Deeper than primes

[Little 10 Toes]

In other words, there exist non-local elements in addition to local elements in the same framework.

Thank you for supporting OM’s reasoning.

Nope. Didn't support it. I fact you can't even support it.

The Man,

Here is a simple task for you.

Here is a line segment x________z where x and z are points on it.

Please tell us exactly where x________z is located?

Propositions like “ it is located between …” are not acceptable because you always can define an arbitrary point y along ________ which is not x or z, and this state is invariant, no matter how many arbitrary points along ________ are defined.

In other words, between any pair of points along ________ there is always an uncovered line segment that its exact location is unknown.

You are invited to define the all points along the line segment, such that each point will have its unique value AND no point will be found between the unique point.

It is clearly understood that x,y or z are points so you actually have to show how infinitely many unique points totally cover a line segment, such that no line segment will be found between the infinitely many unique points.

When you do that, then and only then you define exactly where x________z is located.

Please do that.

[edited]

Why can't you use the word "points" instead of "zero dimensional space"? Why do you want to use so many different terms when just one will do?

Notice you didn't answer these two simple questions.

So I have a line segment XZ. It's located anywhere I want it to be. Number line, geometric plane, where ever.

Wow. I just answered your question.

I have not used any propositions. Point Y wasn't used to define line segment XZ. By using two basic tools (compass and straight edge) I can label point Y on line segment XZ and have point Y divide XZ into to equal lengths. Better yet, I can then divide line segment XY again to form line segment XAYZ, where XA is 0.25 units long, AY is 0.25 units long, YZ is 0.50 units long.

In other words, between any pair of points along a line segment, there is always an uncovered line segment that its exact location is known.

Have you noticed that I have disproven your statement? To help you, I have bolded the important part.

But now you're going to complain and bring up the "But you haven't shown were it's located" arguement. And I'll answer, your question is too vague. I can take that line segment and put it on a geometric plane. I can take that same line segment and place it on a number line. Either way, your OM can't answer the same challenge since there will always be a line segment between two points.

Notice that bolded part. I'm using your statement where you created a line segment and two points.

Oh, and if you're asking how many points are between two points, I can say infinite. But that's not the original question. Your question was "Where is x____z?"

 

[Nonpareil]

People! If you ignore him, he will go away!

Doron! If people start ignoring you, take OM to someone with a Ph.D. in mathematics! Get their reaction! You are not making progress here! And you will not! Whether it is our problem or yours is not the issue!

Thank you!

 

[The Man]

People! If you ignore him, he will go away!

Doron! If people start ignoring you, take OM to someone with a Ph.D. in mathematics! Get their reaction! You are not making progress here! And you will not! Whether it is our problem or yours is not the issue!

Thank you!

Perhaps that is an entirely acceptable alternative for Doron, Pure_Argent, to claim that his notions were ignored by the skeptics of this forum. I for one would rather Doron actually learn something rather than just "go away". As unlikely as that seems perhaps someone else could still learn something from these discussions and with any luck it might even be me. Doron is here of his own volition (as are you) engaging skeptics and others on this forum intended for skeptical inquiry. I can only surmise from his continued presence that he is actively seeking a skeptical outlook on his notions. What he does with that is entirely up to him. However, as he seems entirely lacking in such a skeptical approach in and of himself, I have no intention of simply denying him such an outlook, as long as he continues to seek it, just so that he migth “go away”.

“If you build it, they will come” is sometimes true as both the skeptics and the credulous alike come to this form. “If you ignore it, it will go away” is also sometimes true, but that is entirely counter to the intended purpose of this forum sponsored by an educational foundation.

 

[doronshadmi]

What “exact location” are you referring to? The “exact location” of a line segment can only be as exact as, well, that line segment which is defined by its end points.

By your own reasoning an exact location is determined only by points, which are bounded-only dimensional spaces.

Since a line is not made of points, then it is exactly an element that its exact location is unknown, and in order to know its exact location we have to show that there is a collection of unique points (unique locations) that totally cover a line such that no unknown location can be found.

Since a line is not made of points, then (such a collection of points that each one of them has a unique location) AND (also there is no line between any arbitrary unique locations), is logically impossible.

As a result, no amount of points along a line completely determines the exact location of a given line, and two endpoints along a given line definitely enable the non-local property of that line.

