Relativistically 1 is not a Constant
Relativistically 1 is not a Constant
All "1's" are composed of a finite set of numbers in themselves where "relatively speaking" a "1" may not be the same to another "1" as the first 1 may be composed of 1/1, 2/2, 3/3 to infinity and the second one may be equal to (1±x)/(1±x), (2±x)/(2±x), (3±x)/(3±x) to infinity.
Hence number as a relativistic phenomenon (but number can dually be observed as a constant as well, which I am not arguing here) is a process of continual inversion and stems from a point zero as it is undefinable.
Hence number as a relativistic phenomenon (but number can dually be observed as a constant as well, which I am not arguing here) is a process of continual inversion and stems from a point zero as it is undefinable.

 Posts: 2866
 Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: Relativistically 1 is not a Constant
If you are a relativist  there is no such thing as 1 or 0. There are things approximate to 1 and approximate to 0. But both are unattainable.
All floating point arithmetic is subject to rangeprecision tradeoff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floatingpoint_arithmetic
And all relativism is floating point arithmetic between two (or more) absolutes.
All floating point arithmetic is subject to rangeprecision tradeoff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floatingpoint_arithmetic
And all relativism is floating point arithmetic between two (or more) absolutes.
Re: Relativistically 1 is not a Constant
Then the point is the constant definer of number in these respects and we are left simultaneously with absolute truth.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:57 pmIf you are a relativist  there is no such thing as 1 or 0. There are things approximate to 1 and approximate to 0. But both are unattainable.
All floating point arithmetic is subject to rangeprecision tradeoff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floatingpoint_arithmetic
And all relativism is floating point arithmetic between two (or more) absolutes.

 Posts: 299
 Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm
Re: Relativistically 1 is not a Constant
Excuse me, but this is bullshit.
What you basically say is that because several different arithmetic procedures = 1, 1 is relative because it can be achieved using different methods.
Although many roads lead to Rome, Rome is still the city that lies at center of Italy. The same with 1. 1 is 1 independently of how you reach it.
What you basically say is that because several different arithmetic procedures = 1, 1 is relative because it can be achieved using different methods.
Although many roads lead to Rome, Rome is still the city that lies at center of Italy. The same with 1. 1 is 1 independently of how you reach it.
Re: Relativistically 1 is not a Constant
Hear, hear. Same as I, I don't think I vary significantly over time or across boundaries. Pretty constant, although I may react differently, depending on the way you reach me. And I also may act differently, depending on who you are who succeedst to reach me down there.philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:57 pmExcuse me, but this is bullshit.
What you basically say is that because several different arithmetic procedures = 1, 1 is relative because it can be achieved using different methods.
Although many roads lead to Rome, Rome is still the city that lies at center of Italy. The same with 1. 1 is 1 independently of how you reach it.
Re: Relativistically 1 is not a Constant
Rome would not exist without the roads. Your argument stems from an order of which came first: Rome or the Road? Mathematics does not give a set premise to directional qualities, even though it is dependent entirely on them.philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:57 pmExcuse me, but this is bullshit.
What you basically say is that because several different arithmetic procedures = 1, 1 is relative because it can be achieved using different methods.
Although many roads lead to Rome, Rome is still the city that lies at center of Italy. The same with 1. 1 is 1 independently of how you reach it.
1 does not exist independently because it requires bot equations and number lines to observe it.
Re: Relativistically 1 is not a Constant
Actually you provide new arguments and change relative to any antithetical perception which comes across your path. The same applies relative to any new perspective which you find as agreeable.1 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:51 amHear, hear. Same as I, I don't think I vary significantly over time or across boundaries. Pretty constant, although I may react differently, depending on the way you reach me. And I also may act differently, depending on who you are who succeedst to reach me down there.philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:57 pmExcuse me, but this is bullshit.
What you basically say is that because several different arithmetic procedures = 1, 1 is relative because it can be achieved using different methods.
Although many roads lead to Rome, Rome is still the city that lies at center of Italy. The same with 1. 1 is 1 independently of how you reach it.
I bring this up because 1 is defined as infinitely changing due to the equations which form it.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Logik and 1 guest