Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Exactly, that’s why a point is local w.r.t a line (it is on XOR not on the line).

On the contrary a line can be on AND not-on a given point (it is non-local w.r.t the point).
Click to expand...
Both trivially true (apart from the local/non-local nonsense). How do either of these support your statement "A line is not made up of points, exactly as a plane is not made up of lines , etc... ad infinitum. " ?

ETA: For the second statement, I assume you mean that a line has more than one point. As I said, that's trivially true, by definition. It's not stating anything profound to say that a line exists at one point, and also at another. Your way of stating that is confusing, as saying a line is not on a point means something different from saying that there are parts of the line at other points. The line is still on the first point.

Exactly, the points (localities) and lines (non-localities) are in co-existence along the real-line (no one of them eliminates the existence of the other).
Click to expand...
No-one is saying they do.

In an infinite collection no distinct element is considered as the final element of that collection. As a result any infinite collection of distinct elements is incomplete (the term “all” is not satisfied).
Click to expand...
Why is it incomplete? Because you cannot enumerate them all? You don't need to.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Both trivially true (apart from the local/non-local nonsense).
Click to expand...
No, it is logically (and therefore not trivially) true

zooterkin said:
No-one is saying they do.
Click to expand...
Good. Since a line and a point are logically different and they are in co-existence along the real-line, then a collection of points cannot totally cover a line exactly as XOR logical connection cannot be AND logical connective.

zooterkin said:
Why is it incomplete? Because you cannot enumerate them all? You don't need to.
Click to expand...
No. Because no collection of localities is non-locality.
 
doronshadmi said:
Good. Since a line and a point are logically different and they are in co-existence along the real-line,
Click to expand...
Yes, though I don't see what 'along the real-line' adds...

then a collection of points cannot totally cover a line
Click to expand...
No. Please explain why you think that. Please indicate where on the line there isn't a point.


No. Because no collection of localities is non-locality.
Click to expand...
Impossible to ascertain, in the absence of definitions.
 
zooterkin said:
They are not contradictions. Something can be both logically and trivially true.

I have a dog. It is both trivially and logically true that my dog is not a bunch of asparagus.
Click to expand...

If you claim that XOR connective is the same as AND connective, then you have a problem in your reasoning.

A clollection of localities is not non-locality exactly as XOR is not AND.
 
zooterkin said:
Please indicate where on the line there isn't a point.
Click to expand...

It is very simple:

.__________.___.___

See?


Now you can add as many points as you like, but since XOR is not AND then no XOR things can be an AND thing.
 
Last edited:
laca said:
How is that line on the point? I'm seeing the point above the line.
Click to expand...
So use you mind and put it on the line.

Still the line is on AND not on the point.

The point does not have this proprty because it can be only on XOR not on the line.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
So use you mind and put it on the line.

Still the line is on AND not on the point.

The point does not have this proprty because it can be only on XOR not on the line.
Click to expand...

You got me confused, so please define what it means for a line to be on a point.
 
laca said:
You got me confused, so please define what it means for a line to be on a point.
Click to expand...

A line can be in a location AND not in a location of a given point.

A point can be in a location XOR not in a location of a given line.
 
doronshadmi said:
If you claim that XOR connective is the same as AND connective, then you have a problem in your reasoning.

A clollection of localities is not non-locality exactly as XOR is not AND.
Click to expand...

More irrelevance. Try to focus. I was simply addressing your comment that implied that trivial and logical were antonyms.
 
doronshadmi said:
If the empty-set is not one of the members that do not belong to the empty set, then this particular case is not covered by the definition of the empty set.
Click to expand...

The empty set has no members, why do you have such a problem understanding that?

doronshadmi said:
As a result {{}} and {} are both valid cases that are based on the definition of the empty set, and we get a contradiction. In order to avoid that contradiction the empty set must exists as one of the sets that are not the members of the empty set, and we learn that Definitions do not create the defined things and all they do is to describe the properties of already existing things. Once again your abstraction inability is clearly shown.
Click to expand...

“{{}}” is a power set of the empty set not the empty set itself, the contradiction remains simply yours. As is the contradiction I noted in my previous post and you quote. Care to actually address what you quoted instead of just playing with your straw men?



doronshadmi said:
Wrong.

Since Direct perception starts at the source of thoughts, then new thoughts are created and then described by definitions. Definitions only describe the existing thoughts where Direct perception creates them.
Click to expand...


Definition is not just a process of “description” a specific thought is ’created’ by becoming defined. Your “Direct perception” is just a thought you defined in your own head but cannot seem to adequacy describe to others.

doronshadmi said:
Since you are not aware of the source of your thoughts, which is not itself a thought, you can’t get Direct perception, and all your reasoning is based on describing already existing thoughts.
Click to expand...

Since you are not aware that your “Direct perception” is just a thought you created in your own head you imagine your thought as “the source of thoughts”.


doronshadmi said:
As a result your reasoning is closed under Locality.


So what. It becomes useful only if it is relevant to Complexity’s development and no development can be found in closed systems.

For example: closed systems like you can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=5840.
Click to expand...

Closed systems develop, as usual your assertions are simply wrong.
 
zooterkin said:
Yes. Now, please explain why you said, "A line is not made up of points, exactly as a plane is not made up of lines , etc... ad infinitum. "
Click to expand...
Also the plane is there even if there are infinitely many lines on it.

Also the cube is there even if there are infinitely many planes in it.

...

Ad infinitum.
 
doronshadmi said:
Also the plane is there even if there are infinitely many lines on it.

Also the cube is there even if there are infinitely many planes in it.

...

Ad infinitum.
Click to expand...

<sigh> No, that's not the bit I am asking you to explain. What do you mean by, ""A line is not made up of points"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom