So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 675
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:47 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:46 am
Viveka wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:40 pm
I would agree that the point is 0-dimensional and is a reflection of a 1-dimensional circle, as a infinitely small circle makes a point, and an infinitely large point makes a circle, and one can substitute the word circle with sphere. Then, from there, there is the radius connecting the two, and it rotates about the point to 'fill' the circle into a 2-ball and 3-ball. All of these are different forms of one another, so I can understand what you mean by 'reflection'. However, how does Descartian curvilinear geometry come about except through intersection of n-balls or n-spheres? This would mean that each 1-sphere-with-point or 2-sphere-with-point or 3-ball or 2-ball are monads that fill space and make geometry such as the Flower of Life through their intersection.
What if the point was directed into itself?
Then it would still be a point?
How would it not be a point considering it stablizes itself through its own symmetry through a mirror effect (reflection)? It is the only percievable way, I can see (although there may be more) to establish itself as a non-changing constant.

Viveka
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:49 am
Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:47 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:46 am

What if the point was directed into itself?
Then it would still be a point?
How would it not be a point considering it stablizes itself through its own symmetry through a mirror effect (reflection)? It is the only percievable way, I can see (although there may be more) to establish itself as a non-changing constant.
Did you read the rest of my post?

"Also, a circle consisting of an infinite number of points isn't quite correct, but close, as the Circle contains C amount of points, as does a surface area, as does a volume, etc."

The reason they all contain 'C' points is because a point is 0-dimensional, not 1-dimensional.

Cartesian coordinates and algebra are why we consider 'breaking-up' the metric of C points of 1-dimension into quantifiable units.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 675
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:15 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:49 am
Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:47 am

Then it would still be a point?

How would it not be a point considering it stablizes itself through its own symmetry through a mirror effect (reflection)? It is the only percievable way, I can see (although there may be more) to establish itself as a non-changing constant.
Did you read the rest of my post?

"Also, a circle consisting of an infinite number of points isn't quite correct, but close, as the Circle contains C amount of points, as does a surface area, as does a volume, etc."

The center point of the argument basically stems on whether or not the point can be a 1 dimensional entity and still maintain itself as point.

The circle consisting of infinite points does not contradict current mathematics:

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimf ... h=f77e3d54
https://math.stackexchange.com/question ... ite-points
https://www.quora.com/Geometry-Infinite ... nuous-line

The reason they all contain 'C' points is because a point is 0-dimensional, not 1-dimensional.
A point can be 0 dimensional and 1 dimensional in seperate respects. What we understand of all 1 dimensional lines is that they exist if and only if there are zero dimensional points they extend from as dividers.

A line exists if and only if there are zero dimensional points, and in these respects a one dimensional line can be observed as the "relations" between zero dimensional points. The one dimensional line is directed away from itself, through the zero dimensional point, and can be observed as extradimensional. Considering the line exists if and only if there are points, it is not a "stable/unmoving" structure in itself but rather an observation of relation.

On the other hand the zero dimensional points are neither things in and of themselves as they exists if and only if they "related" through a 1 dimensional line.

A dualism occurs between the one dimensional line and the zero dimensional point and a paradox occurs in certain degrees. One possible way to deal with the paradox, besides the observation of planes, etc.) is to view the point as a 1 dimensional entity.

The problem occurs as to the "direction" of the point if viewed in such terms as instinctively it would cease to become a point in its own terms (zero dimensional) and become a line (1 dimensional). Instinct leads to one possible conclusion that if the point was 1 dimensional it would become a line.

This is assuming it directs itself away from itself as extradimensional. However the point would be able to maintain not only its structure, but also its dimensionality if viewed as intradimensional.

The point directed into itself not only maintains the point as a constant through a self-mirroring symmetry, but enables the point to be composed of further points ad-infinitum through the same mirror effect as approximate structural extensions of itself.

These points as structural extensions are approximated through a -1 dimensional line (imaginary line) as the line is not a thing in itself but rather the extension of points.