You simply do not understand the abstract notion of an atom, which is both existing AND empty element (called stage).

Take for example an unbounded 2-D space, which exists independently of any bounded 2-D spaces on it, and no amount of bounded 2-D spaces can totally cover the unbounded 2-D space exactly because no amount of 1-D spaces (which are used to define the bounded 2-D spaces on the unbounded 2-D space) can totally cover the unbounded 2-D space.

The same thing holds in the case of points (0-D spaces) w.r.t unbounded 1-D space.

Furthermore, we can think about a bounded 3-D space that penetrates into some unbounded 2-D space, and may appears as 0-D (that must be bounded) or bounded 2-D space on the unbounded 2-D space.

It is clearly understood that this 3-D space belongs AND does not belong to the unbounded 2-D space, or in other words, it is non-local w.r.t this unbounded 2-D space and also the unbounded 2-D space is non-local w.r.t the bounded 2-D space, which is the result of the penetration of the bounded 3-D space on the unbounded 2-D space.

Since any given dimensional space is first of all an atom (where an atom is an existing AND empty thing), than it exists independently of any given amount of bounded dimensional spaces on it.

The rest of your post (and more generally: your reasoning) is based on your misunderstanding of the atomic state and its relations w.r.t bounded spaces on it.

You can use the word “contradiction” as many times as you wish. It does not change the fact that you do not get the idea of non-locality, and not the linkage between Non-locality and Locality under a one framework.

 

[doronshadmi]

In other words, between any pair of points along a line segment, there is always an uncovered line segment that its exact location is known.

Have you noticed that I have disproven your statement? To help you, I have bolded the important part.

No Little 10 Toes,

You clearly support OM’s reasoning about the linkage between Non-locality(= its exact location is unknown) AND Locality (= its exact location is known) under a one framework.

It is quite ironic that you do not get that.

I have to add that in what is called "the real world" we can't find a real local mathematical point (a totally accurate location) or a real non-local mathematical line (a totally non-accurate location).

But any existing thing of what is called "the real world" is the result of the linkage of Non-locality AND locality, which is not totally local and not totally non-local.

 

[doronshadmi]

People! If you ignore him, he will go away!

Doron! If people start ignoring you, take OM to someone with a Ph.D. in mathematics! Get their reaction! You are not making progress here! And you will not! Whether it is our problem or yours is not the issue!

Thank you!

A lot of what recently developed in http://www.scribd.com/search?previo...nalSearch=true&query=doron+shadmi++&x=27&y=13 was done because of the replies in this forum, so your argument does not hold.

Furthermore, someone with a Ph.D. in mathematics can’t accept non-locality as a legitimate concept of the agreed mathematical body of knowledge, because if he accepts it, the agreed mathematical body of knowledge is change by a paradigm-shift, and form my experience of the past 7 years, no professional mathematician is going to do such a step.

Furthermore, he refuses to start any dialog about OM.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

No Little 10 Toes,

You clearly support OM’s reasoning about the linkage between Non-locality(= its exact location is unknown) AND Locality (= its exact location is known) under a one framework.

It is quite ironic that you do not get that.

I have to add that in what is called "the real world" we can't find a real local mathematical point (a totally accurate location) or a real non-local mathematical line (a totally non-accurate location).

But any existing thing of what is called "the real world" is the result of the linkage of Non-locality AND locality, which is not totally local and not totally non-local.

Once again you're wrong. You provided me the exact location of the line segment when you formed it. I have shown the exact location of a point that you claim cannot be found.

Since you want to bring up the real world, what achivements have been made with OM? Please cite any example.

 

[The Man]

By your own reasoning an exact location is determined only by points, which are bounded-only dimensional spaces.

Not sure what that is suppose to mean but I can assure you that I am quite capable of expressing my own reasoning.

Since a line is not made of points, then it is exactly an element that its exact location is unknown, and in order to know its exact location we have to show that there is a collection of unique points (unique locations) that totally cover a line such that no unknown location can be found.

Once again the exact location of a line segment is determined by its end points. If your argument is simple that a line is not a point and thus not as exact of a location as a singular point, well, that is simply trivial.

Since a line is not made of points, then (such a collection of points that each one of them has a unique location) AND (also there is no line between any arbitrary unique locations), is logically impossible.

