And this is why I am against computer programming over standard self-reflection: It makes people dumber.Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:16 pmI asked you to decribe it, not define it.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:12 pmCurve:
"verb (used with object), curved, curv·ing.
to bend in a curve; cause to take the course of a curve."
"verb (used with object), bent or (Archaic) bend·ed; bend·ing.
to force (an object, especially a long or thin one) from a straight form into a curved or angular one, or from a curved or angular form into some different form: to bend an iron rod into a hoop.
to direct or turn in a particular direction: to bend one's energies to the task."
The formation of angles, in an material, causes a relative point of equilibrium that bends the space through which it exists by directed entropy/negentropy.
So many different curves! And that's just in 2 dimensions.
Describe each one.
"I asked you to describe it, not define it"
"an exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something."
http://www.bing.com/search?q=define+def ... BDB10C9DF1
Kids this is how you behave when you live a hedonistic lifestyle...you become a dumb pig. Why...definition is description.
Even the nature of "definition" is subject to further definition where description is just a variation of the same thing...trillema's prove this.
Each curve is described "as is" by its existence alone as they are symbols. To describe one symbol through another results in the trillema; hence you result in the very same problem you are trying to avoid considering all symbolism, even the nature of logical definition itself, is subject to spatial axioms.
You can argue there are so many different curves, but you are still left with the common fact they are all curves and are defined or "described" by there existence alone.
It is a fault question considering the question itself is dependent upon the triad/trillema which is rooted in space.