0d Lines and Circles

[wtf]

Whatever is charted is rounded. If the number is truly charted, the line would slowly change because it would be dynamic.

Can you plot 1/3 = .3333... on the number line?

How about 1/2 = .4999999....?

[Eodnhoj7]

Eodnhoj7 speaks of pretension

Good, if I am pretender, address the OP question then....or are you going to hide behind ad hominums to fake some intellectual superiority over everyone. I mean let's face it, you think you are better than everyone here.

So answer the question:


You have 2 1d lines

_______________
_______________

A line is formed between them as 0d. It has no form or direction. It is isomorphism at is simplest.

Does a 0d line exist or not exist?

My intellectual superiority is a fact. I don't even remember the last time I lost a major philosophical debate, was probably 10+ years ago.

Wow so you do believe you know it all and are better than everyone. Narcistic Delusions and schizophrenic tendencies...sad.

Really, because the common standard is when someone reverts to ad homninums with no argument...that is a loss. From other points of view...you lose alot.

But hey, it's all relative. You do you and just keep pretending.

ROLF

Atla: "I HAVE NEVER LOST A PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT IN YEARS!"

Person A: (insert argument here)

ATLA: WRONG DEFINITION AND CONTEXT! I WIN!

Person A: uh win what?

ATLA: WRONG DEFINITION AND CONTEXT! I WIN!


Rofl! You go get'em winner....

Very well, my answer to your question is (I didn't read the OP, just this short version): you don't understand what a line is, what dimensions are, and how to use 'exist' in such a context. The way you are confusing things hints at a possible psychosis. Especially this idea of the 'act of forming'.

False.

The lines are 1 dimensional. They have no width.

1 line is on top of another line, but considering there is no width and the space between them has no width...is there a 0d line?

(Hint the number line observes lines seperated by 0d points that have no width...this occurs horizontally).

[Eodnhoj7]

Whatever is charted is rounded. If the number is truly charted, the line would slowly change because it would be dynamic.

Can you plot 1/3 = .3333... on the number line?

How about 1/2 = .4999999....?

Why wouldn't I, the number line is dynamic not static.

If .999999999.... equals 1 does .0000....0001 = 0?

If .999999 equals 1, then is 1 not a constant?

[wtf]

If .999999999.... equals 1 does .0000....0001 = 0?

No, the notation on the right is not defined. The notation on the left .999..., is defined as 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ... which is a geometric series that sums to 1, as is proved in freshman calcuus the world over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series

The notation .000...1 has no meaning whatsoever.

If .999999 equals 1, then is 1 not a constant?

.999999 does not equal 1.

.999... (note the ellipses) is equal to 1 as proven in freshman calculus. It's a constant.

You are confusing a real number with the decimal representation of a real number. That's not the same thing.

[Eodnhoj7]

If .999999999.... equals 1 does .0000....0001 = 0?

No, the notation on the right is not defined. The notation on the left .999..., is defined as 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ... which is a geometric series that sums to 1, as is proved in freshman calcuus the world over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series

No, it is assumed. .9999 goes on ad-infinitum and there is no infinite proof without assume it.

You are assuming infinity inherently.

The notation .000...1 has no meaning whatsoever.

Actually it means .000...1 and it always exists because .99999 is a continuum.

olor]

If .999999 equals 1, then is 1 not a constant?

.999999 does not equal 1.

You know what I mean.

.999... (note the ellipses) is equal to 1 as proven in freshman calculus. It's a constant.

Constant change, because you cannot see the whole proof it would go on forever.

That is not proof it is an assumption....wait....no it's a "magical mystery" like infinite 0d points with no lines between them is a line.

You are confusing a real number with the decimal representation of a real number. That's not the same thing.

Any you are just creating empty tautologies. A decimal representation of a number (a fraction) is composed of real numbers divided by real numbers.

[wtf]

No, it is assumed.

Everything you said in this post is incorrect so I won't bother to fix up your deliberately obfuscated markup. The moment you find yourself using the color tag, why not just use the standard quoting tags like everyone else?

You would benefit greatly from reviewing your basic high school math.

Can't add anything else.

[Eodnhoj7]

No, it is assumed.

Everything you said in this post is incorrect so I won't bother to fix up your deliberately obfuscated markup. The moment you find yourself using the color tag, why not just use the standard quoting tags like everyone else?

You would benefit greatly from reviewing your basic high school math.

Can't add anything else.

.9999... goes on ad infinitum...get over your mystic religion. The proof is assumed because it cannot be seen in it totality. The proof cannot be seen in its totality.

A line containing infinite 0d points is also assumed...there is no proof.

And finally, "proof" is a democratic process in math....its a logical fallacy. Some people believe .9999... =1 others do not.




Learn to think, not just copy other opinions because they tell you too.

[wtf]

.9999... goes on ad infinitum...get over your mystic religion. The proof is assumed because it cannot be seen in it totality. The proof cannot be seen in its totality.

The proof that .999... = 1 can be seen in its totality in any calculus class; in any calculus textbook; on the Wiki page for the geometric series that I linked earlier; and many other places. You should take the time to educate yourself.

A line containing infinite 0d points is also assumed...there is no proof.

And finally, "proof" is a democratic process in math....its a logical fallacy. Some people believe .9999... =1 others do not.

Some believe the earth is flat, others don't. That settles that!

Learn to think, not just copy other opinions because they tell you too.

Have a nice evening.

[surreptitious57]

There is no other number that exists between . 99999 ... and I so they have to be the same
Furthermore it is accepted as true within mathematics so the question is entirely academic

Here are another two ways where it can very easily be demonstrated to be true :
. 33333 ... = I / 3 so . 99999 ... = I and also I - . 99999 ... = 0 / . 99999 ... - I = 0

There is no way to demonstrate that . 99999 ... does NOT = I [ because it is not true ]
I is simply another way to write . 99999 ... because they are mathematically identical

So there is absolutely nothing mystical about . 99999 ... in particular or infinity in general
There are an infinite number of irrationals on the number line with infinite decimal places

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no other number that exists between . 99999 ... and I so they have to be the same
Furthermore it is accepted as true within mathematics so the question is entirely academic

.0000...00001 as isomorphic to .99999.... as .9999... expands so does .0000...0001. One is an inverse of the other if they progress at same rates.

Here are another two ways where it can very easily be demonstrated to be true :
. 33333 ... = I / 3 so . 99999 ... = I and also I - . 99999 ... = 0 / . 99999 ... - I = 0

.9999... necessitates 1 is dynamic and changing. The decimal versus fraction is context difference. .9999...=.9999.



There is no way to demonstrate that . 99999 ... does NOT = I [ because it is not true ]
I is simply another way to write . 99999 ... because they are mathematically identical

So there is absolutely nothing mystical about . 99999 ... in particular or infinity in general
There are an infinite number of irrationals on the number line with infinite decimal places

[Eodnhoj7]

.9999... goes on ad infinitum...get over your mystic religion. The proof is assumed because it cannot be seen in it totality. The proof cannot be seen in its totality.

The proof that .999... = 1 can be seen in its totality in any calculus class; in any calculus textbook; on the Wiki page for the geometric series that I linked earlier; and many other places. You should take the time to educate yourself.

Yes and if you graph it the line is continually changing through constant fractions.

If I mark off pi on the number line, 3.1415... it either has to be rounded or the line has to be viewed as dynamically changing.

It has to be dynamically changing however if .9999...=1.

The line is not a fixed entity except in relation to other lines.

A line containing infinite 0d points is also assumed...there is no proof.

And finally, "proof" is a democratic process in math....its a logical fallacy. Some people believe .9999... =1 others do not.

Some believe the earth is flat, others don't. That settles that!

Take it up with the physicists who believe the universe is 2d (hence flat earth and everything else).

Learn to think, not just copy other opinions because they tell you too.

Have a nice evening.

Tell me again how infinite 0d points make a line.

[surreptitious57]

There is no such thing as a dynamic changing number anywhere on the number line
As all numbers occupy a unique fixed place that is different from all other numbers

Any irrational numbers like pi will have an infinite number of pre determined places
So pi only has one value even though all of its decimal places are not actually known
Any approximation of pi is therefore an entirely separate number on the number line
True pi cannot be rounded up as it is an irrational number with infinite decimal places
That number can only be found on one place on the number line like all other numbers

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no such thing as a dynamic changing number anywhere on the number line
As all numbers occupy a unique fixed place that is different from all other numbers

Good...then graph pi without rounding it.

The number line is composed of infinite numbers, and yet it is a line...if the numbers are progressing then so is the line.

The same occurs for each line segment, as a number, being composed of progressive fractions approaching point zero.


Any irrational numbers like pi will have an infinite number of pre determined places
Yes. That means the irrational numbers, as having multiple predetermined spaces necessitates the number line is changing.

If the number line is meant to observe finiteness, then any irrational number will results in a continual change (however small, barely recognizable from some angles, massive from others)as these predetermined spaces are in a state of continuous mapping.

If they are to be mapped at one moment (assuming infinity can be mapped, which we cannot do) it would end up again in a line as one point of reference would change to another than another linearly.

However they cannot be mapped without saying the line segment is infinite as well thus each whole number, as a line (not a point because you cannot count 0s without equivocating it to 1), is an infinite set of numbers.

All numbers are dynamically changing by nature, .99999...= 1 proves this.




So pi only has one value even though all of its decimal places are not actually known
Yeah, a value of dynamic change. Numbers are not static entities only...they are dynamic as well.


Any approximation of pi is therefore an entirely separate number on the number line
True pi cannot be rounded up as it is an irrational number with infinite decimal places
That number can only be found on one place on the number line like all other numbers

[Atla]

My intellectual superiority is a fact. I don't even remember the last time I lost a major philosophical debate, was probably 10+ years ago.

Wow so you do believe you know it all and are better than everyone. Narcistic Delusions and schizophrenic tendencies...sad.

Really, because the common standard is when someone reverts to ad homninums with no argument...that is a loss. From other points of view...you lose alot.

But hey, it's all relative. You do you and just keep pretending.

ROLF

Atla: "I HAVE NEVER LOST A PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT IN YEARS!"

Person A: (insert argument here)

ATLA: WRONG DEFINITION AND CONTEXT! I WIN!

Person A: uh win what?

ATLA: WRONG DEFINITION AND CONTEXT! I WIN!


Rofl! You go get'em winner....

Very well, my answer to your question is (I didn't read the OP, just this short version): you don't understand what a line is, what dimensions are, and how to use 'exist' in such a context. The way you are confusing things hints at a possible psychosis. Especially this idea of the 'act of forming'.

False.

The lines are 1 dimensional. They have no width.

1 line is on top of another line, but considering there is no width and the space between them has no width...is there a 0d line?

(Hint the number line observes lines seperated by 0d points that have no width...this occurs horizontally).

99.9%+ of the time you would be right, but I am (or rather I was) some kind of high-functioning savant, it's an extremely rare mental defect that in some ways increases thinking ability by an extreme margin.
(We can sort of directly access the underlying unconscious's raw parallel thinking capacity. I also input everything known to humanity into my unconscious and created a unified model there. It's a program that's still running.)

But the above is not needed to see that your topic question makes no sense, just as your prior 100 qustions made no sense.

[surreptitious57]

The number line is composed of infinite numbers and yet it is a line ... if the numbers are progressing then so is the line

The line cannot be fully mapped because it is infinite but it is still nonetheless complete
Each number can be thought of as an individual point on an infinite one dimensional line

It may seem counter intuitive to think of an infinite line as complete but it is an abstract concept and so is not affected by limitation
Physical infinity of the past and future cannot exist all at once but mathematical infinity can even if minds cannot perceive it as such

Therefore the infinite number line is fully complete as an abstract entity even if it can never be fully mapped because it is infinite
So strictly in the sense that it is complete there is no progression as all points on the line are accounted for because they are fixed