The Square Circle Paradox
The Square Circle Paradox
A square is a loop given its beginning point is the same as the end. A circle is a loop given its beginning point is the same as the end. Both the circle and the square are loops and thus equate to eachother through the medium of the loop (ie the "loop" connects previously seperate phenomena)
-
- Posts: 12959
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: The Square Circle Paradox
What kind of logic is that, valid but not sound?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:35 pm A square is a loop given its beginning point is the same as the end. A circle is a loop given its beginning point is the same as the end. Both the circle and the square are loops and thus equate to eachother through the medium of the loop (ie the "loop" connects previously seperate phenomena)
All closed figures are looped.
A square is a closed figure thus a loop.
A circle is a closed figure thus a loop.
A rectangle is a closed figure thus a loop.
A square is a circle, a rectangle, etc.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: The Square Circle Paradox
No, it's specious: meaningless garbage presented with a sentence structure designed to look like that of an argument. That's all Eggnog7 has done for years, he's extremely mad and stupid.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 7:57 amWhat kind of logic is that, valid but not sound?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:35 pm A square is a loop given its beginning point is the same as the end. A circle is a loop given its beginning point is the same as the end. Both the circle and the square are loops and thus equate to eachother through the medium of the loop (ie the "loop" connects previously seperate phenomena)
His "arg" takes the form of assuming that if any to objects share a property, then through that property they are equivalent. You can just substitute other objects and properties to see that no genuine paradox arises. A dog is a mammal because it has fur and nipples. A cat is a mammal because it too has fur and nipples. Dogs and cats don't equate to each other through the medium of nipples and there is no paradox that cats are therefore dogs. This is good news, you too have nipples, but you don't want to be a paradoxical cat I expect.
Re: The Square Circle Paradox
So is this an argument; or does it only share some of the properties of an argument?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 9:08 am No, it's specious: meaningless garbage presented with a sentence structure designed to look like that of an argument. That's all Eggnog7 has done for years, he's extremely mad and stupid.
His "arg" takes the form of assuming that if any to objects share a property, then through that property they are equivalent. You can just substitute other objects and properties to see that no genuine paradox arises. A dog is a mammal because it has fur and nipples. A cat is a mammal because it too has fur and nipples. Dogs and cats don't equate to each other through the medium of nipples and there is no paradox that cats are therefore dogs. This is good news, you too have nipples, but you don't want to be a paradoxical cat I expect.
Queue more pointless verbiage by an angry buffoon who doesn't understand completeness.
Re: The Square Circle Paradox
The "loop" you are talking about is called a homeomorphism.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:35 pm A square is a loop given its beginning point is the same as the end. A circle is a loop given its beginning point is the same as the end. Both the circle and the square are loops and thus equate to eachother through the medium of the loop (ie the "loop" connects previously seperate phenomena)
A coffee cup is geometrically "the same" as a donut because the one can be continuously transformed into the other and vice versa.
Your argument equates to the Mathematical statement "A square is hoemomorphic to a circle". Here are a bunch of proofs.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The Square Circle Paradox
I'd love for it to be a requirement to video post on this board, because I'd love to see what some of these nutballs look like, to see what their demeanor is like, etc. I'd like to think that Eodnhoj7 is just trolling, but even to just be trolling in the same manner with such dedication for years on end suggests there's something bats-in-belfryish going on.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 9:08 amNo, it's specious: meaningless garbage presented with a sentence structure designed to look like that of an argument. That's all Eggnog7 has done for years, he's extremely mad and stupid.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 7:57 amWhat kind of logic is that, valid but not sound?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:35 pm A square is a loop given its beginning point is the same as the end. A circle is a loop given its beginning point is the same as the end. Both the circle and the square are loops and thus equate to eachother through the medium of the loop (ie the "loop" connects previously seperate phenomena)
His "arg" takes the form of assuming that if any to objects share a property, then through that property they are equivalent. You can just substitute other objects and properties to see that no genuine paradox arises. A dog is a mammal because it has fur and nipples. A cat is a mammal because it too has fur and nipples. Dogs and cats don't equate to each other through the medium of nipples and there is no paradox that cats are therefore dogs. This is good news, you too have nipples, but you don't want to be a paradoxical cat I expect.
