue for rationality and irrationality (as they both exist through the other).

And again you ignore the question...are you calling wtf stupid as well?

So is a line composed of infinite 0d points like wtf says it is?

[Atla]

Predictable, your are acting like a madman stuttering out insults left and right...you cannot even provide an argument for or against something anymore.

So is a line composed of infinite 0d points? WTF says it is...

If your last few thousand comments were word salads, which I debunked in a dozen ways, then why would you suddenly make sense now?

Sense is relative to the observer(s), to say something is senseless is to say "I am blind, deaf and dumb."

Insanity is the repitition of the same behavior that gives no results according to some.... that's the most ironic thing you said in a while

Predictable repeating the same thing again and again, I argue for rationality and irrationality (as they both exist through the other).

And again you ignore the question...are you calling wtf stupid as well?

So is a line composed of infinite 0d points like wtf says it is?

Have you noticed how most psychotics end up arguing that sanity is so very relative?

[Eodnhoj7]

If your last few thousand comments were word salads, which I debunked in a dozen ways, then why would you suddenly make sense now?

Sense is relative to the observer(s), to say something is senseless is to say "I am blind, deaf and dumb."

Insanity is the repitition of the same behavior that gives no results according to some.... that's the most ironic thing you said in a while

Predictable repeating the same thing again and again, I argue for rationality and irrationality (as they both exist through the other).

And again you ignore the question...are you calling wtf stupid as well?

So is a line composed of infinite 0d points like wtf says it is?

Have you noticed how most psychotics end up arguing that sanity is so very relative?

Predictable response...

So is a line composed of infinite 0d points like wtf says?

[Atla]

And again you ignore the question...are you calling wtf stupid as well?

So is a line composed of infinite 0d points like wtf says it is?

Have you noticed how most psychotics end up arguing that sanity is so very relative?

Predictable response...

So is a line composed of infinite 0d points like wtf says?

I'm not here to discuss lines and points with you