*******The objective nature of the point and the imaginary subjective nature of the line would account for the dual objective-subjective nature of the axiom as being rooted in space. In these respects space maintains a degree of consciousness

1 ≡ 1 → 1,2,-1

****with (1 = ⦁), (-1 = ─ ), (-1, 2 = ⧟)\

(1,2,-1) ≡ (1,2,-1) → (-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4)\

****with (1 = ⦁ ), (2,-1 = ⧟), (3,-3 = △)

(as argued in Cyclic Numbers Thread: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=14835&start=30)

Cartesian coordinates and algebra are why we consider 'breaking-up' the metric of C points of 1-dimension into quantifiable units.

I am not arguing against Cartesian coordinates or algebra, however mathematics are not strictly limited to them only.

Quantifiable units are strictly extensions of 1. If one is not viewed as a quantifiable unit, then by default most mathematics fall into a paradox as all rational number consists of 1. Considering quantification results inevitably in a measurement unit, a form of unification takes place that is conducive to 1.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 675
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

What we understand of the nature of "dimension" is strictly "structure through direction". However, the question occurs what is direction?

"a course along which someone or something moves:, the course that must be taken in order to reach a destination:, a point to or from which a person or thing moves or faces:"

https://www.bing.com/search?q=direction ... 5441864902

In these respects direction is understood strictly in the terms of movement. The problem occurs as to the nature of "movement" having a foundation as continual movement is, in itself, not stable.

For a point to have existing dimension, not 0, would imply a movement of the point, however the point as a constant geometric foundation can have no movement without implying a form of instability through change in form. The 1 dimensional line exists if and only if their is zero dimensional points that relate. From this, movement can be viewed as relation.

The question of dimensionality through direction, implies some form of movement is necessary for form to exist and from this movement relation. However, relation itself can be viewed as a form of deficiency due to the inherent necessity of "parts". The question is how can the point, as a foundation for all spatial objects, maintain itself as both constant and existing (x>0) through dimension without movement?

The direct itself into itself, as an absence of movement would manifest direction as "structure". In these respects, both form and function synthesize as the spatial point simultaneously with the nature of "intradimensionality". Direction, founded upon "intradimensionality", begins with the point as an unmoving structure that manifests through a mirror effect (reflection) inherent within space itself as space.

The 1 dimensional point can be observed as space as a mirror, and what we understand of reflection is inseparable from space as it is space.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 675
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Heraclitus made the observation that Up and Down are fundamentally the same direction when viewed relativistically. How are Intradimensionality, Extradimensionality, and Interdimensionality any different?

Viveka
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

The only way the zero-dimensional point at the center of a 1-sphere can remain 1-dimensional is if it is directed perpendicular to the plane of the circle. Try this with a sphere and it is only a radius. If there is 'intradimensionality' and 'extradimensionality' then the radius in the sphere would have to be a diameter, and the line perpendicular to the plane of the circle would have to extend forwards and backwards infinitely. To fill a 3-sphere into a 3-ball would mean that the radius or diameter is only directed and filled centripetally and centrifugally, for lack of better terms, from a center, which wouldn't be 'intradimensional' or 'extradimensional' but rather a fullness that comprehends both.

Why do you need -1 and +1 for the diameter of the 3-sphere whenever it makes a 3-ball anyways, which could just as easily fill itself only with a radius which is +1?

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 675
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Viveka wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:56 pm
The only way the zero-dimensional point at the center of a 1-sphere can remain 1-dimensional is if it is directed perpendicular to the plane of the circle.

I will not argue against that point, however I am not sure it is the only way. The 1 dimensional point maintains itself through an intradimensional self reflection, which results in the circle as a structural extension of the 1 point and simultaneously manifests as an extradimensional structure.

The circle reflecting upon itself (as it is an extension of the 1 dimensional point) would manifest an interdimensionality (multiply circles, as 1 circle) conducive to a sphere. What we understand of space, in these regards is a trifold dimensional nature embodied through the point, circle, and sphere as three in 1 and 1 in three. These dimensions, would be absent of movement considering they are all rooted in intradimensionality.