Re: The Square Circle Paradox
You are using a strawman as I stated "equate to eachother through the medium of the loop (ie the "loop" connects previously seperate phenomena)". Without the shared medium of the loop a circle and square do not equate.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 7:57 amWhat kind of logic is that, valid but not sound?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:35 pm A square is a loop given its beginning point is the same as the end. A circle is a loop given its beginning point is the same as the end. Both the circle and the square are loops and thus equate to eachother through the medium of the loop (ie the "loop" connects previously seperate phenomena)
All closed figures are looped.
A square is a closed figure thus a loop.
A circle is a closed figure thus a loop.
A rectangle is a closed figure thus a loop.
A square is a circle, a rectangle, etc.
Re: The Square Circle Paradox
A dog equates to a cat as both are mammals.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 9:08 amNo, it's specious: meaningless garbage presented with a sentence structure designed to look like that of an argument. That's all Eggnog7 has done for years, he's extremely mad and stupid.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 7:57 amWhat kind of logic is that, valid but not sound?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:35 pm A square is a loop given its beginning point is the same as the end. A circle is a loop given its beginning point is the same as the end. Both the circle and the square are loops and thus equate to eachother through the medium of the loop (ie the "loop" connects previously seperate phenomena)
His "arg" takes the form of assuming that if any to objects share a property, then through that property they are equivalent. You can just substitute other objects and properties to see that no genuine paradox arises. A dog is a mammal because it has fur and nipples. A cat is a mammal because it too has fur and nipples. Dogs and cats don't equate to each other through the medium of nipples and there is no paradox that cats are therefore dogs. This is good news, you too have nipples, but you don't want to be a paradoxical cat I expect.
A dog is a mammal. A cat is a mammal. Thus a dog equates to a cat through the medium of "mammal". They both equivocate through the shared properties but without the shared properties do not equivocate. These equivocating qualities express a connection through a common source, this connection is equivocation.
Re: The Square Circle Paradox
Call it what you will but any shared qualities allows for equivocation through said properties and only through said properties.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 8:40 amThe "loop" you are talking about is called a homeomorphism.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:35 pm A square is a loop given its beginning point is the same as the end. A circle is a loop given its beginning point is the same as the end. Both the circle and the square are loops and thus equate to eachother through the medium of the loop (ie the "loop" connects previously seperate phenomena)
A coffee cup is geometrically "the same" as a donut because the one can be continuously transformed into the other and vice versa.
Your argument equates to the Mathematical statement "A square is hoemomorphic to a circle". Here are a bunch of proofs.
Re: The Square Circle Paradox
So a square and circle do not share the same properties of being loops?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 11:14 amI'd love for it to be a requirement to video post on this board, because I'd love to see what some of these nutballs look like, to see what their demeanor is like, etc. I'd like to think that Eodnhoj7 is just trolling, but even to just be trolling in the same manner with such dedication for years on end suggests there's something bats-in-belfryish going on.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 9:08 amNo, it's specious: meaningless garbage presented with a sentence structure designed to look like that of an argument. That's all Eggnog7 has done for years, he's extremely mad and stupid.
His "arg" takes the form of assuming that if any to objects share a property, then through that property they are equivalent. You can just substitute other objects and properties to see that no genuine paradox arises. A dog is a mammal because it has fur and nipples. A cat is a mammal because it too has fur and nipples. Dogs and cats don't equate to each other through the medium of nipples and there is no paradox that cats are therefore dogs. This is good news, you too have nipples, but you don't want to be a paradoxical cat I expect.
-
- Posts: 4410
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: The Square Circle Paradox
squares, circles, froot, endless, Immelmann...
