0d Lines and Circles
0d Lines and Circles
This post will be very unconventional and unorthodox relative to the fields of math and geometry....so save the ad hominums...I already know how absurd it is.
1. Line A is composed of 0 width.
___________________
2. Line B is composed of 0 width.
____________________
3. Line A and B are equal in length. Line A and B are put top of eachother to form Line C.
____________________A
_________C__________B
4. Lines A and B are of 0 width, and line C is of zero width. Line C however does not exist without lines A and lines B. Line C is 0d and has no direction or form. It is the inversion of Line A into another version of Line A as Line B. Its "form" is only observed by the multiplicity of lines, and as such it's a line through other lines.p, but effectively is formless.
Line C is of 0 width and 0 dimension yet exists as the observation of multiple lines and the dynamic manifestation of one line into many lines. Lines A and B are actual lines, while Line C is a potential line...thus a line nonetheless.
*****The same applies for 2d Circles where a 1 dimensional line is a 2d circle turned on its relative side.
1. Line A is composed of 0 width.
___________________
2. Line B is composed of 0 width.
____________________
3. Line A and B are equal in length. Line A and B are put top of eachother to form Line C.
____________________A
_________C__________B
4. Lines A and B are of 0 width, and line C is of zero width. Line C however does not exist without lines A and lines B. Line C is 0d and has no direction or form. It is the inversion of Line A into another version of Line A as Line B. Its "form" is only observed by the multiplicity of lines, and as such it's a line through other lines.p, but effectively is formless.
Line C is of 0 width and 0 dimension yet exists as the observation of multiple lines and the dynamic manifestation of one line into many lines. Lines A and B are actual lines, while Line C is a potential line...thus a line nonetheless.
*****The same applies for 2d Circles where a 1 dimensional line is a 2d circle turned on its relative side.

 Posts: 3186
 Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: 0d Lines and Circles
zero times infinity is zero
Imp
Imp

 Posts: 3186
 Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: 0d Lines and Circles
Re: 0d Lines and Circles
No. Please stop making less sense than the OP.Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:59 pmif infinity could be understood as a number that is...
Imp
Re: 0d Lines and Circles
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: 0d Lines and Circles
It may actually be possible using geometry as a proof that infinity times 0 is 0.Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:59 pmif infinity could be understood as a number that is...
Imp
1. All numbers exist as units of counting. These units of counting are attached to forms. The most basic form to count is a simple line (or line segment depending on how you want to define it).
2. There is one line.
3. This line is then divided into 2,3,4, etc. lines. Thus each line is both composed of and composing further lines. 1 line is composed of x lines. X is a fraction of 1 line as a line in itself.
4. The one original line is a set of lines, and as such 1 is a set of numbers. This line being divided into infinite lines, results in the one line appearing as a single line again. 1 is an infinite set. Infinity is quantifiable, through the line, thus is a number that one can use in math.
This proof is basic on not just the fact the line, as infinite lines, is quantifiable, but even in everyday counting. To quantify an orange, is to quantify a potential infinite set of particles as the particles are not only indefinite but immeasurable...there finiteness cannot be expressed thus they are "infinite". All numbers are sets, based upon everyday counting, and all numbers are infinite.
5. This one line, or 1 infinity, multiplied by 0 in turn becomes 0.
While 1 divided by 0 is undefined ((much like infinite is undefined as what cannot be made finite cannot be defined in mathematics as "definition=finiteness") and we can see this in one line divided by a 0d point makes it infinite lines) 0×1=0.
To multiply a line by applying 0 to it, where is replicates 0 times, leaves the line as an empty point.
To divide the line by 0 is to make it infinite lines as infinite points.
In one respect the line expands through multiplication into effective oblivion, the other necessitates it to condense into further and further lines by division...considering dividing a line results in x lines as still one line.
Mathematicians dont like dividing by zero because it turns mathematics into a vortex of destruction...it causes math to implode like a black hole.
Re: 0d Lines and Circles
So what you are saying is that 2 lines, of no width, with 0 space between them does not result in a 0d line because of isomorphism?
To white lines put together side by side does not result in a black line when the back drop is black?
Re: 0d Lines and Circles
Wtf talks sh"" and can never back it up.
Re: 0d Lines and Circles
Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:59 pmif infinity could be understood as a number that is...
Imp
What number is it being understood as? 6? Well then yes 0 times 6 is 0. But "infinity" is not a number. Now it's true that there are transfinite cardinals and ordinals, but none of them are called "infinity". If fish were a number then 0 times fish would be zero, but fish isn't a number, nor is infinity. If you can say how you're interpreting "infinity" perhaps your meaning would be more clear. I hope this is more satisfactory than my simply saying no.
Re: 0d Lines and Circles
A number is that which quantifies.wtf wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:55 amImpenitent wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:59 pmif infinity could be understood as a number that is...
Imp
What number is it being understood as? 6? Well then yes 0 times 6 is 0. But "infinity" is not a number. Now it's true that there are transfinite cardinals and ordinals, but none of them are called "infinity". If fish were a number then 0 times fish would be zero, but fish isn't a number, nor is infinity. If you can say how you're interpreting "infinity" perhaps your meaning would be more clear. I hope this is more satisfactory than my simply saying no.
If a line is composed of infinite lines, and is quantified as one, then not only infinity quantifiable but it necessitates all numbers are sets in an of themselves.
Re: 0d Lines and Circles
Your response doesn't refer to anything I wrote. Are you talking shoes again?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:00 amA number is that which quantifies.wtf wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:55 amImpenitent wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:59 pm
if infinity could be understood as a number that is...
Imp
What number is it being understood as? 6? Well then yes 0 times 6 is 0. But "infinity" is not a number. Now it's true that there are transfinite cardinals and ordinals, but none of them are called "infinity". If fish were a number then 0 times fish would be zero, but fish isn't a number, nor is infinity. If you can say how you're interpreting "infinity" perhaps your meaning would be more clear. I hope this is more satisfactory than my simply saying no.
If a line is composed of infinite lines, and is quantified as one, then not only infinity quantifiable but it necessitates all numbers are sets in an of themselves.
Re: 0d Lines and Circles
Actually it has everything to do with what you wrote.wtf wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:35 amYour response doesn't refer to anything I wrote. Are you talking shoes again?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:00 amA number is that which quantifies.wtf wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:55 am
What number is it being understood as? 6? Well then yes 0 times 6 is 0. But "infinity" is not a number. Now it's true that there are transfinite cardinals and ordinals, but none of them are called "infinity". If fish were a number then 0 times fish would be zero, but fish isn't a number, nor is infinity. If you can say how you're interpreting "infinity" perhaps your meaning would be more clear. I hope this is more satisfactory than my simply saying no.
If a line is composed of infinite lines, and is quantified as one, then not only infinity quantifiable but it necessitates all numbers are sets in an of themselves.
Imp said 0 x inf result in 0.
You said no.
And I am arguing what imp is right and you are wrong.
Considering basic connect the dots is difficult for you, I can offer a link for a connect the dots drawing book if your interested.