This statement makes absolutely no sense, if you intended to mean that having points as unique locations and no line between any two points is “logically impossible”, than that is simply false. Those are exactly the conditions in a discrete and disconnected space.

As a result, no amount of points along a line completely determines the exact location of a given line, and two endpoints along a given line definitely enable the non-local property of that line.

Again your reasoning is deliberately flawed, the end points “completely determines the exact location of a given line” segment, even if those points are not included in the interval itself.

You simply do not understand the abstract notion of an atom, which is both existing AND empty element (called stage).

You simply do not understand that the word “abstract” in no way makes your assertions any less self-contradictory.

Take for example an unbounded 2-D space, which exists independently of any bounded 2-D spaces on it,

Again simply false, it is specifically the ability to represent that space as a union of connected and closed sets that make that space continuous and connected.

and no amount of bounded 2-D spaces can totally cover the unbounded 2-D space exactly because no amount of 1-D spaces (which are used to define the bounded 2-D spaces on the unbounded 2-D space) can totally cover the unbounded 2-D space.

Again simply false, no finite set of “bounded 2-D spaces can totally cover the unbounded 2-D space” but an infinite set can.

The same thing holds in the case of points (0-D spaces) w.r.t unbounded 1-D space.

Your pervious assertion is simply not valid and is equally invalid in this case as well.

Furthermore, we can think about a bounded 3-D space that penetrates into some unbounded 2-D space, and may appears as 0-D (that must be bounded) or bounded 2-D space on the unbounded 2-D space.

Not sure what you are trying to claim here but if it is that two spaces that only have one point as an intersection only have that one point in common while two spaces that have more then one point as an intersection have more then one point in common, then that is also simply trivial.

It is clearly understood that this 3-D space belongs AND does not belong to the unbounded 2-D space, or in other words, it is non-local w.r.t this unbounded 2-D space and also the unbounded 2-D space is non-local w.r.t the bounded 2-D space, which is the result of the penetration of the bounded 3-D space on the unbounded 2-D space.

The only thing that is “clearly understood” is that the intersection of those two spaces “belongs” to both of those spaces as that is fundamentally the definition of an intersection. As for the rest of your assertions it is apparently the result of either a self inconsistent definition of the word “belong” or simply an inconsistent application of a self consistent definition.

Since any given dimensional space is first of all an atom (where an atom is an existing AND empty thing), than it exists independently of any given amount of bounded dimensional spaces on it.

Again simply false, for the reasons already stated numerous times.

The rest of your post (and more generally: your reasoning) is based on your misunderstanding of the atomic state and its relations w.r.t bounded spaces on it.

It is precisely the relation of a continuous and connected space with the bounded spaces that can be considered to comprise such a space and the ability to have such a consideration that is required to define that space as connected and continuous that rebukes your assertion of “any given dimensional space is first of all an atom”. The misunderstandings remain simply yours.

You can use the word “contradiction” as many times as you wish. It does not change the fact that you do not get the idea of non-locality, and not the linkage between Non-locality and Locality under a one framework.

Stop using direct contradictions in your assertions and I guarantee you that I will stop using the word contradiction to describe them.

 

[doronshadmi]

Once again the exact location of a line segment is determined by its end points. If your argument is simple that a line is not a point and thus not as exact of a location as a singular point, well, that is simply trivial.

No, a line segment does not have an exact location even if there are infinitely many points along it. You simply unable to get the abstract difference between Non-locality and Locality (again I am talking about the abstract realm, because in what is considered as the physical realm, you can’t find total locality like a mathematical point or total non-locality like a mathematical line, and again a line is not a collection of localities).

Since you get the profound as trivial, you can’t get OM, and the rest of your post clearly shows it.

Again simply false, no finite set of “bounded 2-D spaces can totally cover the unbounded 2-D space” but an infinite set can.

This is simply false because we have a qualitative difference between an unbounded 2-D space, which is an existing and non-local atom, and a non-finite collection of 2-D bounded spaces on it that logically are not a non-local atom.

Furthermore, even if the 2-D space is bounded by a 1-D space, then still no amount of 1-spaces can completely cover a 2-D space (bounded or not), and as a result no amount of bounded 2-D spaces on this bounded 2-D space are completely cover it.