Try this with a sphere and it is only a radius. If there is 'intradimensionality' and 'extradimensionality' then the radius in the sphere would have to be a diameter, and the line perpendicular to the plane of the circle would have to extend forwards and backwards infinitely. To fill a 3-sphere into a 3-ball would mean that the radius or diameter is only directed and filled centripetally and centrifugally, for lack of better terms, from a center, which wouldn't be 'intradimensional' or 'extradimensional' but rather a fullness that comprehends both.

Why do you need -1 and +1 for the diameter of the 3-sphere whenever it makes a 3-ball anyways, which could just as easily fill itself only with a radius which is +1?
The -1 would equate to a -1 dimensional line the "connects" the center 1 dimesnional point with the circle as infinite 1 dimensional points. The point and circle are one, through the -1 dimensional line and in these respect allows space to have both an objective (through 1 dimensional point) and subjective (through -1 dimensional line) nature within space, assuming space is the root of consciousness.

Viveka
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:52 pm
I will not argue against that point, however I am not sure it is the only way. The 1 dimensional point maintains itself through an intradimensional self reflection, which results in the circle as a structural extension of the 1 point and simultaneously manifests as an extradimensional structure.

The circle reflecting upon itself (as it is an extension of the 1 dimensional point) would manifest an interdimensionality (multiply circles, as 1 circle) conducive to a sphere. What we understand of space, in these regards is a trifold dimensional nature embodied through the point, circle, and sphere as three in 1 and 1 in three. These dimensions, would be absent of movement considering they are all rooted in intradimensionality.
There is no such thing as a 1-dimensional point. If you are going to multiply circles then you'll end up with a cylinder. I don't see why it's a point, circle and sphere and not a 2-ball and 3-ball or a 4-ball or 4-sphere, for instance. All of them are 'reflections' of one another through different n-balls or n-spheres.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:52 pm
The -1 would equate to a -1 dimensional line the "connects" the center 1 dimesnional point with the circle as infinite 1 dimensional points. The point and circle are one, through the -1 dimensional line and in these respect allows space to have both an objective (through 1 dimensional point) and subjective (through -1 dimensional line) nature within space, assuming space is the root of consciousness.
It wouldn't be a connection of the circle with the point with 'infinite 1-dimensional points,' but the number 'C' 0-dimensional points.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 675
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:47 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:52 pm
I will not argue against that point, however I am not sure it is the only way. The 1 dimensional point maintains itself through an intradimensional self reflection, which results in the circle as a structural extension of the 1 point and simultaneously manifests as an extradimensional structure.

The circle reflecting upon itself (as it is an extension of the 1 dimensional point) would manifest an interdimensionality (multiply circles, as 1 circle) conducive to a sphere. What we understand of space, in these regards is a trifold dimensional nature embodied through the point, circle, and sphere as three in 1 and 1 in three. These dimensions, would be absent of movement considering they are all rooted in intradimensionality.
There is no such thing as a 1-dimensional point.
Says who exactly? Because as an intradimensional structure it is logical. If a 1 dimensional line directed itself into itself that also qualifies for a 1 dimensional point.

And there is such thing as a zero dimensional point, that exists on its own terms? Space is limited to a strict relativistic view if their is no foundational structure from which realities (as extensions of geometric objects) exist.

A point reflected into itself is a point, as it is directed inwards. A lin

If you are going to multiply circles then you'll end up with a cylinder.
Not even close...here is an example of a gyroscope.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=gyroscope ... AC33064570

I don't see why it's a point, circle and sphere and not a 2-ball and 3-ball or a 4-ball or 4-sphere, for instance. All of them are 'reflections' of one another through different n-balls or n-spheres.

