So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Viveka wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:20 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:32 am
Viveka wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:55 pm

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.
And? Geometry is founded upon these coordinates. Without Cartesian Coordinates we would not be able to plot geometry.
Cartesian Cooridinates are premised on two interesting lines at a point. Cartesian cooridinates, while not necessarily the premise for geometric shapes, exists because of the point and line as the foundation for all geometric shapes.

The fact that there is a coordinate system has full bearing on what is a line and what is a point.
The line and point form the coordinate system.

There may be a line that never intersects its cooridnates, such as plotting a line that has a irrational number in its slope.
Irrational structures, in this regard, are strictly deficiencies in structure (as perpetual movement through perpetual fractions) that do not exist in themselves but rather through approximation....in this case Cartesian Coordinates as Point and Lines.

The coordinates themselves are prerequisite to making lines and points by quantifying a measuring stick.
The Grid itself is point and lines, and in these respects is not a prerequisite to the point and line.
You can argue against the 1 dimensional point all you want, but prepare to do so ad-infinitum....and I will take it that limit and beyond if necessary, as I get the feeling this discussion is premised on your metaphysics system based upon the zero dimensional point and is more emotional than intellectual (considering the logical structure is falling apart at a quicker rate).

Nothingness cannot conquer being, because it is nothing...that is just strict logic whether you chose to accept it or not.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:39 am
Viveka wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:20 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:32 am

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.
And? Geometry is founded upon these coordinates. Without Cartesian Coordinates we would not be able to plot geometry.
Cartesian Cooridinates are premised on two interesting lines at a point. Cartesian cooridinates, while not necessarily the premise for geometric shapes, exists because of the point and line as the foundation for all geometric shapes.

The fact that there is a coordinate system has full bearing on what is a line and what is a point.
The line and point form the coordinate system.

There may be a line that never intersects its cooridnates, such as plotting a line that has a irrational number in its slope.
Irrational structures, in this regard, are strictly deficiencies in structure (as perpetual movement through perpetual fractions) that do not exist in themselves but rather through approximation....in this case Cartesian Coordinates as Point and Lines.

The coordinates themselves are prerequisite to making lines and points by quantifying a measuring stick.
The Grid itself is point and lines, and in these respects is not a prerequisite to the point and line.
You can argue against the 1 dimensional point all you want, but prepare to do so ad-infinitum....and I will take it that limit and beyond if necessary, as I get the feeling this discussion is premised on your metaphysics system based upon the zero dimensional point and is more emotional than intellectual (considering the logical structure is falling apart at a quicker rate).

Nothingness cannot conquer being, because it is nothing...that is just strict logic whether you chose to accept it or not.
To say that a one-dimensional point is acceptable in parlance is wrong no matter how you conceptualize it. There is no such thing as a 1-dimensional point in mathematics. That's why you're wrong; debate all about it to infinity and beyond, but you're not going to get anywhere in your own reasoning because it's something that is irrational, literally. Even if you had two lines intersecting to make a point, the lines themselves already consist of points!

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Viveka wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:55 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:39 am
Viveka wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:20 am

And? Geometry is founded upon these coordinates. Without Cartesian Coordinates we would not be able to plot geometry.
Cartesian Cooridinates are premised on two interesting lines at a point. Cartesian cooridinates, while not necessarily the premise for geometric shapes, exists because of the point and line as the foundation for all geometric shapes.

The fact that there is a coordinate system has full bearing on what is a line and what is a point.
The line and point form the coordinate system.

There may be a line that never intersects its cooridnates, such as plotting a line that has a irrational number in its slope.
Irrational structures, in this regard, are strictly deficiencies in structure (as perpetual movement through perpetual fractions) that do not exist in themselves but rather through approximation....in this case Cartesian Coordinates as Point and Lines.

The coordinates themselves are prerequisite to making lines and points by quantifying a measuring stick.
The Grid itself is point and lines, and in these respects is not a prerequisite to the point and line.
You can argue against the 1 dimensional point all you want, but prepare to do so ad-infinitum....and I will take it that limit and beyond if necessary, as I get the feeling this discussion is premised on your metaphysics system based upon the zero dimensional point and is more emotional than intellectual (considering the logical structure is falling apart at a quicker rate).