You still do not understand the difference between a non-local atom and some sub-elements on it that cannot be that non-local atom, where “cannot be” is equivalent to “cannot completely cover”, which is something beyond your collection-only reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

Once again you're wrong. You provided me the exact location of the line segment when you formed it. I have shown the exact location of a point that you claim cannot be found.

Since you want to bring up the real world, what achivements have been made with OM? Please cite any example.

A mathematical point has an exact location.

A mathematical line does not have an exact location.

We cannot find abstract mathematical objects in the physical realm, but it does not mean that they do not exist in the abstract realm.

OM looks at these realms as different aspects of a one realm, so the abstract realm is relevant exactly as the physical realm is relevant.

Both abstract and non-abstract realms are relevant for a framework that its goal is to define the linkage between Ethics AND Logics\Technology.

 

[The Man]

No, a line segment does not have an exact location even if there are infinitely many points along it. You simply unable to get the abstract difference between Non-locality and Locality (again I am talking about the abstract realm, because in what is considered as the physical realm, you can’t find total locality like a mathematical point or total non-locality like a mathematical line, and again a line is not a collection of localities).

A line has as exact a location as its definition permits, if your are again asserting that a single point is more of an exact location than a line, that is again simply trivial. Abstract concepts are only as exact as their definitions.

Since you get the profound as trivial, you can’t get OM, and the rest of your post clearly shows it.

Since you get the trivial as profound you can’t get that what is not directly self-contradictory in your OM is simply trivial.

This is simply false because we have a qualitative difference between an unbounded 2-D space, which is an existing and non-local atom, and a non-finite collection of 2-D bounded spaces on it that logically are not a non-local atom.

Furthermore, even if the 2-D space is bounded by a 1-D space, then still no amount of 1-spaces can completely cover a 2-D space (bounded or not), and as a result no amount of bounded 2-D spaces on this bounded 2-D space are completely cover it.

You still do not understand the difference between a non-local atom and some sub-elements on it that cannot be that non-local atom, where “cannot be” is equivalent to “cannot completely cover”, which is something beyond your collection-only reasoning.

If the “qualitative difference” you are referring to is the “unbounded” quality, an “unbounded 2-D space” and the union of an infinite amount of “2-D bounded spaces “ both have that quality.

As for your claim of “cannot completely cover”, you will have to show where you think that gap is. Mind you, your claim that the location is “unknown”. In order to show that there is indeed a gap you would have to know (and be able to accurately define) the location of that gap.

 

[doronshadmi]

A line has as exact a location as its definition permits,

Exactly. And since the line’s location is defined by points, where only points have exact locations AND no collection of points is a line, then a line does not have an exact location w.r.t any given amount (finite or not) of points.

The difference between Locality (that its minimal representation is a point) and Non-locality (that its minimal representation is a line) is not trivial, but it is profound and essential to the mathematical science, because this science is actually the linkage between these different qualities, that are used as its building blocks, whether they are interpreted by geometrical, analytical or logical aspects of this science.

if your are again asserting that a single point is more of an exact location than a line, that is again simply trivial.

If you are again asserting that the difference between Locality and Non-locality is trivial, you, by your own trivial understanding, does not understand the profound difference between Locality and Non-locality.

Abstract concepts are only as exact as their definitions.

Abstract concepts are exact as the nature of their abstract existence. Any definition is nothing but some use of these already existing things, and has no impact on their existence.

I already gave a simple example of the Empty set:

Mathematical definitions do not create the things that are defined by them, and it can easily be demonstrated by ZF axiom of the Empty set:

"There is a set such that no set is a member of it." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_empty_set )

“there is” is called Existential quantification that is a statement about the existence of the considered thing, and in the case of the Empty set, one of the already existing things that are not members of the considered set, is the empty set itself.

In other words you did not understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5190443&postcount=6080 (your response to it in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5190637&postcount=6081 was “<subsequent nonsense snipped>”) , which demonstrates again your inability to follow OM’s reasoning, and the understanding of a concept like Definition.

If the “qualitative difference” you are referring to is the “unbounded” quality, an “unbounded 2-D space” and the union of an infinite amount of “2-D bounded spaces “ both have that quality.

The existence of a non-local atom ( known also as a non-local ur-element http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement ) is not based on any union of many existing elements. Therefore a non-local ur-element has a different quality, which is not the quality of the union of many elements.