Point reflects ad-infinitum through the circle as infinite points with point in center. The circle follows the same process similiar in form to the gyroscope except it forms a complete sphere, with no movement, much in the same manner as the lines on the basketball form a circle (except ad-infinitum).
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:52 pm
The -1 would equate to a -1 dimensional line the "connects" the center 1 dimesnional point with the circle as infinite 1 dimensional points. The point and circle are one, through the -1 dimensional line and in these respect allows space to have both an objective (through 1 dimensional point) and subjective (through -1 dimensional line) nature within space, assuming space is the root of consciousness.
It wouldn't be a connection of the circle with the point with 'infinite 1-dimensional points,' but the number 'C' 0-dimensional points.
A zero dimensional point cannot exist on its own terms, it merely exists through the line (with the line as a relation of the zero dimesional points). A zero dimensional point is not the beginning or end as it is a strictly relativistic structure which cannot exist on its own terms. It is stricly and inverted 1 dimensional point.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 675
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

For the record I am not arguing Euclidian Geometry and a one dimensional point does not contradict anything...as a matter of fact it would provide the foundations for a mathematical understanding of a theoretical ether.

"Points and lines are two of the most fundamental concepts in Geometry, but they are also the most difficult to define. We can describe intuitively their characteristics, but there is no set definition for them: they, along with the plane, are the undefined terms of geometry. All other geometric definitions and concepts are built on the undefined ideas of the point, line and plane. Nevertheless, we shall try to define them."

Point

A point is an exact location in space. A point is denoted by a dot. A point has no size.
Dimensionality does not require size.

Line
As for a line segment, we specify a line with two endpoints. Starting with the corresponding line segment, we find other line segments that share at least two points with the original line segment. In this way we extend the original line segment indefinitely. The set of all possible line segments findable in this way constitutes a line. A line extends indefinitely in a single dimension. Its length, having no limit, is infinite. Like the line segments that constitute it, it has no width or height. You may specify a line by specifying any two points within the line. For any two points, only one line passes through both points. On the other hand, an unlimited number of lines pass through any single point.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Geometry/ ... s_and_Rays

Viveka
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

I will not argue against that point, however I am not sure it is the only way. The 1 dimensional point maintains itself through an intradimensional self reflection, which results in the circle as a structural extension of the 1 point and simultaneously manifests as an extradimensional structure.

The circle reflecting upon itself (as it is an extension of the 1 dimensional point) would manifest an interdimensionality (multiply circles, as 1 circle) conducive to a sphere. What we understand of space, in these regards is a trifold dimensional nature embodied through the point, circle, and sphere as three in 1 and 1 in three. These dimensions, would be absent of movement considering they are all rooted in intradimensionality.[/quote]

There is no such thing as a 1-dimensional point.
Says who exactly? Because as an intradimensional structure it is logical. If a 1 dimensional line directed itself into itself that also qualifies for a 1 dimensional point.

That wouldn't be a 1-dimensional point, as that is a contradiction in terms. Either it's a point, which is 0-dimensional, or a line (1-dimensional) consisting of C number of points.

And there is such thing as a zero dimensional point, that exists on its own terms? Space is limited to a strict relativistic view if their is no foundational structure from which realities (as extensions of geometric objects) exist.

A point reflected into itself is a point, as it is directed inwards. A lin

Do you mean like a point that is smaller than a point? Or something like that? Because that's the only way a point can be 'intradimensional.'

If you are going to multiply circles then you'll end up with a cylinder.
Not even close...here is an example of a gyroscope.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=gyroscope ... AC33064570

Well, yes, it can make a gyroscope type of thing, or a toroid or an epicycle.

I don't see why it's a point, circle and sphere and not a 2-ball and 3-ball or a 4-ball or 4-sphere, for instance. All of them are 'reflections' of one another through different n-balls or n-spheres.

Point reflects ad-infinitum through the circle as infinite points with point in center. The circle follows the same process similiar in form to the gyroscope except it forms a complete sphere, with no movement, much in the same manner as the lines on the basketball form a circle (except ad-infinitum).

