0d Lines and Circles

[Atla]

And there you go again talking about lines and points...

Why talk about points and lines, when you can't even make sense of the world 'not'

And there you go again mumbling about points and lines...

What psych meds are you on?

Still not discussing points and lines

[Eodnhoj7]

Why talk about points and lines, when you can't even make sense of the world 'not'

And there you go again mumbling about points and lines...

What psych meds are you on?

Still not discussing points and lines

Wow...you are so clever...

[Skepdick]

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).

You don't even know what knowledge is and even if you had any knowledge you would still be too incompetent to know how to use it.

[Skepdick]

In the bin.

You totally misunderstand everything Turing said. It's pathetic. Flap your arms and throw insults if it makes you feel better.

I think I have pin-pointed your ignorance. The concept of a data structure seems entirely absent from your episteme.

Given that you think the N-th element of an infinite-length Turing-tape is always accessible, you are completely oblivious to the empirical distinctions between random-access and sequential-access memory. The tape on a Turing machine is a doubly-liinked list.

The computational complexity of accessing data from a linked list is O(n), and you keep insisting that n=∞.
If the Turing machine was to perform 1 "Shift Head Right" operation every second, you need N seconds to arrive at the N-th digit of an infinite-precision real number.

Flap your arms and throw insults at time complexity if it makes you feel better.

Or wake up and smell the roses - the intuition of time is the very abstraction of the "positive numbers". It's precisely because infinities don't exist is why we have Planck time and length in physics.

If you ever work your way up to N-th order arithmetic, you might actually figure out that it corresponds to the interaction between multiple Turing machines e.g parallel and/or distributed systems and actors.

[Arising_uk]

Or you can just reason through it and observe the word "need" fits in best.

I did, I was just observing that for someone who claims a high IQ you are markedly incompetent with English.

The article was from 2013...just type in "are atoms mostly empty space?" In Google and you will get answers from 2017-2019 saying yes.

2013....are you fu""ing serious...and after all your criticism this is what you consider scholarly?

Post me up a link to a professor of Physics who makes such a claim.

I cannot take this site seriously anymore. ...

Feel free to bugger off and inflict yourself upon some other poor sods then.

understand why the west is falling apart. This is so f""ked up on so many levels. ...

You certainly are and you are a prime example of the issue.

I hope they establish shariah law where you live. ...

It's Sharia you moron and given I'm a man I have no idea why you think this a threat to me but the chances of such a thing happening over here are next to nothing.

So are you saying that numbers are not grounded in counting?

This is beyond retarded...

You are but what I am saying is that you are so tied up in your metaphysical numerology that you are unable to understand the grounds of counting and just keep going around in circles.

[Eodnhoj7]

Or you can just reason through it and observe the word "need" fits in best.

I did, I was just observing that for someone who claims a high IQ you are markedly incompetent with English.

The article was from 2013...just type in "are atoms mostly empty space?" In Google and you will get answers from 2017-2019 saying yes.

2013....are you fu""ing serious...and after all your criticism this is what you consider scholarly?

Post me up a link to a professor of Physics who makes such a claim.

I cannot take this site seriously anymore. ...

Feel free to bugger off and inflict yourself upon some other poor sods then.

understand why the west is falling apart. This is so f""ked up on so many levels. ...

You certainly are and you are a prime example of the issue.

I hope they establish shariah law where you live. ...

It's Sharia you moron and given I'm a man I have no idea why you think this a threat to me but the chances of such a thing happening over here are next to nothing.

So are you saying that numbers are not grounded in counting?

This is beyond retarded...

You are but what I am saying is that you are so tied up in your metaphysical numerology that you are unable to understand the grounds of counting and just keep going around in circles.

Wow someone is grumpy....

Honestly UK...I thought of some witty comeback, but then I just realized you need a hug....really bad.

[Arising_uk]

Wow someone is grumpy....

Where did you get that idea?

Honestly UK...I thought of some witty comeback, ..

Of course you did.

but then I just realized you need a hug....really bad.

Get all the hugs I need from my wife and kids thanks.

Look forward to that link from any professor of Physics who says 'atoms' are empty.

[Arising_uk]

This post will be very unconventional and unorthodox relative to the fields of math and geometry....so save the ad hominums...I already know how absurd it is.

1. Line A is composed of 0 width.
___________________




2. Line B is composed of 0 width.
____________________




3. Line A and B are equal in length. Line A and B are put top of eachother to form Line C.

____________________A
_________C__________B

If you've 'put' a 1d object 'on top' of another you now have a 2d line so your C line is a 2d line.

4. Lines A and B are of 0 width, and line C is of zero width. Line C however does not exist without lines A and lines B.


Line C is 0d and has no direction or form. It is the inversion of Line A into another version of Line A as Line B. Its "form" is only observed by the multiplicity of lines, and as such it's a line through other lines.p, but effectively is formless.

Line C is of 0 width and 0 dimension yet exists as the observation of multiple lines and the dynamic manifestation of one line into many lines. Lines A and B are actual lines, while Line C is a potential line...thus a line nonetheless. ...