Your trivial reasoning that is based only on collections (disjoined or unioned) prevents from you to get OM’s reasoning.

Here is an example of your limited reasoning:

It is clearly understood that this 3-D space belongs AND does not belong to the unbounded 2-D space, or in other words, it is non-local w.r.t this unbounded 2-D space and also the unbounded 2-D space is non-local w.r.t the bounded 2-D space, which is the result of the penetration of the bounded 3-D space on the unbounded 2-D space.

The only thing that is “clearly understood” is that the intersection of those two spaces “belongs” to both of those spaces as that is fundamentally the definition of an intersection. As for the rest of your assertions it is apparently the result of either a self inconsistent definition of the word “belong” or simply an inconsistent application of a self consistent definition.

By your limited reasoning you are focused only on the intersection of the 3-D and the 2-D spaces (by the way, the 2-D space can be also bounded AND beyond that intersection).

OM looks also at the bounded 3-D space that is defiantly belongs AND does not belong (it is beyond) to that intersection.

The same holds about the 2-D space. It belongs AND does not belong (it is beyond) to that intersection.

In order to show that there is indeed a gap you would have to know (and be able to accurately define) the location of that gap.

In other words, by your determination to define anything in terms of locations you do not get Non-locality.

This gap is exactly the non-locality between any arbitrary pair of localities, and this non-locality is the very nature of this gap, that cannot be eliminated (or reduced to) by any amount of localities.

One of the results of the qualitative difference among Non-locality and Locality is the inability of a long addition of localities like 0.9+0.09+0.009+... to be exactly 1, because there is non-locality between any arbitrary pair of localities, which its notated by the “...1” part of 0.000...1 expression.

A scholar that gets things only in terms of Locality can’t get 0.000...1 expression.

 

[laca]

Furthermore, someone with a Ph.D. in mathematics can’t accept non-locality as a legitimate concept of the agreed mathematical body of knowledge, because if he accepts it, the agreed mathematical body of knowledge is change by a paradigm-shift, and form my experience of the past 7 years, no professional mathematician is going to do such a step.

Whoa. Sorry for barging in. About once a month I check the last page of this thread to see if there's some progress. Nope. Nothing. All the same gibberish about locality, non-locality, etc.

But this post is interesting. (There might have been several like this on the past ~100 pages I have and will not read)

So, if I understand correctly, in case you are right doron, mathematics would be turned upside-down and that is why "no professional mathematician is going to do such a step".

And you know this from 7 years of experience. And then, the BOMB.

Furthermore, he refuses to start any dialog about OM.

HE. One person. ONE SORRY HUMAN BEING. Oh my...

Others have stated this, but let me reiterate: please go and test your hypothesis or whatever in the scientific community. If it has merits, I'm sure you won't be shunned.

But I think that is never going to happen. If in 7 years you only got as far as this, you really must reevaluate your position. You're touting some brand-new theory as fact, but haven't managed in 7 years to even talk to one scientist in the field. Well, you tried to talk to one, but he was not interested.

Pathetic. Get out of your "locality", try your own recipe: "non-locality": get out some more, write a paper and submit it for scientific scrutiny.

 

[doronshadmi]

Whoa. Sorry for barging in. About once a month I check the last page of this thread to see if there's some progress. Nope. Nothing. All the same gibberish about locality, non-locality, etc.

But this post is interesting. (There might have been several like this on the past ~100 pages I have and will not read)

So, if I understand correctly, in case you are right doron, mathematics would be turned upside-down and that is why "no professional mathematician is going to do such a step".

And you know this from 7 years of experience. And then, the BOMB.



HE. One person. ONE SORRY HUMAN BEING. Oh my...

Others have stated this, but let me reiterate: please go and test your hypothesis or whatever in the scientific community. If it has merits, I'm sure you won't be shunned.

But I think that is never going to happen. If in 7 years you only got as far as this, you really must reevaluate your position. You're touting some brand-new theory as fact, but haven't managed in 7 years to even talk to one scientist in the field. Well, you tried to talk to one, but he was not interested.

Pathetic. Get out of your "locality", try your own recipe: "non-locality": get out some more, write a paper and submit it for scientific scrutiny.