Do you mean points 'pile-up' smaller and larger than one another?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:52 pm
The -1 would equate to a -1 dimensional line the "connects" the center 1 dimesnional point with the circle as infinite 1 dimensional points. The point and circle are one, through the -1 dimensional line and in these respect allows space to have both an objective (through 1 dimensional point) and subjective (through -1 dimensional line) nature within space, assuming space is the root of consciousness.
It wouldn't be a connection of the circle with the point with 'infinite 1-dimensional points,' but the number 'C' 0-dimensional points.
A zero dimensional point cannot exist on its own terms, it merely exists through the line (with the line as a relation of the zero dimesional points). A zero dimensional point is not the beginning or end as it is a strictly relativistic structure which cannot exist on its own terms. It is stricly and inverted 1 dimensional point.

It exists as a zero-dimensional point as much as a line can exist made up of points. Why give primacy to the line without the point being primary?

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 675
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Viveka wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:06 pm
I will not argue against that point, however I am not sure it is the only way. The 1 dimensional point maintains itself through an intradimensional self reflection, which results in the circle as a structural extension of the 1 point and simultaneously manifests as an extradimensional structure.

The circle reflecting upon itself (as it is an extension of the 1 dimensional point) would manifest an interdimensionality (multiply circles, as 1 circle) conducive to a sphere. What we understand of space, in these regards is a trifold dimensional nature embodied through the point, circle, and sphere as three in 1 and 1 in three. These dimensions, would be absent of movement considering they are all rooted in intradimensionality.
There is no such thing as a 1-dimensional point.
Says who exactly? Because as an intradimensional structure it is logical. If a 1 dimensional line directed itself into itself that also qualifies for a 1 dimensional point.

That wouldn't be a 1-dimensional point, as that is a contradiction in terms. Either it's a point, which is 0-dimensional, or a line (1-dimensional) consisting of C number of points.

Contradiction how exactly? The point has no size, as dimensions have no size. In these respects it is an every present binding median of all reality as the "Ether".

(I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible".[5]

How does this differ from a one dimensional point?

A line directed into itself results in three entities theoretically:

1) The circle
2) The zero dimensional point, through the circle
3) A one dimensional point as the line folded upon itself completely with no space as the dimension, as direction, manifests itself through itself.

"However, Euclid's postulation of points was neither complete nor definitive, and he occasionally assumed facts about points that did not follow directly from his axioms, such as the ordering of points on the line or the existence of specific points."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)

An extension of this would be from book of 24 philosophers:

"GOD IS A MONADE (L: THE SOLE) THAT BRINGS FORTH A MONADE BY REFLECTING IN (L: OUTSIDE) HIMSELF AS A FLAME."

"This definition is given imagining the first cause, just as it numerously multiplies itself in itself, so that as multiplying it is (L: has been) taken as unity, as the multiplied as twofold, as reflex threefold. So it is, namely, (L: also) with numbers (L: the many): Each single unity has its own number, insofar as it reflects the diversity from the others."

GOD IS THE ONE BEYOND WHOM NOTHING BETTER CAN BE THOUGHT OF.

This definition is given with regards the end. Namely the oneness of the end is also perfection. What, therefore, sounds accordingly, is good, and what sounds more so, is so much better. Joy, therefore, of all true essence is its life, all life derives from oneness, this, however, from being undivided within (L: below). The more, therefore, something is one (L: below), the more it is alife. Its oneness is the utmost one. (L: And so the proposition is evident.)

GOD IS ETERNITY ACTING IN HIMSELF WITHOUT DIVISION AND DISPOSITION

The creatures act and acquire a disposition. The act without continuity as they hit resistance. As a result, fatigue cuts down her strength. So it is not in the Creator. He is not (L add. then) transformed by aquiring a disposition. He does not (he does not] L: so that he does) overshade so that he gets tired and rests.
******The zero dimensional point, as the be all and end all, as divisive in nature cannot hold its role as a strict foundation on its own terms.