-Imp
-Imp
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: The Square Circle Paradox
Oh man, there's plenty wrong with Handjob7. Most of the people here who run on compulsive rails seem to at least be relatively content with their situations. One or two of the narcissists show a little frustration here and there, but that's about it for the nutters being the unhappy ones. Hobnob7 though is crippled with status anxiety even while he is certain that he is the genius of his generation.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 11:14 amI'd love for it to be a requirement to video post on this board, because I'd love to see what some of these nutballs look like, to see what their demeanor is like, etc. I'd like to think that Eodnhoj7 is just trolling, but even to just be trolling in the same manner with such dedication for years on end suggests there's something bats-in-belfryish going on.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 9:08 amNo, it's specious: meaningless garbage presented with a sentence structure designed to look like that of an argument. That's all Eggnog7 has done for years, he's extremely mad and stupid.
His "arg" takes the form of assuming that if any to objects share a property, then through that property they are equivalent. You can just substitute other objects and properties to see that no genuine paradox arises. A dog is a mammal because it has fur and nipples. A cat is a mammal because it too has fur and nipples. Dogs and cats don't equate to each other through the medium of nipples and there is no paradox that cats are therefore dogs. This is good news, you too have nipples, but you don't want to be a paradoxical cat I expect.
It was fun, if sad, to see him try and big up Skepdick to be his nemesis back in the day, he called the dude "maybe a genius" just so he could try to frame their debates (which were asinine of course) to be the intellectual rumble in the jungle, thriller in Manilla sort of thing.
He is by far the most likely of our insane philosophy posse to actually have a basement full of decomposing headless prostitutes.
Re: The Square Circle Paradox
Obviously. That is precisely how weakening and strengthening of proofs work. Have you only figured this out now?
You can lower the bar to the property of "existence" and then any two things are "the same".
You can raise the bar all the way up to the property of "location" and then no two things can ever be "the same".
Because if TWO things are "the same" with respect to all of their properties then there aren't TWO things. There's only one thing.
Identity vs indiscernability.
Re: The Square Circle Paradox
1. But I am not talking about two identical phenomena equating, I am talking about two non-identical phenomenon equating through a third element. Reality is a trinity, not monistic or dualistic.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:46 amObviously. That is precisely how weakening and strengthening of proofs work. Have you only figured this out now?
You can lower the bar to the property of "existence" and then any two things are "the same".
You can raise the bar all the way up to the property of "location" and then no two things can ever be "the same".
Because if TWO things are "the same" with respect to all of their properties then there aren't TWO things. There's only one thing.
Identity vs indiscernability.
(1+3) = (2+2) shows two distinctly different formulas equating. There are many formulas and they act as one through the third element of "4". This same third element of "4" breaks down into (1+3), (2+2). This shows how manyness results in oneness and oneness results in manyness with this dichotomy between "oneness" and "manyness" being false through a third phenomenon which we can just call "being".
2. Two things of seperate locations can be the same through a third medial quality which both share. Particle A in location "x" when moved results in Particle B in location "y" following the same movement. Both particle A and particle B share the same qualities of "q". Two distinct particle share a common bond thus necessitating an equivocation through the distinction.
3. If two things are the same with respect to all there properties and someone is observing these two things then someone is not observing one entity. A=A shows the same thing divided and this division necessitates one phenomenon, A, divided into two. The same thing can exist in multiple states. The very fact that someone can observe the same thing across multiple states necessitates that two things being completely identical still results in a paradoxical difference grounded in multiplicity. Sameness results in difference and difference results in sameness. All being is paradoxical and grounded in paradox.
4. In summation two mutually different phenomenon can equate through a common quality. This equivocation is connection.
Re: The Square Circle Paradox
No wonder you are confused. When equating phenomena identity is equivalent to equality.
Equality/identity is a judgment. You are the judge. You complete the trinity.
No shit. That's exactly how it's defined. If there's a path (connection) between points A and B then they are equal.
It's in this book.