I tried to talk to hundreds of them during the past 7 years, but they refused to develop any dialog that re-examines the foundations of the mathematical science in a new light, simply because they do not wish to touch the agreed body of knowledge that is used as the paradigm of their community.

Here is some concrete example:

Since Complexity is not a fundamental property of the standard agreement of Set, then the standard agreement of Set is not based on whole\Parts relationship.

For example, by whole\Parts relationship the internal structure of the members is not ignored.

In this case if A is a part of B and B is a part of C, then by whole\Parts relationship A is a part of C.

This is not the case with an agreement that avoids the internal structure of the considered members.

In that case if A belongs to B and B belongs to C then by that agreement it does not immediately follows that A belongs to C, for example:

B = {A}
C = {{A}} = {B}

By the standard agreement, which ignores the internal structure of B, A is not a member of C.

OM claims that this limitation is some arbitrary agreement that limits the complexity of the elements that belongs to C, and this arbitrary limitation is not based on any universal reasoning.

On the contrary the Whole\Parts reasoning can be used as a universal reasoning, where the currant limited agreement is clearly some arbitrary and partial case of it.

As for publications, there is so far one publication of this theory in http://www.scribd.com/doc/18453171/IJPAMOM .

 

[laca]

I tried to talk to hundreds of them during the past 7 years, but they refused to develop any dialog that re-examines the foundations of the mathematical science in a new light, simply because they do not wish to touch the agreed body of knowledge that is used as the paradigm of their community.

I assume if you first showed them the error of their ways by providing some useful application of your theory, some of them might begin to listen to you.

 

[doronshadmi]

I assume if you first showed them the error of their ways by providing some useful application of your theory, some of them might begin to listen to you.

I showed how concepts that are taken as universals by the current paradigm are some partial case of a wider reasoning, but they did not wish to listen. One of the examples is a new understanding of Cardinality as the measurement unit of the existing thing, where its internal complexity is not ignored, and as you can see all along this thread, people here simply do not wish to deal with the Complexity as a new understanding of Cardinality and continue to use Cardinality as some partial case of Complexity.

The current community of mathematicians is not ready yet for http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5190443&postcount=6080 .

 

[laca]

I showed how concepts that are taken as universals by the current paradigm are some partial case of a wider reasoning, but they did not wish to listen. One of the examples is a new understanding of Cardinality as the measurement unit of the existing thing, where its internal complexity is not ignored, and as you can see all along this thread, people here simply do not wish to deal with the Complexity as a new understanding of Cardinality and continue to use Cardinality as some partial case of Complexity.

I won't even try to address your claims on a scientific basis. I'm simply not qualified (I'm not totally ignorant either).

What I was asking from a layman point of view: what is the use of your theory? If there is use for it, people will use it. If not, forget about it.

The current community of mathematicians is not ready yet for http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5190443&postcount=6080 .

Yeah, right. I'm guessing it's basically you vs. the entire community of mathematicians. I'll go with the community, thank you.

 

[zooterkin]

I showed how concepts that are taken as universals by the current paradigm are some partial case of a wider reasoning, but they did not wish to listen. One of the examples is a new understanding of Cardinality as the measurement unit of the existing thing, where its internal complexity is not ignored, and as you can see all along this thread, people here simply do not wish to deal with the Complexity as a new understanding of Cardinality and continue to use Cardinality as some partial case of Complexity.

Well, apart from the fact that there's no reason to define cardinality to be something that it isn't, and if you want to measure "complexity", go right ahead but use a new name for it, I'd argue that it is you who is ignoring the complexity of a set, by collapsing all the elements and ignoring how they are grouped.

 

[jsfisher]

Exactly. And since the line’s location is defined by points, where only points have exact locations AND no collection of points is a line, then a line does not have an exact location w.r.t any given amount (finite or not) of points.

Do you really believe if you keep saying that, it will eventually and suddenly become true? It isn't; it won't. Please stop saying such ignorant things. Just because you can't understand basic concepts doesn't mean you need to remind everyone else here of your limitations.

If you have a point (no pun intended), make it, but so far all you have done for thousands of posts is demonstrate what you don't know and your cover-up attempts to redefine things the way you think they should be. Neither leads to anything productive, as your inability to show any real utility to all your ignorance proves.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Wait. You have two points and a line segment joining the two points. You know where the points are but not the line segment. Wha?!?!