GOD IS THE OPPOSITION TO NOTHINGNESS (L: OPPOSITES) BY MEDIATION OF BEING.

This definition creates the image of God being a sphere, in the centre of which nothing (L: he) is emprisoned. And the divine sphere is continuously acting the divine work through which it detains eternally nothing to be in it, from which through exuberance of its goodness it calls into being the thing which is as if it (the thing which is as if it] L: As he) existed around the centre. If (L: Either) it attracts it (L: is attracted) to being, the sphere remains, if to potential being, it goes back to nothing.

And there is such thing as a zero dimensional point, that exists on its own terms? Space is limited to a strict relativistic view if their is no foundational structure from which realities (as extensions of geometric objects) exist.

A point reflected into itself is a point, as it is directed inwards. A lin

Do you mean like a point that is smaller than a point? Or something like that? Because that's the only way a point can be 'intradimensional.'

The point cannot be smaller than the point, as the point has no size. In these respect 1 point is composed of infinite points that cycle back as 1 point.

If you are going to multiply circles then you'll end up with a cylinder.
Not even close...here is an example of a gyroscope.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=gyroscope ... AC33064570

Well, yes, it can make a gyroscope type of thing, or a toroid or an epicycle.

I don't see why it's a point, circle and sphere and not a 2-ball and 3-ball or a 4-ball or 4-sphere, for instance. All of them are 'reflections' of one another through different n-balls or n-spheres.

Point reflects ad-infinitum through the circle as infinite points with point in center. The circle follows the same process similiar in form to the gyroscope except it forms a complete sphere, with no movement, much in the same manner as the lines on the basketball form a circle (except ad-infinitum).

Do you mean points 'pile-up' smaller and larger than one another?

Points cannot pile up as they have no size because they have no movement. A 1 dimensional point does not move as it is directed into itself, as an absence of movement or "movement which produces not movement as "being"".
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:52 pm
The -1 would equate to a -1 dimensional line the "connects" the center 1 dimesnional point with the circle as infinite 1 dimensional points. The point and circle are one, through the -1 dimensional line and in these respect allows space to have both an objective (through 1 dimensional point) and subjective (through -1 dimensional line) nature within space, assuming space is the root of consciousness.
It wouldn't be a connection of the circle with the point with 'infinite 1-dimensional points,' but the number 'C' 0-dimensional points.
A zero dimensional point cannot exist on its own terms, it merely exists through the line (with the line as a relation of the zero dimesional points). A zero dimensional point is not the beginning or end as it is a strictly relativistic structure which cannot exist on its own terms. It is stricly and inverted 1 dimensional point.

It exists as a zero-dimensional point as much as a line can exist made up of points. Why give primacy to the line without the point being primary?
A one dimensional line cannot hold primacy over the zero dimensionality as it is strictly the relation of points. The one dimensional line and zero dimensional point cannot exist without eachother; therefore by definition they have a relativistic nature.
[/quote]

Viveka
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

"A one dimensional line cannot hold primacy over the zero dimensionality as it is strictly the relation of points. The one dimensional line and zero dimensional point cannot exist without eachother; therefore by definition they have a relativistic nature."
A point can indeed exist without a line. Remember Algebra in Middle School? You can plot points on Cartesian Coordinates for as long as you want without ever using a line.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 675
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Viveka wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:55 pm
"A one dimensional line cannot hold primacy over the zero dimensionality as it is strictly the relation of points. The one dimensional line and zero dimensional point cannot exist without eachother; therefore by definition they have a relativistic nature."
A point can indeed exist without a line. Remember Algebra in Middle School? You can plot points on Cartesian Coordinates for as long as you want without ever using a line.
Viveka.....you are smarter than this, I get the feeling you are trying to disagree with me, just to disagree with me.......Cartesian coordinates exist if and only if there are lines to form "the grid". The points are strictly structural divisors within the grid as intersecting lines.

Viveka
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm