0d Lines and Circles

[Eodnhoj7]

That's plain invalid; you can't jump from 0d to 1d. Obviously.

You deny that a set is the union of its singleton elements? In other words if I have the set {a,b,c} I can write it as {a} union {b} union {c}. The same goes for infinite sets. You are free to deny that but then you'd have to throw out all of elementary set theory and all of modern math and physical science that's built on top of it.

Err no, I denied that the line is a set of 0d points.

What is a line then?

[Eodnhoj7]

Ehh.. Zero times anything is still zero, and the length of the unit is 1. However you simply can't create a 1-dimensional mathematical object from adding 0-dimensional mathematical objects.

The saying that a line is 'composed' of points only means that wherever you look on the line, you can assign a number to it. It doesn't mean that it's literally composed of 0d points.

Actually that's exactly what it does mean. You can express the unit interval [0,1] as the mathematical union of all its singleton points.

That's plain invalid; you can't jump from 0d to 1d. Obviously.

So the number line is false?

[Atla]

So a line segment, as a unit interval, is not composed of fractals/fractions as 1/2,1/3,1/4...etc?

So 1 is not a "set" of fractions?

What are you a flat earther?

You hallucinate too much..

So one is not composed of fractions?

So neither is 2 composed of 1+1 or 3 composed of 1+2?

Of course they aren't.
Well duh..

[Atla]

You deny that a set is the union of its singleton elements? In other words if I have the set {a,b,c} I can write it as {a} union {b} union {c}. The same goes for infinite sets. You are free to deny that but then you'd have to throw out all of elementary set theory and all of modern math and physical science that's built on top of it.

Err no, I denied that the line is a set of 0d points.

What is a line then?

What do you mean? A line is a continuous conceptual 1-dimensional object.

[Eodnhoj7]

You hallucinate too much..

So one is not composed of fractions?

So neither is 2 composed of 1+1 or 3 composed of 1+2?

Of course they aren't.
Well duh..

So what is a number then?

[Eodnhoj7]

Err no, I denied that the line is a set of 0d points.

What is a line then?

What do you mean? A line is a continuous conceptual 1-dimensional object.

Continuous to where exactly?

[Atla]

So one is not composed of fractions?

So neither is 2 composed of 1+1 or 3 composed of 1+2?

Of course they aren't.
Well duh..

So what is a number then?

The number 1 is a concept of a unit, and the other numbers are derived from this.
What else ffs

[wtf]

Err no, I denied that the line is a set of 0d points.

Take it up with Euclid. Or any modern mathematician. I can't argue this point with you. Did you miss high school math? The real line is composed of an infinite set of 0-dimensional points. You can make up your own math but you'll be denying all of modern math and science.

[Atla]

Err no, I denied that the line is a set of 0d points.

Take it up with Euclid. Or any modern mathematician. I can't argue this point with you. Did you miss high school math? The real line is composed of an infinite set of 0-dimensional points. You can make up your own math but you'll be denying all of modern math and science.

You really didn't figure out yet that this is a thousands of years old fallacy?

[Eodnhoj7]

Of course they aren't.
Well duh..

So what is a number then?

The number 1 is a concept of a unit, and the other numbers are derived from this.
What else ffs

So it is a concept of a unit. It is a concept of something we measure.

And units are not composed of units? An orange is not composed of atoms, or one body of organs, or a Russian doll is not composed of further dolls?

[wtf]

You really didn't figure out yet that this is a thousands of years old fallacy?

Ok so you agree that you are parting ways with the last several thousand years of human progress in math and science. That's cool. Can't argue with you.

[Atla]

You really didn't figure out yet that this is a thousands of years old fallacy?

Ok so you agree that you are parting ways with the last several thousand years of human progress in math and science. That's cool. Can't argue with you.

Actually, nothing in actual science rests on this fallacy, in case you haven't figured that out either.

[Atla]

So what is a number then?

The number 1 is a concept of a unit, and the other numbers are derived from this.
What else ffs

So it is a concept of a unit. It is a concept of something we measure.

And units are not composed of units? An orange is not composed of atoms, or one body of organs, or a Russian doll is not composed of further dolls?

No, a unit is something you measure with, not something you measure.

There are no actual units (like oranges and atoms) in the real world.

As I said many times, pretty much your entire 'philosophy' is based on such cognitive illusions.

[Eodnhoj7]

The number 1 is a concept of a unit, and the other numbers are derived from this.
What else ffs

So it is a concept of a unit. It is a concept of something we measure.

And units are not composed of units? An orange is not composed of atoms, or one body of organs, or a Russian doll is not composed of further dolls?

No, a unit is something you measure with, not something you measure.

So a unit such as a meter is not composed of centimeters or millimeters?

Actually the word unit means "individual or thing that is single or complete" according to a simple dictionary defintion.





There are no actual units (like oranges and atoms) in the real world.

As I said many times, pretty much your entire 'philosophy' is based on such cognitive illusions.

So there are no units in the real world, then there are no measurements kn the real world either then?

[Atla]

So a unit such as a meter is not composed of centimeters or millimeters?

A unit itself is just a concept and isn't 'actually' made of anything, whether you divide it into smaller parts or not.