Continuum

[Eodnhoj7]

Here is the proof: Consider that real number exists and is made of points.

Real numbers aren't made of points. They are points.

For every real number there exists a point.

Consider that the largest integer number also exist, so-called Li.

So, you've just re-invented infinity and you've labelled it differently. What is Li + 1?

A number as a 0d point necessitates the number as equivocating to 0, thus 1=0.

[Skepdick]

A number as a 0d point necessitates the number as equivocating to 0, thus 1=0.

Your confusion arrises from failing to distinguish ordinality and cardinality.

[Eodnhoj7]

The largest integer is that which is observed.

As observed the largest integer is continually changing with the observation.

As continually changing the largest integer is a number approaching infinity: (n --> inf)

As approaching infinity the number is a number plus that which is approaching infinity considering that which is observed is always a finite number which is fixed: x+(n --> inf)

Each largest integer is not only a that which is plus a fixed number but a series of fixed numbers thus necessitating not only one continuum but a continuum inside a continuum:
y+((x+inf)+(n-->inf))

This necessitates each finite number as not only fundamentally changing but unfixed except as cycling back to the original equation of (n --> inf). To observe a finite number is to observe a point of change from one number into another thus when observing a continuum each number exists as a continuum in itself. This continuum can be reflected in the series of 1's which compose the number. Each number is a series of 1's as 1 in itself.

1 is a series of changing numbers thus is void in an of itself. Each number as a series of numbers is each series as a center point of change from one series into another. For example the series of 1-->2-->3 observes the series as composed of series of 1 as 1 --> 1+1 --> 1+1+1. This series exists as a single series in itself. However in approaching a number of infinity the series as composed of 1 is in itself approaching 1 perpetually.

Each finite number is thus a series of change as a point of change itself. Finiteness is a point of change to observe an ever changing continuum is to observe sub continuums which form it.

[Eodnhoj7]

A number as a 0d point necessitates the number as equivocating to 0, thus 1=0.

Your confusion arrises from failing to distinguish ordinality and cardinality.

Not necessarily considering all counting is observing multiples of said phenomenon. To count a number of zeros is to see multiples of zero. Zero, as a multiple, is thus a quantifiable entity equivalent to 1.

The quantifiablity of any set of phenomenon necessitates a mediation between ordinality and cardinality where the phenomenon itself is the center point between that which is countable and the actual number itself.

[Skepdick]

Not necessarily considering all counting is observing multiples of said phenomenon. To count a number of zeros is to see multiples of zero. Zero, as a multiple, is thus a quantifiable entity equivalent to 1.

The quantifiablity of any set of phenomenon necessitates a mediation between ordinality and cardinality where the phenomenon itself is the center point between that which is countable and the actual number itself.

You know what a unit is, right?

One apple.
One pear.
One one.
One point
One 1.
One zero.
One 0.

[Eodnhoj7]

Not necessarily considering all counting is observing multiples of said phenomenon. To count a number of zeros is to see multiples of zero. Zero, as a multiple, is thus a quantifiable entity equivalent to 1.

The quantifiablity of any set of phenomenon necessitates a mediation between ordinality and cardinality where the phenomenon itself is the center point between that which is countable and the actual number itself.

You know what a unit is, right?

One apple.
One pear.
One one.
One point
One 1.
One zero.
One 0.

A unit is a means of equivocating an abstract symbol to another phenomenon. It is a means of equivocation.

[Skepdick]

A unit is a means of equivocating an abstract symbol to another phenomenon. It is a means of equivocation.

I am not sure what I am supposed to do with this useless information.

[Eodnhoj7]

A unit is a means of equivocating an abstract symbol to another phenomenon. It is a means of equivocation.

I am not sure what I am supposed to do with this useless information.

In equivocating one phenomenon to another is to reorder one phenomenon into the likes and form of another. Equivocation is recursion as an act of copying. That which is measured is reordered into the mode of measurement.

[Skepdick]

In equivocating one phenomenon to another is to reorder one phenomenon into the likes and form of another. Equivocation is recursion as an act of copying. That which is measured is reordered into the mode of measurement.

Not sure what any of that means.

Also, "copying" is only allowed in classical computation, not in quantum physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

If you want for an interesting theory where no-cloning is held as a foundational axiom check out this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructor_theory

[Eodnhoj7]

A unit is a means of equivocating an abstract symbol to another phenomenon. It is a means of equivocation.

I am not sure what I am supposed to do with this useless information.

"Use" and "uselessness" are dualistic and as dualistic are dependent upon one another. A lump of clay is useless until it is observed and changed into something useful such as a brick. What is useful is grounded in what is useless thus necessitating a necessary synthesis between the observer and what is observed.

[Eodnhoj7]

In equivocating one phenomenon to another is to reorder one phenomenon into the likes and form of another. Equivocation is recursion as an act of copying. That which is measured is reordered into the mode of measurement.

Not sure what any of that means.

Also, "copying" is only allowed in classical computation, not in quantum physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

If you want for an interesting theory where no-cloning is held as a foundational axiom check out this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructor_theory

In dividing an orange into x number of parts is to manifest the orange as copying what x is in form.

Quantum mechanics necessitates that which is observed being a formless state until it is observed. As observed this formless phenomenon takes on the form of measurements of the observer. For example in observing formlessness a 1 or 0 digit comes as a result.

[bahman]

Here is the proof: Consider that real number exists and is made of points.

Real numbers aren't made of points. They are points.

For every real number there exists a point.

I should have said that consider that a line exists and is made of points.

Consider that the largest integer number also exist, so-called Li.

So, you've just re-invented infinity and you've labelled it differently. What is Li + 1?

Li according to matematician exists. They call it absoulte instead of infinity.

[wtf]

I should have said that consider that a line exists and is made of points.

Euclid said that 2300 years ago; and contemporary mathematics regards the real line as made of points, each point identified by a real number. So we know this.

Li according to matematician exists. They call it absoulte instead of infinity.

Absolute what? What are you referring to? There is no largest natural number.

You have a reference to the notation Li? I"m not familiar with it.

There are of course transfinite ordinals and cardinals that go beyond the natural numbers. The smallest transfinite ordinal is called ω, Greek lower case omega. But I don't think you're referring to transfinite ordinals. What exactly are you referring to?

[Eodnhoj7]

I should have said that consider that a line exists and is made of points.

Euclid said that 2300 years ago; and contemporary mathematics regards the real line as made of points, each point identified by a real number. So we know this.

Li according to matematician exists. They call it absoulte instead of infinity.

Absolute what? What are you referring to? There is no largest natural number.

You have a reference to the notation Li? I"m not familiar with it.

There are of course transfinite ordinals and cardinals that go beyond the natural numbers. The smallest transfinite ordinal is called ω, Greek lower case omega. But I don't think you're referring to transfinite ordinals. What exactly are you referring to?

To identify each point as a number is to equivocate 0 to 1 given the point is absent of any qualities.

[wtf]

To identify each point as a number is to equivocate 0 to 1 given the point is absent of any qualities.

If you prefer, each point is identical and we associate it with the number that is the location of the point. So there is a point at 2, and a point at pi, and a point at 47, and so forth. You are correct that this is a more precise locution.

Perhaps there is a collection of perfectly identical clones, each living in a house on a street. If the clones go outside and gather around, we can't tell one from another. But when they're in their houses, we can identify each individual clone by its house number. And then we can require each clone to wear its house number on a sign around its neck when it goes out. After a while we'd get accustomed to saying, "Hi 47," when what we really mean is, "Hi, clone who lives at address 47."

We would casually come to associate each clone with its address; but when pressed, we would admit that the clone is not its address; it only lives at an address.

So 3 casually taken as the name of the point that lives at address 3; and pi is casually taken to be the name of the point that lives at address pi. But strictly speaking the point and its address are not the same. You are correct.