Lines A and B don't exist as 1d objects can't exist other than as mathematical abstractions.

*****The same applies for 2d Circles where a 1 dimensional line is a 2d circle turned on its relative side.

No it's not, a 2d line could but not necessarily be a 3d circle if turned on its side.

[Eodnhoj7]

Wow someone is grumpy....

Where did you get that idea?

Honestly UK...I thought of some witty comeback, ..

Of course you did.

but then I just realized you need a hug....really bad.

Get all the hugs I need from my wife and kids thanks.



Look forward to that link from any professor of Physics who says 'atoms' are empty.

Just Google it...2013 and a non academic source? Seriously?

[Eodnhoj7]

This post will be very unconventional and unorthodox relative to the fields of math and geometry....so save the ad hominums...I already know how absurd it is.

1. Line A is composed of 0 width.
___________________




2. Line B is composed of 0 width.
____________________




3. Line A and B are equal in length. Line A and B are put top of eachother to form Line C.

____________________A
_________C__________B

If you've 'put' a 1d object 'on top' of another you now have a 2d line so your C line is a 2d line.

That is the paradox, there is 0 width between the two lines. The lines are of 0 width and the space between them are 0 width.

4. Lines A and B are of 0 width, and line C is of zero width. Line C however does not exist without lines A and lines B.


Line C is 0d and has no direction or form. It is the inversion of Line A into another version of Line A as Line B. Its "form" is only observed by the multiplicity of lines, and as such it's a line through other lines.p, but effectively is formless.

Line C is of 0 width and 0 dimension yet exists as the observation of multiple lines and the dynamic manifestation of one line into many lines. Lines A and B are actual lines, while Line C is a potential line...thus a line nonetheless. ...

Lines A and B don't exist as 1d objects can't exist other than as mathematical abstractions.

And show me empirically a one dimensional object.

*****The same applies for 2d Circles where a 1 dimensional line is a 2d circle turned on its relative side.

No it's not, a 2d line could but not necessarily be a 3d circle if turned on its side.

Flat land. A circle on its side is effectively flat. The evidence of this:

1. All lines in projecting from a 0d point project back to a 0d point. A point as 0d is always the same.

2. Take a standard clock with hands. Put a light on top of the seconds hand. Turn the clock on its side. The light, while moving innate circular motion on the clock, is actually going backwards and forwards linearly. All circular movements and forms, on there side, are linear.

3. 2d circles stacked on 2d circles, when viewed from the side as 1d lines, would appear as a the OP.



A 3d circle (sphere you mean) when draw 2 dimensionally is a series of circles in circles.

[Arising_uk]

Just Google it...

It's your claim, post up a link as I did.

2013 and a non academic source? Seriously?

Very serious, as if you'd the wit to read you'd have seen that the person is a professor of Physics, so very academic, and he set the site up to correct exactly the promulgation of misunderstandings about Physics that interweebles like yourself are spreading around the weeb.

[Eodnhoj7]

Just Google it...

It's your claim, post up a link as I did.

2013 and a non academic source? Seriously?

Very serious, as if you'd the wit to read you'd have seen that the person is a professor of Physics, so very academic, and he set the site up to correct exactly the promulgation of misunderstandings about Physics that interweebles like yourself are spreading around the weeb.

Ohhh... its "serious".... Do you know how many professors there are out there? The source is not out of an commonly heard college, just any. Which is fine, but not when your premise is academia.


No...just Google "are atoms 99.99... percent empty?"

Why? I want you to see the list and not just the list but different types of sources saying the same thing...all newer than 2013...ROFL, lunatic.

Let me guess you sit under trees and watch apples fall to contemplate gravity.

[Arising_uk]

Go on, just one link from a Physics professor confirming what you say.

[Eodnhoj7]

Go on, just one link from a Physics professor confirming what you say.

Go on Google, I can't copy and paste on my iPad....you do know what Google is right?

[Arising_uk]

That is the paradox, there is 0 width between the two lines. The lines are of 0 width and the space between them are 0 width.

What 'paradox'? If there is no width between the lines then you have one line and if the lines are of zero width you have no lines.

And show me empirically a one dimensional object. ...

My point I'd have thought?

Flat land. A circle on its side is effectively flat. ...

Have you've read Flatland?

evidence of this:

1. All lines in projecting from a 0d point project back to a 0d point. A point as 0d is always the same.

2. Take a standard clock with hands. Put a light on top of the seconds hand. Turn the clock on its side. The light, while moving innate circular motion on the clock, is actually going backwards and forwards linearly. All circular movements and forms, on there side, are linear.

3. 2d circles stacked on 2d circles, when viewed from the side as 1d lines, would appear as a the OP.

You've obviously not read it.
A circle in Flatland is still a circle, try using a turtle.

A 3d circle (sphere you mean) ...

Not seen a disc then?

draw 2 dimensionally is a series of circles in circles.

No, it's a series of arcs.