Nothingness cannot conquer being, because it is nothing...that is just strict logic whether you chose to accept it or not.
To say that a one-dimensional point is acceptable in parlance is wrong no matter how you conceptualize it. There is no such thing as a 1-dimensional point in mathematics. That's why you're wrong; debate all about it to infinity and beyond, but you're not going to get anywhere in your own reasoning because it's something that is irrational, literally. Even if you had two lines intersecting to make a point, the lines themselves already consist of points!
And perpetual movement towards a zero dimensional point is "rational"? Actually the one dimensional point is rational as it is pure "dimension" manifesting its own structure ad-finitum. It provides the basis for 1 as a never changing constant, and all further numbers in this regard. A one dimensional point is full "being", while a zero dimensional point is "nothing". Even from the perspective of language "nothing" exists if and only if "thing" exists as "nothing" (or negation) is strictly relativistic. But to get back on point.

What there are in mathematics are a group of axioms which continually expand over time through the use of dialectics. What is not an axiom today could be an axiom tomorrow. The fallacy of authority does not work, as all "progress" or "discovery" is usually labeled contradictory at first until further investigation as to the nature, symmetry and structure of that said observation. Contradiction is merely a deficiency in structure and nothing more. It is remedied through the application of further reasoning, or ratios, that manifests further structure until a form of symmetry exists.

A 1 dimensional point, as ethereal space, must exist for direction to be a constant. In these respects it provides the foundations for "dimensions" also as a self maintained structure.

Order, as embodied through 1, trumps nothingness through its own being.

As to "the line being composed of points" That is what I am saying, the point and line are inevitable. The line may consist of points, but the points exist if and only if their is a line. To argue that the line does not exist because it is composed of points which are zero dimensional, is to argue that the points that make the line do not exist as the line does not exist because it is make of points. It is an infinite regress, dependent on a constant revaluation of the properties of the line which inherently "actualize" it in a simultaneous respect.

The line in these respects, is continually redefined through new axioms.

Greta
Posts: 3566
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

I'm out of my depth but ... my understanding is that a point can be thought of as the first instant of a higher dimensional object moving through a lower dimensional space, eg. the famous thought experiment of a sphere passing through Flatland.

osgart
Posts: 470
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Over my head! But I'm not into science deeply.

To me in our 3 dimensions the first two dimensions are abstract and non physical, and the third dimension makes the tangible world.

You must be talking about a spirit dimension that mirrors the physical dimension, perhaps manifesting the physical.

Is there a good book on this stuff?

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Greta wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:58 am
I'm out of my depth but ... my understanding is that a point can be thought of as the first instant of a higher dimensional object moving through a lower dimensional space, eg. the famous thought experiment of a sphere passing through Flatland.
The circle and sphere are composed of points ad-infinitum and can be observed, in certain respects very loosely, as the result of point reflecting itself ad-infinitum.

It one is to look at reality around them, all of it is composed of points which act as a binding median or "glue" to reality.

The zero dimensional point is the common understanding of the point. It often times acts as a divider to the line or any geometric object. The point, however is rarely defined specifically which the exception of a few geometric systems.

A one dimensional point would simply be: "direction" directed into itself as pure stable space. All dimensions, at their roots are "directions" with this "direction" implying some form of "movement". However if "dimension" is to be thought of as a constant never changing entity in itself, as pure space and pure "being", it must not "move".

In these respects, I argue, the one dimensional point not only provides this but also a spatial foundation for "Number" (as the point equates to 1) and the possible mathematical/geometric foundation for a theoretical "ether".

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

osgart wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:56 am
Over my head! But I'm not into science deeply.

To me in our 3 dimensions the first two dimensions are abstract and non physical, and the third dimension makes the tangible world.

You must be talking about a spirit dimension that mirrors the physical dimension, perhaps manifesting the physical.

Is there a good book on this stuff?
I had a list, but my bookmark function was "updated" through firefox and I no longer have it. If you google "point", "foundations for geometry", etc. you should find some reading material.

The one dimensional point, I am arguing, would equate mathematically and geometrically to an ethereal dimension which glues our existence together and simultaneously holds all existence at one moment. In these respects it could comfortably be argued as a spirit of "God" dimension where all reality and knowledge exists as 1.

The problem occurs in the respect that the ether theory is accepted and rejected throughout history, with rejection being its current state. I believe, and this is personal opinion only, that the standard mathematical and geometry axioms we hold must be updated before we can even attempt to rationally understand it in its most minute detail....hence the "arguments".

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests