Wyman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:44 pmHow are abstract entities composed of space?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:02 amWyman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:52 pm"Considering all rational number is both composed of one and "constant" in nature, a mirror effect of perpetual symmtry through 1 as reflecting itself does not contradict anything in current mathematics."

This makes no sense. What does it mean for a number to be composed of something?

All abstract and physical realities at bare minimum are composed of space, in these respects number manifests itself as a spatial entity.

Or to be 'in nature', constant or otherwise?

1 must always equal 1, otherwise it is not constant.

You interpret numbers as things in nature that possess non-mathematical properties.

Considering you understand so much about number, please give a definition. At minimum, through the nature of abstract thought, number is "rooted" in space. If it is rooted in space as "thought" then by default it has spatial properties, the question occurs "what are these properties"?

This is mysticism.

Take it up with Srinivasa Ramanujan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

Is the number 3 'composed' of 1,1,1?

1 + 1 + 1 cannot be viewed as a foundation of 3?

Is this property of being 'composed of' what others would call being 'defined as?'

Observing foundational structures is one aspect of definition, is it not?

A lack of physical concrete existence would inevitably root them in space in one respect. In another respect all existence is rooted in space.

If I had to give a definition of number, it would be a set-theoretical definition. Or, it would take the number 1 and 0 and a couple other terms as undefined terms. 2 would be defined as the successor of 1, three as the successor of 2, etc.. The term 'number' itself would then be the set of 0, 1 and all successors of 1.

The symbols are physical.

Symbols may be physical, however they were developed abstractly and are used as a median between the abstract and physical

If you believe there is something more here than symbols - abstract entities - then they do not exist in space and time.

Number must be abstract in nature for it to be a constant. As abstract we mediate it through space and time through the "symbol" as a neutral entity. In these respects it approximates itself in a temporal reality and maintains a dual relativistic temporal nature embodied by the one dimensional line and zero dimensional point as corresponding and equivalent spatial entities.

For instance, can you point to one or see it with ha microscope?

Considering a point is one, we can observe it as an ever present unifying median as all reality is composed both of infinite points and points that are infinite in nature. A microscope would not be needed.

## Does One equal infinity? 7 step argument.

### Re: Does One equal infinity? 7 step argument.

### Re: Does One equal infinity? 7 step argument.

"it approximates itself in a temporal reality and maintains a dual relativistic temporal nature embodied by the one dimensional line and zero dimensional point as corresponding and equivalent spatial entities."

This is utter nonsense.

This is utter nonsense.

### Re: Does One equal infinity? 7 step argument.

Okay, lets break this down into simple axioms.

1) Numbers are constant as abstract entities, otherwise they do not exist.

2) Numbers move as temporal entities, otherwise they do not actualize themselves in physical reality.

3) Numbers maintain this reality as both abstract and physical through the median of space, and in these respects are spatial structures.

4) Numbers, through empiricism, manifest as 0 dimensional points and 1 dimensional lines; the 1 dimensional lines are merely relations between zero dimensional points and exist if and only if there are zero dimensional points. In these respects, through the line, all number as extension of one is manifested through a continuous degree of movement as "direction".

5) Numbers, as constant abstract entities, manifest as 1 dimensional (intradimensional points) and -1 dimensional lines. The -1 dimensional lines are merely extensions between the points reflecting themselves and are imaginary in nature.

I will stop here for the reason of brevity and assuming you will want to argue against points 4 and 5.

### Re: Does One equal infinity? 7 step argument.

You'll have to start by explaining 2, before going on to the 3,4 and 5. What is a temporal entity?

### Re: Does One equal infinity? 7 step argument.

Something which changes continually, as in time. Continuous fractions are an example from a mathematical perspective.

Equating number as dimensionality can also implies numbers change if the dimensions, as measurements, change.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest